UNLV QB is leaving the program immediately due to the school not withholding NIL commitments

[Mr Janny]

Seeing a story like this gives the ESPN 30 for 30 "Pony Excess" a much different look than it had when it came out eight years ago.

Had the NCAA made the NIL changes instead of loosening the transfer rules (which I feel was their "concession" to the athletes in lieu of payments) things might be less confusing today. Cat is out of the bag now.

I'm not opposed to the players getting paid, quite the opposite actually. I'm happy for them. But had the NCAA not tried to keep the organization and schools from controlling every penny for as long as they possibly could, they may not be so feckless now. I'm not even sure why the NCAA exists at this point.

The transfer restrictions were awful PR for the NCAA. There were denials for seemingly arbitrary reasons or coaches being petty by blocking certain destinations. None of it looked good, especially when coaches are able to move to different jobs without restriction. It's hard to see a scenario where transfer restrictions go back to the way they were. And any attempt to restrict current player mobility is very likely going to have to survive a court challenge.

 

[Urbandale2013]

Here the thing. UNLV fans s starting to look like the bad guy in this particular instance.

With that said the whole argument about what the law says doesn’t matter because the law that people are looking at isn’t written to include college sports. They are not compatible. The only solution is to treat it in some way like professional sports or going back to how it was.

I’ve said for a while now the problem is the pro leagues and their restrictions. No one is forcing people to play NCAA sports but the pro leagues are conspiring to eliminate opportunities for athletes based on age.

 

[NWICY]

Regardless of circumstances, you can’t bring Sluka back into that locker room. If I was his teammate I’d be furious. No brainer for UNLV to say thanks but no thanks

There could be some rather porous line blocking

 

[gypsyroad]

The transfer restrictions were awful PR for the NCAA. There were denials for seemingly arbitrary reasons or coaches being petty by blocking certain destinations. None of it looked good, especially when coaches are able to move to different jobs without restriction. It's hard to see a scenario where transfer restrictions go back to the way they were. And any attempt to restrict current player mobility is very likely going to have to survive a court challenge.

I don't disagree. I was trying to point out (apparently unsuccessfully) that if the NCAA wanted to maintain the majority of power by hanging onto their archaic transfer rules, they could have done so by conceding NIL first. Would have cost them and the schools a chunk of money, but they would still wield a mighty stick (and then ended up conceding it anyway). Now they still have some control over the programs, but they have almost no control over the players. Players can do pretty much anything they want, which is great.

The programs wanted players under someone's thumb. I don't even know why the programs or conferences keep the NCAA around at this point.

 

[cykadelic2]

The transfer restrictions were awful PR for the NCAA. There were denials for seemingly arbitrary reasons or coaches being petty by blocking certain destinations. None of it looked good, especially when coaches are able to move to different jobs without restriction. It's hard to see a scenario where transfer restrictions go back to the way they were. And any attempt to restrict current player mobility is very likely going to have to survive a court challenge.

Biggest mistake the NCAA made relative to transfer rules was initiating the waiver process which predictably got abused by athletes/parents to the point that NCAA said screw it and they instituted the one "free" transfer rule which everyone with a rational brain knew was a very good alternative. Unfortunately, bleeding heart judges/courts aren't always rational.

And the "coaches can move without restriction" is always baseless given their contractual and buyout obligations.

And to your last point, if there eventually become a contract model (employees or not), there will have to be restrictions on annual unfettered free agency for all athletes. Can't have both.

 

[Mr Janny]

Biggest mistake the NCAA made relative to transfer rules was initiating the waiver process which predictably got abused by athletes/parents to the point that NCAA said screw it and they instituted the one "free" transfer rule which everyone with a rational brain knew was a very good alternative. Unfortunately, bleeding heart judges/courts aren't always rational.

And the "coaches can move without restriction" is always baseless given their contractual and buyout obligations.

And to your last point, if there eventually become a contract model (employees or not), there will have to be restrictions on annual unfettered free agency for all athletes. Can't have both.

"Bleeding Heart Judges" ruling that student athletes shouldn't be held to a different mobility standard than other students (or even students on non-athletic scholarships) sounds pretty rational to me. Restricting them just because they throw a ball around, in addition to their studies, seems like the the illogical side of the debate, but what do I know?

Regarding coaches, there's absolutely nothing restricting their eligibility when they decide to change jobs. They might have a buyout fee, but that's significantly different than restricted eligibility. Under the old transfer rules, a student could complete the terms of their yearly scholarship and still not be eligible to play right away at another school. That's a stark difference in the rules.

Regarding contracts, we'll have to see. If a 5 star player says, "I'll come to your school, but I'm not signing anything that locks me here for me more than a year" I suspect a whole bunch of schools will have no problem agreeing to that. Especially the blue bloods, who figure that being a contender will keep players around, and if they do leave, they know that they can reload with other talent.
Some players may agree to longer term contracts. Others might not. So long as they're individually negotiated as opposed to being one size fits all for every player in the league, it's fine. As soon as they start saying "All player scholarship contracts lock you in for 2 years" that's when the courts will get involved. Short of having a union collectively bargain that arrangement, it's going to be vulnerable to lawsuits.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Biggest mistake the NCAA made relative to transfer rules was initiating the waiver process which predictably got abused by athletes/parents to the point that NCAA said screw it and they instituted the one "free" transfer rule which everyone with a rational brain knew was a very good alternative. Unfortunately, bleeding heart judges/courts aren't always rational.

