NCAA Being Sued Over Eligibility Limits

[xubrew]

I felt this one would come sooner or later. And, here it is. Vanderbilt’s QB is suing the NCAA for limiting the number of seasons he can play as a JUCO transfer. He is saying it is limiting his opportunity to make money off of NIL.

I don’t know if he has a case or not. What I do know is that the NCAA is not prepared for this in the same way they were not prepared for all of the anti-trust lawsuits. Will the courts rule that the NCAA has no right to declare anyone ineligible?? Then what? Can players play for 5 years? 6 years? 10 years? Will they not even have to be enrolled at the school at all in order to be eligible to play??

Will there be another lawsuit similar to the House Case that involves players who exhausted eligibility and could have kept playing had they been allowed to? And/or that were declared ineligible?

And, before anyone says “No, that can’t happen,” you need to realize that YES IT CAN!!!!! The NCAA’s approach to all the previous anti-trust lawsuits was “No, that won’t happen.” And, that’s one of the reasons they’ve lost control of everything and we’re in the mess that we are.

https://apnews.com/article/541a9dcd33815a9c006ee42dd9f4819b

[MHettel]

I felt this one would come sooner or later. And, here it is. Vanderbilt’s QB is suing the NCAA for limiting the number of seasons he can play as a JUCO transfer. He is saying it is limiting his opportunity to make money off of NIL.

I don’t know if he has a case or not. What I do know is that the NCAA is not prepared for this in the same way they were not prepared for all of the anti-trust lawsuits. Will the courts rule that the NCAA has no right to declare anyone ineligible?? Then what? Can players play for 5 years? 6 years? 10 years? Will they not even have to be enrolled at the school at all in order to be eligible to play??

Will there be another lawsuit similar to the House Case that involves players who exhausted eligibility and could have kept playing had they been allowed to? And/or that were declared ineligible?

And, before anyone says “No, that can’t happen,” you need to realize that YES IT CAN!!!!! The NCAA’s approach to all the previous anti-trust lawsuits was “No, that won’t happen.” And, that’s one of the reasons they’ve lost control of everything and we’re in the mess that we are.

https://apnews.com/article/541a9dcd33815a9c006ee42dd9f4819b

More fucking mess.

I’d love to rehash those discussion from a couple years ago where some people though the portal an NIL wouldn’t really amount to much of a change to college athletics. That was the dam breaking.

[xudash]

Compensation? Deserving a piece of the now massive pie? Everyone does or should get that.

Duration of opportunity? All of this is still tied, tethered whatever to an educational opportunity. This strikes me as ending up with a 6-year shelf life: 4 for the undergraduate component and 2 for a masters level component. Yes, it won’t be that simple, given the parties involved, but it will take some mind bending creativity to extend such opportunities out to a decade.

A 28-year old QB handing off to an 18-year old halfback sensation? This craziness will hopefully find a sane watermark at som point.

[xubrew]

More fucking mess.

I’d love to rehash those discussion from a couple years ago where some people though the portal an NIL wouldn’t really amount to much of a change to college athletics. That was the dam breaking.

Had the courts not ruled that the NCAA’s rules were illegal then the NCAA would have never changed them. The problem was the NCAA couldn’t come up with an actual legal argument to defend its position. They didn’t seem to even realize that they had to. They also did nothing to try and keep this from going to the courts. Again, they just didn’t seem to think that they had to. I hope they at least realize now that they have to come up with an actual legal argument to defend their eligibility rules or the courts will again rule that they have to get rid of them.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Easier solution to keep college sports having 30 year olds is allowing NIL at all levels. It won't trickle down, but allowing it would eliminate any anti-trust issues.

[xubrew]

Easier solution to keep college sports having 30 year olds is allowing NIL at all levels. It won't trickle down, but allowing it would eliminate any anti-trust issues.

How does that address this particular problem?? A player is suing saying he should be allowed to play additional seasons and that the NCAA has no right to limit him. The concern is that if the courts rule in his favor, then they'll do so on the basis that they believe the NCAA has no legal right to limit how many seasons players can play. If they want to play a 5th, a 6th, an 8th, or a 28th year and a school is willing to put them on their roster, then so be it.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

How does that address this particular problem?? A player is suing saying he should be allowed to play additional seasons and that the NCAA has no right to limit him. The concern is that if the courts rule in his favor, then they'll do so on the basis that they believe the NCAA has no legal right to limit how many seasons players can play. If they want to play a 5th, a 6th, an 8th, or a 28th year and a school is willing to put them on their roster, then so be it.

