The NCAA Division I Council has voted unanimously in favor of a measure that will allow athletes in all sports to transfer once without sitting a season, and the measure is expected to receive final approval on Thursday, sources confirmed to CBS Sports' Dennis Dodd on Wednesday.
The measure has long been expected to pass and change the landscape of collegiate athletics, and college basketball players have already flocked to the transfer portal in record numbers in anticipation of the change. As of Wednesday, there were more than 1,400 Division I men's basketball players in the transfer portal.
The rule is expected to have a major impact on college football football as well, ushering in what some have referred to as "free agency" in the sport. Though transferring is already prevalent in college football, it is expected to become even more common among athletes seeking more playing time without the hassle of missing a full season.
Athletes in most Division I sports have not been subject to the rule requiring transfers to sit a season. The rule has applied only to athletes in football, baseball, men's ice hockey and men's or women's basketball, which are the NCAA's most popular sports.
One one hand, this is a massive improvement for college athletes.
On the other hand, this is still gooseshit. It is ridiculous that only Division I marquee sport athletes are forced to sit out a season and there is no educational justification for it. The standard that should be used to judge this is "would we consider this acceptable for any other student?", to which the answer is "no fucking way".
Haven't they been issuing a ton of exceptions for this anyway? Isn't that how Joe Burrow started at LSU?
I don't see this rule ever making any sense.
Rule basically was to let totalitarian coaches fuck over players who were backups.
More importantly, to fuck over players who became backups because Ol' Ball Coach replaced them with the new hotness because that's how they remain dominant.
Haven't they been issuing a ton of exceptions for this anyway? Isn't that how Joe Burrow started at LSU?
I don't see this rule ever making any sense.
Rule basically was to let totalitarian coaches fuck over players who were backups.
More importantly, to fuck over players who became backups because Ol' Ball Coach replaced them with the new hotness because that's how they remain dominant.
Nah. Some guys are just lifetime backups at big schools. It's not just starters who became backups because a more talented freshman came in, but just...guys who are backups. But often thrive when allowed to transfer. Burrow is an example there.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Haven't they been issuing a ton of exceptions for this anyway? Isn't that how Joe Burrow started at LSU?
I don't see this rule ever making any sense.
Rule basically was to let totalitarian coaches fuck over players who were backups.
More importantly, to fuck over players who became backups because Ol' Ball Coach replaced them with the new hotness because that's how they remain dominant.
Nah. Some guys are just lifetime backups at big schools. It's not just starters who became backups because a more talented freshman came in, but just...guys who are backups. But often thrive when allowed to transfer. Burrow is an example there.
At the same time, we've seen guys like Nick Saban get upset when the players he replaces look to transfer because they actually want to get the playtime needed to get looks from scouts.
Does this open up a scenario where coaches who bail for better positions at a new school could theoretically promise to bring their star players along with them? I could definitely see that being a thing on the mens' basketball side of things.
Unless the NCAA adds a rule forcing players to play more than a season, the best players will bolt for the NBA anyway.
The NCAA doesn't make those rules. As much as I am sure they'd love indentured servitude, it's the pro leagues that determine when athletes can declare for the draft.
Unless the NCAA adds a rule forcing players to play more than a season, the best players will bolt for the NBA anyway.
The NCAA doesn't make those rules. As much as I am sure they'd love indentured servitude, it's the pro leagues that determine when athletes can declare for the draft.
And the NBA has ditched the rule preventing players from declaring out of high school.
Unless the NCAA adds a rule forcing players to play more than a season, the best players will bolt for the NBA anyway.
The NCAA doesn't make those rules. As much as I am sure they'd love indentured servitude, it's the pro leagues that determine when athletes can declare for the draft.
And the NBA has ditched the rule preventing players from declaring out of high school.
No, but they have allowed the G league to be an option out of high school. NBA still has a 19 year age limit.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
In the end, it doesn't matter who makes the rule, the best players will declare. Some of the rest might follow a coach to a new school, but I would bet most would just stay.
NCAA president Mark Emmert once again sent college sports administrators scrambling over the weekend when he told the New York Times that he will recommend membership approve name, image and likeness legislation for college athletes before July 1. That's also the day NIL laws go into effect in five states setting off possible recruiting disparities and benefits for athletes beyond anything NCAA legislation has proposed.
If this is how NIL is finally implemented, it's become obvious that it won't fully be the NCAA's call. Whatever strategy the NCAA employed, it has waited too long to have anything resembling full control over possibly the biggest rule change in the association's history.
We're watching the NCAA's influence, power and leverage diminish before our eyes. It needs federal help to implement NIL. Whether or not it gets it, states' NIL laws will supersede whatever the NCAA has in place -- at least for a period of time.
In essence, the NCAA is losing its grip on what made it the NCAA: oversight of the collegiate amateurism model.