And the "coaches can move without restriction" is always baseless given their contractual and buyout obligations.

And to your last point, if there eventually become a contract model (employees or not), there will have to be restrictions on annual unfettered free agency for all athletes. Can't have both.

You mean abused by the many athletes that wanted to move closer to home for family issues and were denied? Or the players that were recruited by a coach to play a system/style only for that coach to bail on them year one.

This is one of your worst takes, the NCAA ****** up transfers for years and athletes paid the price. Having the one free transfer rule was almost universally celebrated to avoid this.

 

[cykadelic2]

You mean abused by the many athletes that wanted to move closer to home for family issues and were denied? Or the players that were recruited by a coach to play a system/style only for that coach to bail on them year one.

This is one of your worst takes, the NCAA ****** up transfers for years and athletes paid the price. Having the one free transfer rule was almost universally celebrated to avoid this.

A significant % of athletes abused the waiver process with bogus claims which flooded the NCAA and they gave up trying to process them all.

The NCAA had several decades of the old transfer rules which were never challenged. The waiver process opened the floodgates and as I mentioned (and you evidently missed), the one free transfer rules was a good and effective compromise.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

A significant % of athletes abused the waiver process with bogus claims which flooded the NCAA and they gave up trying to process them all.

The NCAA had several decades of the old transfer rules which were never challenged. The waiver process opened the floodgates and as I mentioned (and you evidently missed), the one free transfer rules was a good and effective compromise.

Got a stat for that first paragraph or just going with “trust me bro”

 

[theshadow]

Got a stat for that first paragraph or just going with “trust me bro”

The most laughable from an ISU perspective was a player from Utah who was "transferring to be closer to home" and ended up at LSU.

 

[fcclone]

You mean abused by the many athletes that wanted to move closer to home for family issues and were denied? Or the players that were recruited by a coach to play a system/style only for that coach to bail on them year one.

This is one of your worst takes, the NCAA ****** up transfers for years and athletes paid the price. Having the one free transfer rule was almost universally celebrated to avoid this.

Got a stat for the first paragraph? Or just going with trust me bro?

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Got a stat for the first paragraph? Or just going with trust me bro?

Here ya go. Next time just trust me bro lol

Denial of NCAA Eligibility Waivers Continues to Spark Dispute | Casetext

casetext.com

 

[CtownCyclone]

The most laughable from an ISU perspective was a player from Utah who was "transferring to be closer to home" and ended up at LSU.

Ol Hambone... First thing I thought of when reading that post.

 

[fcclone]

Here ya go. Next time just trust me bro lol

Denial of NCAA Eligibility Waivers Continues to Spark Dispute | Casetext

casetext.com

So three football players being denied transfers is ‘many’ while the majority of all transfer requests, according to the article you quoted were granted? LOL

Also, just noticed that the article was from 2019, before the Wild, Wild West hardly any transfer rules apply.

 

[3TrueFans]

The most laughable from an ISU perspective was a player from Utah who was "transferring to be closer to home" and ended up at LSU.

He sat out a year though.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

So three football players being denied transfers is ‘many’ while the majority of all transfer requests, according to the article you quoted were granted? LOL

Also, just noticed that the article was from 2019, before the Wild, Wild West hardly any transfer rules apply.

Yeah man that’s the whole point of the argument, we were talking about how things were…

 

[fcclone]

Yeah man that’s the whole point of the argument, we were talking about how things were…

I just don’t consider 3 out of 60 ‘many’.

 

[cykadelic2]

Got a stat for that first paragraph or just going with “trust me bro”

The fact that the NCAA gave up the waiver process due to excessive volume (and due in part to bogus requests) and bleeding heart lawsuits is sufficient evidence.

 

[cykadelic2]

"Bleeding Heart Judges" ruling that student athletes shouldn't be held to a different mobility standard than other students (or even students on non-athletic scholarships) sounds pretty rational to me. Restricting them just because they throw a ball around, in addition to their studies, seems like the the illogical side of the debate, but what do I know?

Regarding coaches, there's absolutely nothing restricting their eligibility when they decide to change jobs. They might have a buyout fee, but that's significantly different than restricted eligibility. Under the old transfer rules, a student could complete the terms of their yearly scholarship and still not be eligible to play right away at another school. That's a stark difference in the rules.

Regarding contracts, we'll have to see. If a 5 star player says, "I'll come to your school, but I'm not signing anything that locks me here for me more than a year" I suspect a whole bunch of schools will have no problem agreeing to that. Especially the blue bloods, who figure that being a contender will keep players around, and if they do leave, they know that they can reload with other talent.
Some players may agree to longer term contracts. Others might not. So long as they're individually negotiated as opposed to being one size fits all for every player in the league, it's fine. As soon as they start saying "All player scholarship contracts lock you in for 2 years" that's when the courts will get involved. Short of having a union collectively bargain that arrangement, it's going to be vulnerable to lawsuits.

Given the time and financial resources invested in the recruiting process of athletes and the freedom of choice afforded to those athletes, it is perfectly logical for them to have reasonable mobility restrictions when compared to normal students not on scholarship.

 

[Mr Janny]

Given the time and financial resources invested in the recruiting process of athletes and the freedom of choice afforded to those athletes, it is perfectly logical for them to have reasonable mobility restrictions when compared to normal students not on scholarship.

The Department of Justice and districts attorney from 10 states and the District of Columbia seem to think it isn't quite so "perfectly logical."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/30/sport/ncaa-drop-transfer-rule-division-i-athletes-justice-department