I believe the claim was playing and not being eligible to receive NIL. Make all levels NIL eligible and keep the time steady at 4 years. Problem solved, capitalism will most likely keep any material level of NIL away from lower levels of collegiate play.

[xubrew]

I believe the claim was playing and not being eligible to receive NIL. Make all levels NIL eligible and keep the time steady at 4 years. Problem solved, capitalism will most likely keep any material level of NIL away from lower levels of collegiate play.

The claim was not being able to play due to exhausting eligibility, and because he cannot play he cannot receive the same NIL endorsements.

In short, he wants to play more than four seasons and is suing because the NCAA does not allow it.

This is not a rock solid case, but I still think it's foolish for the NCAA to just ignore it and think that it doesn't have a chance.

[xubrew]

The NCAA lost. Again. The judge is saying JUCO seasons should not count as seasons used.

https://sports.yahoo.com/diego-pavia-court-ruling-another-potentially-massive-blow-for-ncaa--its-not-going-to-end-until-we-collectively-bargain-012348108.html

[Xville]

The NCAA lost. Again. The judge is saying JUCO seasons should not count as seasons used.

https://sports.yahoo.com/diego-pavia-court-ruling-another-potentially-massive-blow-for-ncaa--its-not-going-to-end-until-we-collectively-bargain-012348108.html

I don't know much about JUCO so help me understand this. Is JUCO not under the NCAA umbrella and so that's the argument? I'm trying to wrap my head around how this argument was won? Nevermind I answered my own question....I missed the part of the article where it said JUCO isn't under the NCAA, so i get it lol. Carry on!

[xubrew]

I don't know much about JUCO so help me understand this. Is JUCO not under the NCAA umbrella and so that's the argument? I'm trying to wrap my head around how this argument was won? Nevermind I answered my own question....I missed the part of the article where it said JUCO isn't under the NCAA, so i get it lol. Carry on!

In short, the rule has always been that a player is allowed to play four seasons in five years. Whether it was NCAA, NAIA, JUCO, or whatever. Two seasons in JUCO meant you only had two seasons left. This judge is saying no. A season in JUCO does not count as a season, so you can play two JUCO seasons and play four more NCAA seasons on top of that. This would be a massive change if it is upheld.

It also opens the door for more lawsuits. Will there now be a class action suit filed by everyone who played in JUCO and now feels they should have been able to play two more years.

[Xville]

In short, the rule has always been that a player is allowed to play four seasons in five years. Whether it was NCAA, NAIA, JUCO, or whatever. Two seasons in JUCO meant you only had two seasons left. This judge is saying no. A season in JUCO does not count as a season, so you can play two JUCO seasons and play four more NCAA seasons on top of that. This would be a massive change if it is upheld.

ok got it, thank you! So where is Pavia going next year lol because I doubt hes staying at Vandy

[paulxu]

This judge is saying no. A season in JUCO does not count as a season, so you can play two JUCO seasons and play four more NCAA seasons on top of that.
Prep school, couple of red-shirt years, some Covid years thrown in, and you can be playing well into your 30's :)

[xubrew]

Prep school, couple of red-shirt years, some Covid years thrown in, and you can be playing well into your 30's :)

Yep. And what may come next is that a judge says the NCAA has no right to cap the number of seasons at all. If someone wants to play ten years, they can. I'm not joking when I say the NCAA needs to be proactive and realize this is a very real possibility. I'm also not joking when I say the NCAA is doing absolutely nothing.

[GoMuskies]

Yep. And what may come next is that a judge says the NCAA has no right to cap the number of seasons at all.

Let's go! I might be able to get my daughter through grad school for free!!!!

[xubrew]

Let's go! I might be able to get my daughter through grad school for free!!!!

I would STRONGLY support five seasons in six years as opposed to four seasons in five years with the school a player exhausts their eligibility at being required to provide aid for the sixth year even if they've already played. With six years everyone has a chance to get all the way through grad school.

[xubrew]

The NCAA lost. Again. The judge is saying JUCO seasons should not count as seasons used.

https://sports.yahoo.com/diego-pavia-court-ruling-another-potentially-massive-blow-for-ncaa--its-not-going-to-end-until-we-collectively-bargain-012348108.html

So, no one seems to be alarmed by this, but it is a VERY big deal. It's like a saying I heard. One of the things we've learned from history is that we do not learn from history.