"That's where we are," one high-ranking source involved in NCAA governance told CBS Sports. "We've not taken care of business. The participants have gotten more litigious. You throw that all together and the only way you get answers is through federally-mandated standards."
Emmert's words are more proof of the NCAA's desperation. With Congress not to due to act anytime soon, the NCAA must do something. It needs at least a limited antitrust exemption from Congress with NIL implementation to keep it from being sued.
That's because any hint of the NCAA limiting athletes' NIL compensation could bring more legal action.
The article doesn't mention the upcoming Supreme Court ruling, which will likely throw further wrenches in. But the reality is that the NCAA waited too long to actually do something, and now their hand is getting forced.
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
I'd guess Emmert's contract extension was to line his golden parachute. Now whether that's because the NCAA wants him to go down with the ship or Emmert is just fleecing them before bailing I dunno
So, there was a hearing in Congress on NIL rights yesterday. The NCAA had a whiff of desperation, as they are wanting Congress to pass a federal NIL law before the first state bills become effective in... (checks calendar)...20 days.
if not ,"broken clock is right", etc, but I'm highly suspicious of this rule, coming from TEXAS!!! Of All places.
It’s easier to understand if you view it as a life preserver thrown to save Texas football
A good portion of the SEC has already passed NIL laws taking effect the start of next month, hence Emmert's groveling in DC a few days ago. This is very much an "oh fuck" move.
if not ,"broken clock is right", etc, but I'm highly suspicious of this rule, coming from TEXAS!!! Of All places.
It’s easier to understand if you view it as a life preserver thrown to save Texas football
A good portion of the SEC has already passed NIL laws taking effect the start of next month, hence Emmert's groveling in DC a few days ago. This is very much an "oh fuck" move.
I remember Emmert being touted as , the next, "Presidential" type future candidate. It is amazing to see Mark squander all that in the last few years.
If there's a catch I'd imagine it's something like Georgia's clause where the school can withhold the vast majority of a players NIL and redistribute it to all athletes at the school.
If there's a catch I'd imagine it's something like Georgia's clause where the school can withhold the vast majority of a players NIL and redistribute it to all athletes at the school.
While not an outright death blow to the NCAA, the ruling makes it clear that the NCAA's restrictions on compensation not only have no legal support, but would not withstand any sort of legal scrutiny.
While not an outright death blow to the NCAA, the ruling makes it clear that the NCAA's restrictions on compensation not only have no legal support, but would not withstand any sort of legal scrutiny.
Mark Emmert is having a bad day today.
The court did uphold the NCAA's right to put regulations on what aligned schools can and can't do, so there is still a certain level of negotiation which can happen. But, as pointed out everywhere online, it does open up the door for other, competing entities to emerge and offer terms far more friendly towards athletes operating at the collegiate level.
Which is the far more interesting portion of the opinion.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
While not an outright death blow to the NCAA, the ruling makes it clear that the NCAA's restrictions on compensation not only have no legal support, but would not withstand any sort of legal scrutiny.
Mark Emmert is having a bad day today.
The court did uphold the NCAA's right to put regulations on what aligned schools can and can't do, so there is still a certain level of negotiation which can happen. But, as pointed out everywhere online, it does open up the door for other, competing entities to emerge and offer terms far more friendly towards athletes operating at the collegiate level.
Which is the far more interesting portion of the opinion.
Also, several of the justices signaled that the courts would be receptive to a direct attack on the NCAA's compensation rules. I mean, you had Kavanaugh point out how much hot gooseshit the NCAA's appeals to amateurism were. This decision is a blinking neon sign - the NCAA needs to start planning for compensation, or the courts will do it for them.
While not an outright death blow to the NCAA, the ruling makes it clear that the NCAA's restrictions on compensation not only have no legal support, but would not withstand any sort of legal scrutiny.
Mark Emmert is having a bad day today.
The court did uphold the NCAA's right to put regulations on what aligned schools can and can't do, so there is still a certain level of negotiation which can happen. But, as pointed out everywhere online, it does open up the door for other, competing entities to emerge and offer terms far more friendly towards athletes operating at the collegiate level.
Which is the far more interesting portion of the opinion.
Also, several of the justices signaled that the courts would be receptive to a direct attack on the NCAA's compensation rules. I mean, you had Kavanaugh point out how much hot gooseshit the NCAA's appeals to amateurism were. This decision is a blinking neon sign - the NCAA needs to start planning for compensation, or the courts will do it for them.
In a follow-up, this WaPo opinion points out another way the ruling has broken the NCAA's foundation - since 1984, the organization has clung to a side note made by Stevens in Board of Regents extolling the virtues of amateurism as being the Court giving their blessing to the NCAA.
The ruling and concurrence in Alston makes it very clear that this is not the case.
