Judge's ruling favors NCAA athletes seeking 2nd transfer

[GlitterBro #2]

and ... at least for now... players can transfer a second time without sitting. I guess by the language below, you could transfer a 3rd time as well and jump to a different school each year. Perhaps House of Pain's "Jump Around" should become the new NCAA theme song.



www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39105796/judge-ruling-favors-ncaa-athletes-seeking-2nd-transfer

The lawsuit alleged requiring athletes to sit can mean lost potential earnings from endorsement deals with their name, image and likeness or professional careers. It pointed to exposure from competing in national broadcasts, noting: "One game can take a college athlete from a local fan favorite to a household name."

[MisterD]

Maybe you're ok with the casual violence against women in that song but I'm not, Glitter.

[thelasallelunatic]

The dude that was a stud freshman at UMass has been to 4 colleges in 4 years, No?

I can't wrap my head around it. At what point does it become diminishing returns?

[GlitterBro #2]

Calling out the NCAA for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act is an interesting legal strategy for them. I guess that wasn't an issue in the pre-NIL days.

[big5explorer]

At least the Pro Leagues have some semblance of binding multi-year contracts. The NCAA is becoming ridiculous.

[MisterD]

So now both sides are consistent; pros can’t have players or coaches just bolt and college has both given that option.

[las71]

I agree that college athletes should have what amounts to free agency. The courts are referring to athletes as employees without strictly referring to them as employees. Since college athletics are headed in that direction, schools will have to come up with an approach that to some extent protects their interests. At this point that would seemingly be by using contracts that specify what happens if an athlete opts to transfer. I believe this should apply only to athletes receiving NIL money since I can't believe the Courts would restrict unpaid athletes from transfers since any other student can transfer freely. The schools will have to structure contracts in a way that don't make it near impossible to transfer but I believe there are some things that would be acceptable. Schools contractually may be able to restrict transfers within the conference since those transfers could be viewed as a covenant not to compete which when reasonable are accepted by the courts. Transfers within the conference place an athlete directly in competition with their prior school so would likely be viewed as a reasonable transfer restriction. I also believe a clause requiring some form of compensation to the school not to exceed the previous year's NIL compensation may be a reasonable clause. This would be negotiable and if a school wants to waive that they would be free to do so. Such a clause in a contract probably wouldn't limit transfers much as the Power 5 will just pay out the buyout for the student but it will provide the mid and low majors with compensation for their work developing players who move on. If the courts insist that athletes are to be treated as employees then the schools must develop a means to protect their interests to the extent possible. As many posters have stated it's a new world and schools like ours need to prepare for it.

[explorer88]

College sports are slitting their own throats to some degree. At some point fans will have enough of all of this and turn to something else. Not all fans but you have to think if the popularity of college sports has reached it's apex.

I never have bought fans are tied to the athlete. Fans are tied to the school they root for. I really don't care for players when they leave La Salle and for the most part put them out of my mind when they don't play for the program. We can turn the roster over tomorrow completely and all I care about would be the 12 new kids we bring in.

Some like Lunatic are already disillusioned with college sports if we keep going the other way I just wonder when the fans bases start to really disengage.

[JoeFedorowicz]

It’s the mid-majors fanbases who might disappear. The big schools will be fine.

[theneumann64]

The answer to all this is contracts but at that point you're really giving up the game on calling them anything but professionals.

[MisterD]

Or the answer could be allowing free movement of the people most affected and the fans have to just adapt and deal.

[JoeFedorowicz]

The answer is spinning football outside of the NCAA. People will argue that big time basketball should go with them but it is exponentially smaller than even mid-size FCS football.

If the delta between La Salle basketball and Alabama football became instead La Salle basketball and Duke basketball, a lot of the problems would be diminished. At least in my opinion.

[MisterD]

I was hoping by now football would be uninsurable for "a place of higher learning" but if anything the trends seem to be reversing there.

[theneumann64]

Dec 14, 2023 10:06:48 GMT -5 MisterD said:

Or the answer could be allowing free movement of the people most affected and the fans have to just adapt and deal.

So are you against contracts in professional sports as well? Or guys moving schools mid-season? I’m just trying to figure out where your line is.