There is a very real chance the courts will say that the NCAA eligibility rules are overreaching and that they violate anti-trust laws. Everyone seems to scoff when it's pointed out what the possible outcome of this could be, which is maddening. What makes it even more maddening is that these are many of the same people that scoffed at the idea of the courts ever ruling that their amateurism rules would be declared illegal. And then scoffed again at the idea of the courts ever ruling that their transfer rules were illegal.

This could happen! It really could! The courts could say the NCAA has no right to limit the number of seasons a player can play. They could also say that the NCAA has no right under any circumstance to prohibit the schools from hiring whoever it is they choose to hire. If the school wants to hire someone that isn't even a student or that does not meet academic eligibility, they can. We may get to a point very quickly where the only ties the football and basketball teams have to the rest of the campus is the branding of the school's name on the uniforms, and many of the players are non-students in their late 20s playing for their 7th different school in 9 years.

If you don't think that can happen, then you're probably one of the same people who thought the amateurism and transfer rules could never be forced to change. The courts have already granted Diego Pavia an injunction. The NCAA needs to do SOMETHING if they don't want to lose control of their eligibility rules, and you'd think they would be wanting to act considering how sitting around and doing nothing and saying nothing could ever happen to make them change worked out the last two times. But, they appear to just be sitting around and doing jack shit.

[xu82]

I already care far less than I used to. This is just one more step in the wrong direction.

[xubrew]

I already care far less than I used to. This is just one more step in the wrong direction.

You're not alone.

[paulxu]

Wouldn't hold my breath on the NCAA doing anything that actually made sense.

Then again, Rodgers may be looking for a new team next year.

[XUGRAD80]

Wouldn't hold my breath on the NCAA doing anything that actually made sense.

Then again, Rodgers may be looking for a new team next year.

I’m not sure that there is anything the NCAA CAN DO. Let’s say that they come to an agreement with this player. Who’s to say that the next player, or the courts, will say that agreement is enough? They are really at this point at the mercy of the courts, and the courts will decide based on what the laws say. The laws were not written to cover these kind of things either. So the courts have to kind of figure it out as they go along. There are only 2 possible solutions as I see it….either the players organize, create a union, and collectively bargain OR Congress gets involved and passes laws to set up a structure that the courts will agree to.

Personally I’m not very confident that either of those solutions come to pass any time soon. I’m afraid that it’s going to be left up to lawyers and courts to sort out and I don’t think that either of those groups really cares much for either the fans or the players, or what is best for college sports as a whole.

[Final4]

So, no one seems to be alarmed by this, but it is a VERY big deal. It's like a saying I heard. One of the things we've learned from history is that we do not learn from history.

There is a very real chance the courts will say that the NCAA eligibility rules are overreaching and that they violate anti-trust laws. Everyone seems to scoff when it's pointed out what the possible outcome of this could be, which is maddening. What makes it even more maddening is that these are many of the same people that scoffed at the idea of the courts ever ruling that their amateurism rules would be declared illegal. And then scoffed again at the idea of the courts ever ruling that their transfer rules were illegal.

This could happen! It really could! The courts could say the NCAA has no right to limit the number of seasons a player can play. They could also say that the NCAA has no right under any circumstance to prohibit the schools from hiring whoever it is they choose to hire. If the school wants to hire someone that isn't even a student or that does not meet academic eligibility, they can. We may get to a point very quickly where the only ties the football and basketball teams have to the rest of the campus is the branding of the school's name on the uniforms, and many of the players are non-students in their late 20s playing for their 7th different school in 9 years.

If you don't think that can happen, then you're probably one of the same people who thought the amateurism and transfer rules could never be forced to change. The courts have already granted Diego Pavia an injunction. The NCAA needs to do SOMETHING if they don't want to lose control of their eligibility rules, and you'd think they would be wanting to act considering how sitting around and doing nothing and saying nothing could ever happen to make them change worked out the last two times. But, they appear to just be sitting around and doing jack shit.

I think it's a great idea. We have a 28 year-old guy who has played 10 years of college basketball playing for Xavier and making $500k a season.......and this guy is not even a student at X. Throw another log on the fire and let's burn this current model down as quickly as possible so we can get on with the task at hand of rebuilding college athletics. Would enjoy nothing more than seeing all involved with this current mess sitting around in a large circle-jerk lamenting what the hell happened.