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Brett plausible-sports-gambling-addict-among-other-things Kavanaugh writing the first draft of the NCAA's epitaph? Imagine an institution that is so bad that all 9 judges of this Supreme Court agree that its horseshit.
The ncaa's problem was that they didn't bribe the right people. If they had only gotten Tucker Carlson to declare that LIEberals hate amateur sports they could have at least gotten Alito on their side.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
The ncaa's problem was that they didn't bribe the right people. If they had only gotten Tucker Carlson to declare that LIEberals hate amateur sports they could have at least gotten Alito on their side.
A keg of PBR might be enough to swing Kavanaugh the other way.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
The ncaa's problem was that they didn't bribe the right people. If they had only gotten Tucker Carlson to declare that LIEberals hate amateur sports they could have at least gotten Alito on their side.
A keg of PBR might be enough to swing Kavanaugh the other way.
No, this is a case where he's coming to this as someone who has been involved in youth sports as a coach and as such has likely heard and seen the ridiculousness of the NCAA. For once, he's on the right of things, and I suspect that this is personal for either him or his clerks (who, remember, are not that far off from their own time dealing with the NCAA if they competed as undergrads.)
Posts
Edit: nevermind, it isn't insiders, but instead settled policy, the NHL players will be able to participate in 2022 and 2026
How soon before we find out if SCOTUS will shit on the NCAA from a great height?
Did someone flush on an open mic again
One one hand, this is a massive improvement for college athletes.
On the other hand, this is still gooseshit. It is ridiculous that only Division I marquee sport athletes are forced to sit out a season and there is no educational justification for it. The standard that should be used to judge this is "would we consider this acceptable for any other student?", to which the answer is "no fucking way".
I don't see this rule ever making any sense.
The mess with exceptions is what led them to do this, where they're just saying "the first one's free".
Rule basically was to let totalitarian coaches fuck over players who were backups.
More importantly, to fuck over players who became backups because Ol' Ball Coach replaced them with the new hotness because that's how they remain dominant.
Nah. Some guys are just lifetime backups at big schools. It's not just starters who became backups because a more talented freshman came in, but just...guys who are backups. But often thrive when allowed to transfer. Burrow is an example there.
At the same time, we've seen guys like Nick Saban get upset when the players he replaces look to transfer because they actually want to get the playtime needed to get looks from scouts.
So it's both.
The NCAA doesn't make those rules. As much as I am sure they'd love indentured servitude, it's the pro leagues that determine when athletes can declare for the draft.
And the NBA has ditched the rule preventing players from declaring out of high school.
No, but they have allowed the G league to be an option out of high school. NBA still has a 19 year age limit.
The article doesn't mention the upcoming Supreme Court ruling, which will likely throw further wrenches in. But the reality is that the NCAA waited too long to actually do something, and now their hand is getting forced.
Good luck with that, Mark.
From Abbott? Got to be catch.
if not ,"broken clock is right", etc, but I'm highly suspicious of this rule, coming from TEXAS!!! Of All places.
It’s easier to understand if you view it as a life preserver thrown to save Texas football
A good portion of the SEC has already passed NIL laws taking effect the start of next month, hence Emmert's groveling in DC a few days ago. This is very much an "oh fuck" move.
I remember Emmert being touted as , the next, "Presidential" type future candidate. It is amazing to see Mark squander all that in the last few years.
I doubt that will survive the courts.
While not an outright death blow to the NCAA, the ruling makes it clear that the NCAA's restrictions on compensation not only have no legal support, but would not withstand any sort of legal scrutiny.
Mark Emmert is having a bad day today.
The court did uphold the NCAA's right to put regulations on what aligned schools can and can't do, so there is still a certain level of negotiation which can happen. But, as pointed out everywhere online, it does open up the door for other, competing entities to emerge and offer terms far more friendly towards athletes operating at the collegiate level.
Which is the far more interesting portion of the opinion.
Also, several of the justices signaled that the courts would be receptive to a direct attack on the NCAA's compensation rules. I mean, you had Kavanaugh point out how much hot gooseshit the NCAA's appeals to amateurism were. This decision is a blinking neon sign - the NCAA needs to start planning for compensation, or the courts will do it for them.
The author is a random tweeter, the images are taken from Kavanaugh's concurrence.
In a follow-up, this WaPo opinion points out another way the ruling has broken the NCAA's foundation - since 1984, the organization has clung to a side note made by Stevens in Board of Regents extolling the virtues of amateurism as being the Court giving their blessing to the NCAA.
The ruling and concurrence in Alston makes it very clear that this is not the case.
A keg of PBR might be enough to swing Kavanaugh the other way.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
No, this is a case where he's coming to this as someone who has been involved in youth sports as a coach and as such has likely heard and seen the ridiculousness of the NCAA. For once, he's on the right of things, and I suspect that this is personal for either him or his clerks (who, remember, are not that far off from their own time dealing with the NCAA if they competed as undergrads.)