[MisterD]

I could probably go on for paragraphs here but I imagine it would stray far away from the original question. I'm fine with post-RFA contracts in MLB/NHL/NBA when its a mutual, no-unbalanced-leverage agreement between a player and team. I'm even finer with the euro soccer model where those contracts exist but a player can ask out and far more often than not the request is granted within the year. Its obviously better for the player, but its also better for the sport to move someone would would be playing on 80% of the teams but not their own because of depth chart or whatever. Like Utley losing two years of his career (and possibly missing the HoF) because Polanco was already at 2B so Philadelphia can slow play it and save money / maintain control. A model that allows that is a flawed model.

As for moving mid-season, obviously all for leaving a team and starting classes elsewhere, but I'd be good with a rule saying you can't play for more than one school in a season. I can see where anything less rigid could get a bit chaotic. Sort of like a non-compete, I guess.

[MisterD]

(And I guess to keep going down the line, NCAA already more closely resembles euro soccer than anything pro in the US. Kids get to chose where they start their careers rather than getting drafted into a place they can't freely leave for up to a decade.)

[diehardexplorer]

Dec 13, 2023 17:13:14 GMT -5 MisterD said:

Maybe you're ok with the casual violence against women in that song but I'm not, Glitter.

personally, i wouldn't call that piece of garbage a "song".  i agree with your point but i never knew the lyrics until you pointed it out.  since you didn't mention it, can i assume you're ok with the lyric where they refer to cops as pigs.  i'm not, mister d.

even worse, that song is played in lots of arenas during sporting events, and maybe i'm imagining it but i'm pretty sure the dj at gola has played it.

[theneumann64]

Dec 14, 2023 10:50:41 GMT -5 MisterD said:

As for moving mid-season, obviously all for leaving a team and starting classes elsewhere, but I'd be good with a rule saying you can't play for more than one school in a season. I can see where anything less rigid could get a bit chaotic. Sort of like a non-compete, I guess.

So my only point here is that you're in favor of some level of restricting player movement. By me saying you should be required to stay in a place for a full 2 seasons, with contractual guarantees on scholarships or money or what have you, or that you can only transfer freely once (or twice or whatever the number is), isn't me saying to go back to the way it was 50 years ago and that "ThEy GeT PaId In EdUcAtIoN!!!" or some crap. Right now is essentially chaos, which the NCAA did to themselves by trying to hang on to an outdated, likely illegal, and definitely immoral, system for decades after it was clear changes needed to be made. But there needs to be the ability to have a discussion about the best way forward because the current landscape seems too turbulent to last long.

[MisterD]

Sure, some restrictions, because I think it could eventually be reduced down to "what if a kid wants to switch before that night's game???" and I'd need some guardrails anyway. I don't like two years because its half their eligibility and because I don't think anyone should have to choose between staying in a bad situation or being able to play their sport. If a kid signs with St. Joseph's of PA out of high school and after 6 weeks on campus hates the program or is desperately homesick or realizes they really overstated the "part city" in their motto and is bored out of their minds, they shouldn't have to just stick it out for another 20 months any more than a finance major would. Leave tomorrow, go to another school but if you've already played a game, you can only practice.

The reason I don't like saying "you trade a scholarship guarantee or NIL base for two years loyalty" is because I don't think its a fair trade. Programs need to fill out their rosters either way, so they benefit from hyping a kid then having them serve as an 8th/9th player in a rotation. They've already won at signing. If that same kid bought the hype then realizes their role isn't as promised/expected, the same scholarship and money they could have elsewhere is infinitely more valuable because they could also have PT.

[MisterD]

Dec 14, 2023 11:11:11 GMT -5 diehardexplorer said:

i agree with your point but i never knew the lyrics until you pointed it out. since you didn't mention it, can i assume you're ok with the lyric where they refer to cops as pigs. i'm not, mister d.

I am not ok with eating police officers so, in that sense, I'm 100% on the side of House of Pain.

[thelasallelunatic]

Dec 14, 2023 9:16:45 GMT -5 JoeFedorowicz said:

It’s the mid-majors fanbases who might disappear. The big schools will be fine.

***LONG READ*** 

Joe, the issue is you're talking about maybe 30 schools that can absorb this and remain sustainable. The Ivies have the money, but they don't seem interested at all. So, we're talking SEC, Big 10, Notre Dame, and a handful of other schools.