[Xville]

I think it's a great idea. We have a 28 year-old guy who has played 10 years of college basketball playing for Xavier and making $500k a season.......and this guy is not even a student at X. Throw another log on the fire and let's burn this current model down as quickly as possible so we can get on with the task at hand of rebuilding college athletics. Would enjoy nothing more than seeing all involved with this current mess sitting around in a large circle-jerk lamenting what the hell happened.

I’d argue your last sentence has already happened.

[paulxu]

Leopards eating faces.

[bjf123]

We have a 28 year-old guy who has played 10 years of college basketball playing for Xavier and making $500k a season.......and this guy is not even a student at X.
If this ever happens, I’m done with college basketball. Maybe we’ll end up similar to the European model. No college athletics like here. Just clubs at university. Everything else is purely professional with tiers resulting in promotion and relegation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bleedXblue]

They've already ruined it b/c we are a money-hungry society.

In the real world, you can move around from one job to the next, but at some point that catches up to you. Your company get sold, your boss leaves, the deal you thought you had was bs. Companies restructure etc etc. In this environment, I see little to no risk for the athlete. They move for more $$ if they can or they stay where they are at. What can the school do if they offer you a scholarship and 250K NIL. If you dont pan out, I guess your shown the door or maybe the school simply says for next year we can only offer 100K?

[nickgyp]

You're not alone.

Watching Ewers lead Texas yesterday in a highly entertaining Peach Bowl while also reading that he is being offered $6 million to return to college next year with Notre Dame a rumored destination does diminish the enjoyment of the collegiate game. Mercenary players will do that I guess.

[xubrew]

I’m not sure that there is anything the NCAA CAN DO. Let’s say that they come to an agreement with this player. Who’s to say that the next player, or the courts, will say that agreement is enough? They are really at this point at the mercy of the courts, and the courts will decide based on what the laws say. The laws were not written to cover these kind of things either. So the courts have to kind of figure it out as they go along. There are only 2 possible solutions as I see it….either the players organize, create a union, and collectively bargain OR Congress gets involved and passes laws to set up a structure that the courts will agree to.

Personally I’m not very confident that either of those solutions come to pass any time soon. I’m afraid that it’s going to be left up to lawyers and courts to sort out and I don’t think that either of those groups really cares much for either the fans or the players, or what is best for college sports as a whole.

They have to bargain with the student-athletes. They have to give SAAC a seat at the table and give them a say in what the rules are. I've been saying this for almost twenty years. MANY in college athletics have been saying that for a long time, so it's not like this all came without warning. And yes, they'll have to make concessions, but it WOULD give the NCAA some protection. The NLRB (and others) have said that college athletes fit the definition of employees. They've also said you can bargain with employees even if they have chosen not to unionize.

The SCOTUS said the NCAA needed to bargain with the after the Alston Case in 2021. And...NOTHING!!!

Let's just imagine for a second if they had actually done what the Supreme Court had said they needed to do. I know this is a big jump here, but let's pretend for just a second that the NCAA had enough sense to not just flatly ignore the Supreme Court of the United States. They sit down with SAAC and offer up the following...

-The one time transfer exception is in effect for all sports. Players can transfer one time and not sit out a year. After that, they will have to do the YIR unless they have already earned their degree.

-Permission to contact is no longer a thing. Anyone who wants to transfer can make contact with whoever they like

-In addition to receiving cost of living, players can receive up to $10k in NIL money. Schools can also pay them directly up to another $10k, and the NCAA will share NCAA Tournament money with all D1 student-athletes for up to another $10k.

-In terms of academic eligibility and limited seasons remain in place. You must be a full time student at a school and in good academic standing in order to practice and compete.

SAAC would have accepted all of that in a heartbeat. The NCAA would have made concessions, but they would still be in control, and there would still be an overall semblance of control. It would have been a much better world. And all they would have had to do was not think that ignoring the Supreme Court was okay. Yes, they're giving up a fair amount there, but it would have been NOWHERE NEAR what they've had to give out and pay out now since the House Case. And, the House Case is not the end. In fact it provides a legal precedent for more future lawsuits against them. Anyone who thinks that the end of the House Case was the end of the issue is a complete moron. But, anyway...

Those same people who ignored all of that and didn't act, are now ignoring this. They're now saying the same things they were saying then. "We don't need to change that if we don't want to! That will never happen! They're not employees! We don't have to bargain with them!"

That's what is so maddening. The people who fucked this up are still making decisions and are fucking it up even worse. They need to sit down with SAAC. I would even say give everyone a 5th season. If a player earns a degree in 5 years and has only played 4 seasons within those five years, let them play a 5th season and give them a 6th year. I bet SAAC would take it! I mean...I REALLY think they would agree to that if it were offered. But, I also don't expect it to be offered. I don't expect the NCAA to do anything. They didn't last time. They won't this time. And the courts are going to rule that the NCAA has no right to declare anyone ineligible and the schools have every right to hire whoever they want for as long as they want even if they're not students.

[XUGRAD80]

What you describe in the last sentence is exactly what was happening BEFORE Congress got involved and the NCAA was formed. I’m talking about college football in its infancy. BUT the reason that Congress got involved then had nothing to do with pay for play, it had to do with safety. Players were DYING on the fields because of the lack of rules designed to keep anyone safe. It was a true blood sport. NOW Congress will only get involved if there are enough big money boosters that want them to get involved. I do believe that you are correct that a unionization (or organizing if someone likes that word better) of the players is what is going to have to happen, along with a recognition of the union’s ability to negotiate for the athletes by the NCAA. IMO it’s a mess and it’s likely to get messier before it gets better.

There has to be a system in place that protects EVERYONE’S interests…..players, schools, boosters, fans, etc. BUT, also IMO, the NCAA has outlived its usefulness and needs to be replaced by a NEW system/group that oversees college athletics.

[xubrew]

What you describe in the last sentence is exactly what was happening BEFORE Congress got involved and the NCAA was formed. I’m talking about college football in its infancy. BUT the reason that Congress got involved then had nothing to do with pay for play, it had to do with safety. Players were DYING on the fields because of the lack of rules designed to keep anyone safe. It was a true blood sport.

You know your history!!

Yes, there were a couple of things. I believe in the 1894 Harvard v Yale football game it was determined that 75 percent of the players on both teams were not students and had nothing to do with either of the colleges. They were just hired ringers.

And yes, it was a blood sport. A common play was the Flying Wedge, which was a formation where the offense lined up in a V formation with the ball carrier in the middle of the V. The "sharp end" of the V (for lack of a better term) would target the smallest defensive player, and they would all ram the shit out of him one after another after another to try to open a gap in the line. Another normal way of advancing the ball was to give it to the smallest player and literally have his teammates pick him up and launch him through the air over the defenders. There were 25 deaths one year in college football alone, which sounds like a lot, but you realize it's actually way more when you factor in that there weren't anywhere near as many teams back then. It equates to about 250 deaths or more today.

And players were also paid. And players were also oftentimes not students at all.

Teddy Roosevelt was very public about cleaning up the game. What's also overlooked is that he loved football and was a huge Harvard fan. While he did support rules to make the game safer, he also supported rules that were advantageous to Harvard. That's actually true!

But, anyway, back to 2025....

I agree it's a mess. I agree that it will get messier before it bets better. And I'm starting to agree that the best way to fix it may be for the schools to just say
"We're done with the NCAA. We're doing our own thing." and have everyone just sort of migrate to a new leadership and structure. I'm not all the way there yet, but I'm getting there.

[xubrew]

Another lawsuit filed against the NCAA over eligibility. This one seems ridiculous as to why he should get an additional year, but it does raise the question of whether or not the NCAA's eligibility rules violate antitrust laws. I know I've said this before, but I think we are close to the courts ruling that all NCAA eligibility rules must go and that the schools can decide for themselves who can and cannot play on their teams.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/43624559/wisconsin-nyzier-fourqurean-sues-ncaa-eligibility-clock

[XUGRAD80]

The schools have ALREADY decided what they want the eligibility rules to be. The NCAA doesn’t dictate the rules, the presidents of the MEMBER institutions decide and vote on such rules. Institutions are free to leave the ASSOCIATION at any time (subject to the rules governing that they all agreed to). And EVERYONE has the same rule book. Schools can’t make their own rules but they can work within the association members to get rules changed if they think they should be. It’s a simple majority vote in most cases.

For me, that is what so madding about this whole thing with the courts….EVERYONE involved has voluntarily agreed to all the current rules….the schools, the coaches, the players, the staffs, everyone! No one is being forced to become a college player. They all CHOOSE to do so. When they do that they also CHOOSE to play by the rules. ALL the rules. EVERYONE plays by the same rules (except the cheaters of course) and no one plays by their own rules. Yet the courts seem to think that none of that makes any difference.