Let's say that my 30 schools are wildly exaggerated. Let's say the true number is 60 schools that play in this new era of college basketball. Out of that 60, how many are making the new tournament? Let's say it is 16 for a uniform bracket. Now I ask ya, is CBS going to spend a billion dollars on a 16 team Championship division men's basketball tournament? We both know that the ratings are going to be dwarfed compared to the current ratings. It's not going to bring the money. 

So if the NCAA wants to cannibalize itself with this movement, keep on keeping on. 

What happens to Olympic sport athletes? You were an elite runner that was part of an elite Track/X Country program. What happens to guys like you? What happens to girls like our daughters. My middle daughter is a good athlete. Fast on the soccer field, soft, quick hands on the softball field, great hips on the wrestling mat, loves gymnastics....I can't tell you, with a straight face, that in 10 years, she's gonna be at any one of those programs with a solvent athletic program in the new era...what opportunities will she have?

I don't think anybody here, or very few, is against athletes getting paid for endorsements, having jobs, hell a stipend for all of the time devoted to working on their craft. There's a huge chasm between where we were 10 years ago with Shabazz Napier complaining that he couldn't buy food in his hotel (which I call 100% bullshit on), and where we are at now, and where this proposal would take us. 

American Professional Sports has shown itself to have a limited market in terms of making money. Hence, the failures of the USFL, XFL, UFL, CBL, WNBA, every big time MMA association not named UFC, (I realize that combat sports are different) independent league baseball, etc. We seem to do well with one professional sports league per sport. When colleges become direct competition of pro leagues, and they will if this thing spins out of control, they will get smoked. Who's going to watch Texas vs. Ohio State in college hoops besides those alums? Not when the Rockets and Cavaliers are going to be a better product. The guys that "don't watch the NBA," will either start watching the NBA, or stop watching the new version of college basketball. 

If this thing goes through, there's no putting toothpaste back into the tube. Every rule or law made has a half dozen unintended consequences. Some are good and some are bad. Title IX was a great thing for female athletics. The fact that football wasn't excluded from Title IX (even though there isn't a female equivalent that exists which requires 90 scholarships) means that Olympic sports were crushed on the men's side. For example, there's like 75 D1 wrestling programs, baseball teams are disappearing by the year, etc. 

If this proposal goes through, it's check mate for college basketball, not mid major college basketball, but college basketball in general. It will weaken college football significantly, and if it intrudes on the NFL whatsoever, Goodell will play games on Saturdays. Unless you're in the deep south, or parts of the midwest, check mate for college football. You think that for profit, travel youth sports are a cesspool now? Wait until 5 years from now. Its an out of control, unregulated, billion dollar per year industry right now. If colleges become an additional pro revenue opportunity, high school and youth sports are going to be a cesspool the size of an ocean. 

My moral code, I was fine with the dark ages brief cases of money to those players who were worth it. I was fine with UNLV players getting paid, players parents being taken care of with jobs, houses, etc. It was the apex of college sports. Everyone got what they were worth. This isn't the case here. Bryce Young was a millionaire before he took a snap as a starter at Bama. The kid isn't going to see 30 in the NFL. Jameer Nelson isn't work 250K he got from TCU. Why? Because if he wouldn't get that in Europeor the G League tomorrow. I'm all for capitalism. I'm not for these artificial markets. Paying everyone the same amount of money from a collective, that's not the real world. Everyone bitches about coaches that make millions, fail, and get fired (AND ALL OF YOU ARE CORRECT, IT SUCKS)!!! My brother was a casualty of Larry Conti and Lee Saverio at La Salle for baseball. He wasn't a Saverio recruit, he was cut from the team as a sophomore despite being on scholarship, so Saverio could use my brother's money to bring in his own recruits. It sucked in 2004 and it's going to suck in 2024.

Yet Coaches do not fail upward. Those that are bad don't go elsewhere and get raises. Yet we have guys that can't play, both in football and basketball failing upward (Jack Clark, I see you). Professional athletes, with the exception of Ben Simmons, Daniel Jones, and Major League starting pitchers, don't stink and get raises. Hence, Carson Wentz went from a franchise QB to a backup QB making appropriate money. That's the one dynamic that applies to coaches that doesn't apply to players. My brother was cut in the fall of 2004 before the spring baseball season. He wasn't cut after a bad Florida trip in February. Yet coaches can be fired after a bad loss. It's not with regularity, but it happens. Sorry for the long post, but it's been a slow week on the board. Maybe this will make for good fodder. 