[xubrew]

The schools have ALREADY decided what they want the eligibility rules to be. The NCAA doesn’t dictate the rules, the presidents of the MEMBER institutions decide and vote on such rules. Institutions are free to leave the ASSOCIATION at any time (subject to the rules governing that they all agreed to). And EVERYONE has the same rule book. Schools can’t make their own rules but they can work within the association members to get rules changed if they think they should be. It’s a simple majority vote in most cases.

For me, that is what so madding about this whole thing with the courts….EVERYONE involved has voluntarily agreed to all the current rules….the schools, the coaches, the players, the staffs, everyone! No one is being forced to become a college player. They all CHOOSE to do so. When they do that they also CHOOSE to play by the rules. ALL the rules. EVERYONE plays by the same rules (except the cheaters of course) and no one plays by their own rules. Yet the courts seem to think that none of that makes any difference.

The players were never represented. That's one of the biggest issues that the NCAA has yet to deal with. And if this is their argument, they will lose. I'm not saying I don't understand why people would feel this way, nor am I saying that they are wrong to feel this way. I'm saying the courts will not accept this.

Now, if they could meet with SAAC, or some sort of group that fairly represents the players and have that group agree to the rules, then they'd have some protection. But, they have not done this. They've never done this. And they don't appear to have any intention or plans to do it now. Even though the SCOTUS basically instructed the NCAA to do it, they never did. The NCAA will almost assuredly lose. Again.

[xubrew]

This is the whole legal problem in a nutshell. If someone can come up with a legal argument as to why eligibility can remain, then I'll start to feel a lot better about it....

QUESTION: So NCAA, if eligibility rules did not exist, would any member schools hire athletes that were not students, or hire athletes who had played for more than four years??

ANSWER: Well, Yes. Of course they would.

QUESTION: Did the players agree to this rule or play any sort of role in the making of this rule??

ANSWER: No


Then the eligibility rules are in violation of antitrust law and they gotta go. Schools have the right to do as they like.

[XUGRAD80]

Schools have the right to do as they like.

No, they don’t. At least not according to the courts so far.

So far the courts seem to be saying that they can’t band together and make rules as a group pertaining to such things as this, or scholarships, or money, etc. iMO, even if individual schools decided to place limits on many of these things, the courts will decide that they can’t legally do so. It’s all going to come down to Congress making the rules and the courts overseeing those rules to make sure that they don’t go against other laws.

Without getting political, this is just another example of the political government of the country controlling things that it should not be involved in…at least that’s my personal opinion. However, I’m wise enough to understand that nobody cares about MY opinion. (That’s how I’ve stayed married for 43 years, LOL)

[xubrew]

No, they don’t. At least not according to the courts so far.

So far the courts seem to be saying that they can’t band together and make rules as a group pertaining to such things as this, or scholarships, or money, etc. iMO, even if individual schools decided to place limits on many of these things, the courts will decide that they can’t legally do so. It’s all going to come down to Congress making the rules and the courts overseeing those rules to make sure that they don’t go against other laws.

Without getting political, this is just another example of the political government of the country controlling things that it should not be involved in…at least that’s my personal opinion. However, I’m wise enough to understand that nobody cares about MY opinion. (That’s how I’ve stayed married for 43 years, LOL)

Read what you just wrote out loud. That is the textbook definition of price fixing. Of course they can't do this. Of course the courts are going to tell them that.

Something I said earler...


If someone can come up with a legal argument as to why eligibility can remain, then I'll start to feel a lot better about it....

What you said did not make me feel any better!!!

[XUGRAD80]

Read what you just wrote out loud. That is the textbook definition of price fixing.



What you said did not make me feel any better!!!

So,you agree that the schools don’t have the right to do as they like?

[xubrew]

So,you agree that the schools don’t have the right to do as they like?

Not if it’s against the law. In many ways it would be nice if they could, but they can’t.

If none of the schools want to hire players that are not students and/or have played more than four seasons, then there won’t be a problem and there is no need for that rule in the first place.

If some of them do want to, but can’t because the rule won’t allow it; then that’s a legal problem. If the players were not represented when this rule was made, that is also a legal problem.

This is the question…. Would there be any schools that would hire players and let players play that do not meet current eligibility requirement if they were allowed to?? If the answer to that question is yes, which it is, then the courts are very likely to say that the eligibility rules are illegal.

[XUGRAD80]

Not if it’s against the law. In many ways it would be nice if they could, but they can’t.

If none of the schools want to hire players that are not students and/or have played more than four seasons, then there won’t be a problem and there is no need for that rule in the first place.

If some of them do want to, but can’t because the rule won’t allow it; then that’s a legal problem. If the players were not represented when this rule was made, that is also a legal problem.

This is the question…. Would there be any schools that would hire players and let players play that do not meet current eligibility requirement if they were allowed to?? If the answer to that question is yes, which it is, then the courts are very likely to say that the eligibility rules are illegal.

We’ll, all the schools that are in the NCAA have already agreed to not to. You’re saying that making that a “rule” and not just something they have decided individually to do, makes it illegal.

But associations are allowed to have rules….the bylaws….that govern such things as who can be a member and for how long.

Unless you are an anti-trust lawyer with lots of experience I don’t think your opinion here carries much weight. I’m not, and mine doesn’t either. So,let’s just leave it at that.

[xubrew]

We’ll, all the schools that are in the NCAA have already agreed to not to. You’re saying that making that a “rule” and not just something they have decided individually to do, makes it illegal.

Yes, but like you said later on it's not my opinion that matters. What's more important is that I'm saying THE COURTS will say that. Just as they did when they said amateurism was illegal, and again when they said the transfer restrictions were illegal. Does it seem unrealistic to you to think the courts may rule against them again??


But associations are allowed to have rules….the bylaws….that govern such things as who can be a member and for how long.


Perhaps, but are the members of these associations considered to be employees, and therefore participating in free trade, and do they have a say in what the rules of the association are?? I don't want to pick apart all the different associations and whether or not they are subject to antitrust laws. I only know that the NCAA clearly is, and that's why they're in this mess.


Unless you are an anti-trust lawyer with lots of experience I don’t think your opinion here carries much weight. I’m not, and mine doesn’t either. So,let’s just leave it at that.

Yeah, you're right. It's not my opinion that's going to bring them down. I am rather astounded that the NCAA, after losing over and over and over again, continues to have the opinion that they do. It doesn't seem to have worked out for them before. And I still don't get why after the Alston Case when a Supreme Court ruled unanimously against and told them what they needed to do, that they didn't do it. And still haven't done it. Perhaps they thought SCOTUS's opinion didn't carry much weight.

[JTG]

This is the whole legal problem in a nutshell. If someone can come up with a legal argument as to why eligibility can remain, then I'll start to feel a lot better about it....

QUESTION: So NCAA, if eligibility rules did not exist, would any member schools hire athletes that were not students, or hire athletes who had played for more than four years??




ANSWER: Well, Yes. Of course they would.

QUESTION: Did the players agree to this rule or play any sort of role in the making of this rule??

ANSWER: No



Then the eligibility rules are in violation of antitrust law and they gotta go. Schools have the right to do as they like.

Where in the world or what do you do for a living that you believe any of what you

laid out makes sense? Are you a labor organizer? Millions and millions of people
go to work every day without representation. They get paid and work for companies that abide by rules. For example insurance companies administer workers compensation benefits for injured employees. Any insurance ompany that provides this coverage pays a pre determined amount for time off. Whether the person injured is a doctor or a janitor. The greeter at Walmart
doesn't get to have a % of the Waltons fortune. This whole argument reeks of Socialism. And as much as I loathe government intervention it's time for
Congress to enact anti trust exemptions to the colleges and fix this mess. It's
beyond me why people think this no rules, players are entitled to unlimited
compensation and freedom even though they agreed to a signed legal
document is ok.

[xubrew]

Millions and millions of people
go to work every day without representation.

Yes, but here is the difference. None of those millions and millions of people work at a place where their employers are prohibited from paying them more if they choose to because of an agreement they've made with competing companies on what the maximum salaries can be. There is no agreed upon maximum wage amongst the different companies and/or businesses. That’s what would reek of socialism. That would also be illegal. That's what the NCAA had been doing, and that's why the courts have been killing them.