 

[theneumann64]

I agree with most of that. I don’t know what proposal I would like the most honestly. But there are reasonable cases to be made beyond “let everyone play for 4 schools in 4 years if they want” that aren’t inherently exploitative or arguing for the schools to have all the leverage.

Edit: this post was in response to misterd. Lunatic’s post ended up between ours.

[jb71]

I suppose the next domino to fall will be years of eligibility.  Players making more than they can in pro ball will litigate to play for pay in school. 

[thelasallelunatic]

Dec 14, 2023 11:11:11 GMT -5 diehardexplorer said:

Dec 13, 2023 17:13:14 GMT -5 MisterD said:

Maybe you're ok with the casual violence against women in that song but I'm not, Glitter.

personally, i wouldn't call that piece of garbage a "song".  i agree with your point but i never knew the lyrics until you pointed it out.  since you didn't mention it, can i assume you're ok with the lyric where they refer to cops as pigs.  i'm not, mister d.

even worse, that song is played in lots of arenas during sporting events, and maybe i'm imagining it but i'm pretty sure the dj at gola has played it.

Do we really want to go down this rabbit hole of rap lyrics? It will get restrictive pretty quickly. Eminem won't survive but may Lose Yourself would. 

[thelasallelunatic]

Dec 14, 2023 11:37:43 GMT -5 theneumann64 said:

I agree with most of that. I don’t know what proposal I would like the most honestly. But there are reasonable cases to be made beyond “let everyone play for 4 schools in 4 years if they want” that aren’t inherently exploitative or arguing for the schools to have all the leverage.

Edit: this post was in response to misterd. Lunatic’s post ended up between ours.

One free transfer, after that, you have to sit a year. 

[theneumann64]

Dec 14, 2023 11:50:51 GMT -5 thelasallelunatic said:

Dec 14, 2023 11:11:11 GMT -5 diehardexplorer said:

personally, i wouldn't call that piece of garbage a "song".  i agree with your point but i never knew the lyrics until you pointed it out.  since you didn't mention it, can i assume you're ok with the lyric where they refer to cops as pigs.  i'm not, mister d.

even worse, that song is played in lots of arenas during sporting events, and maybe i'm imagining it but i'm pretty sure the dj at gola has played it.

Do we really want to go down this rabbit hole of rap lyrics? It will get restrictive pretty quickly. Eminem won't survive but may Lose Yourself would. 

Yeah but they also don't constantly play '97 Bonnie & Clyde in arenas and stadiums all over the country.

[MisterD]

Dec 14, 2023 11:51:40 GMT -5 thelasallelunatic said:

One free transfer, after that, you have to sit a year. 

But what's the justification for this? "I don't like when kids go to too many schools?" "If you can grab a transfer you should get to keep them?"

There are more good reasons for a 3rd school than there are for punitive punishments for leaving a 2nd school.

[thelasallelunatic]

Something like the age range of 17-24 is the closest anybody is to a crazy person. That's why this group pays the most for car insurance, has trouble renting cars, shore houses, etc. The brain is fully developed at 25. What's this have to do with college athletics? I don't know, somebody like Ed Croswell gets in an argument with Ashley Howard at a Friday practice, is out of the program Saturday before game time, and none of his teammates even knew there was a problem.

You get homesick, don't fit in the scheme, there's your free transfer. I would hope a college transfer is more selective and disciplined the second time around having been through the recruiting process before. As such, if you're transferring again, sitting a year does a couple of things, it lets you cool off and mature, it lets you make sure that you want to transfer again, and it gets away from a Tre Mitchell situation. 

As a caveat, this year that you sit doesn't count towards your 4 years of eligiblity. So we will get more 24 and 25 year old seniors. I'm taking and I'm giving. It's about give and take.

[MisterD]

None of that answered why a 3rd transfer shouldn't be allowed. You just don't like the optics.

[thelasallelunatic]

A 3rd transfer is allowed, but it's not free. I make no bones about it, I don't like the optics. But I'm not outlawing it. There has to be a middle ground between unrestricted free agency and the old system, and I think my method makes everyone equally unhappy.