And just to be clear, I'm not siding AGAINST the NCAA!! I liked it better before. I'm actually frustrated that the NCAA and it's member institutions is basically ignoring every warning sign that they're about to get clobbered again. I'm also frustrated because I strongly feel that there are things they could have done that wouldn't have resulted in them losing as much control as they did, but they did nothing. And, they're still doing nothing. I mean...it really is amazing to me how they could lose huge with their amateurism rules, then lose huge again with their transfer rules, and now be heading back to court again with issues that deal with their eligibility, and STILL not get it!! Whether you love them or hate them, and whether you agree or disagree with how the courts have ruled, how could any sane person actually expect this to end any differently than the previous cases did??

[XUGRAD80]

https://apple.news/A2U0Cn27KRjCDyDMpK_2aIg

Finally a sensible decsion……whomever thought that compensation should be tied to the Title IX legislation was not thinking straight IMO. I think that most supporters of women’s sports (of which I am one) understand the realities of the economics and didn’t support it either.

[Xville]

https://apple.news/A2U0Cn27KRjCDyDMpK_2aIg

Finally a sensible decsion……whomever thought that compensation should be tied to the Title IX legislation was not thinking straight IMO. I think that most supporters of women’s sports (of which I am one) understand the realities of the economics and didn’t support it either.

I agree with you but unfortunately I can see this going to the courts and I’m no lawyer but I don’t think I see it ending the way we want it to

[XUGRAD80]

I agree with you but unfortunately I can see this going to the courts and I’m no lawyer but I don’t think I see it ending the way we want it to

All of what has been, and will be, discussed by us fans will someday find its way into court. That’s what people do now, they take things they don’t agree with to court. Even if they know that they really don’t have a good case, they will take it to court. It’s part of the negotiations anymore. There’s always a judge that will issue a temporary order to pause any decision made by any group until they can look at it further. The key thing to remember here is that this is only a statement of how the department of education thinks a law should be applied. It is not an actual law in itself. The DOE can make policy, but it can’t make laws. Unfortunately our congress members are so weak and dysfunctional right now that they won’t touch a subject like this for fear of pissing off some of their supporters. They will let the judges do it in order to protect their own political careers.

But enough grumbling about politics except to say that ain’t it a shame that politics has to be a part of sports today?

[xubrew]

https://apple.news/A2U0Cn27KRjCDyDMpK_2aIg

Finally a sensible decsion……whomever thought that compensation should be tied to the Title IX legislation was not thinking straight IMO. I think that most supporters of women’s sports (of which I am one) understand the realities of the economics and didn’t support it either.

I think this was something that not many people really knew what to make of in the first place. Basically, it said universities might be in violation of federal discrimination laws (I don't think it even mentioned Title IX specifically) if they did not provide equal NIL opportunities. Everyone just sort of looked at each other and thought..."well, the majority of NIL opportunities aren't technically coming directly from the school. So....???"

But, to your point, it's good that it was rescinded, if for no other reason than no one really knew what to make of it in the first place.

[XUGRAD80]

I think this was something that not many people really knew what to make of in the first place. Basically, it said universities might be in violation of federal discrimination laws (I don't think it even mentioned Title IX specifically) if they did not provide equal NIL opportunities. Everyone just sort of looked at each other and thought..."well, the majority of NIL opportunities aren't technically coming directly from the school. So....???"

But, to your point, it's good that it was rescinded, if for no other reason than no one really knew what to make of it in the first place.

It actually dealt directly, and only, with the proposed school payments and their title IX implications. It did hint that payments from outside sources MIGHT also be taken into consideration when discussing Title IX adherence, but didn’t say that for sure. That 1st ruling came as a complete shock to virtually everyone, especially in light of what the original court approved plan had been. The schools had asked for DOE direction, but they certainly never expected the direction they got. That lead to everyone scrambling to come up with new plans on how the money would be allocated. The redirection allows them to go back to the plans they had already made.

[xubrew]

It actually dealt directly, and only, with the proposed school payments and their title IX implications. It did hint that payments from outside sources MIGHT also be taken into consideration when discussing Title IX adherence, but didn’t say that for sure. That 1st ruling came as a complete shock to virtually everyone, especially in light of what the original court approved plan had been. The schools had asked for DOE direction, but they certainly never expected the direction they got. That lead to everyone scrambling to come up with new plans on how the money would be allocated. The redirection allows them to go back to the plans they had already made.

Okay, I guess that makes sense. Or, it makes sense how it didn't make sense and was rescinded for not making sense. Or...whatever. Whatever it said there's no real reason to worry too much about it now.