Court hearing scheduled on 2-time Transfer rule

Donate To GopherHole
short ornery norwegian

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,722
Reaction score
13,451
Points
113
A district court judge is holding a hearing this month on the NCAA rule dealing with athletes who transfer more than once.

from the AP:

College athletes who were denied the chance to play immediately after transferring a second time can return to competition, for now, after a federal judge issued a 14-day temporary restraining order Wednesday against the NCAA.

U.S. District Judge John Preston Bailey in northern West Virginia issued the order against the NCAA from enforcing the transfer rule. A lawsuit filed by West Virginia and six other states alleged the rule's waiver process violated federal antitrust law.

A hearing on the restraining order is scheduled for Dec. 27, Bailey said.

The NCAA didn't immediately indicate whether it would appeal the ruling.

NCAA rules allow underclassmen to transfer once without having to sit out a year. But an additional transfer as an undergraduate generally requires the NCAA to grant a waiver allowing the athlete to compete immediately. Without it, the athlete would have to sit out for a year at the new school.

Last January, the NCAA implemented stricter guidelines for granting those waivers on a case-by-case basis.

The states involved in seeking the restraining order were Colorado, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.

It wasn't immediately clear whether any of the affected players would try to compete during the 14-day window and what ramifications they could face if the NCAA would eventually prevail in the lawsuit.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said in a statement the ruling ''paves the way for student athletes, like RaeQuan Battle, to play in the sport they love and continue improving themselves.''

''We are looking forward to proving definitively that the NCAA has violated the Sherman Act by failing to maintain a consistent and defensible transfer rule and by denying these student athletes the chance to play," Morrisey said.

The lawsuit alleged requiring athletes to sit can mean lost potential earnings from endorsement deals with their name, image and likeness (NIL) 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.''
 


This is not a ruling that says the ncaa can’t restrict transfers. It is a ruling that says they can’t restrict transfers with the model they’re currently using
 

Can still make them sit for a year if they don’t lose any money, just delays money.
 

Some guy said:
This is not a ruling that says the ncaa can’t restrict transfers. It is a ruling that says they can’t restrict transfers with the model they’re currently using
Click to expand...
Correct. The key statement is:

We are looking forward to proving definitively that the NCAA has violated the Sherman Act by failing to maintain a consistent and defensible transfer rule and by denying these student athletes the chance to play," Morrisey said.
 


disco said:
Correct. The key statement is:

We are looking forward to proving definitively that the NCAA has violated the Sherman Act by failing to maintain a consistent and defensible transfer rule and by denying these student athletes the chance to play," Morrisey said.
Click to expand...
Yes. My point more being a bunch of geniuses will claim this means the ncaa can’t stop transfers
 

as I read it - this is an antitrust case and is going after the NCAA waiver process.

the complaint seems to be that some athletes who transfer for a 2nd time are granted waivers, while others are not granted waivers, and this represents a violation of the Sherman anti-trust Act.

without going into length, the Sherman Act is supposed to prevent monopolies or other forms of anti-competitive business practices.

where I'm not clear - from what I've read, I can't tell if the plaintiffs want to eliminate the waiver process or want to see it changed in some fashion. the question then is what type of changes would have to be made to make the waiver process compliant under the Sherman Act.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
as I read it - this is an antitrust case and is going after the NCAA waiver process.

the complaint seems to be that some athletes who transfer for a 2nd time are granted waivers, while others are not granted waivers, and this represents a violation of the Sherman anti-trust Act.

without going into length, the Sherman Act is supposed to prevent monopolies or other forms of anti-competitive business practices.

where I'm not clear - from what I've read, I can't tell if the plaintiffs want to eliminate the waiver process or want to see it changed in some fashion. the question then is what type of changes would have to be made to make the waiver process compliant under the Sherman Act.
Click to expand...
The way I read it any of the following work because they need an objective, not subjective waiver process
1) no waivers
2) no waivers needed because everyone is eligible
3) a specific checklist of what is needed for a waiver that is objective not subjective. If you meet the checklist, you’re eligible. No waiver reciew team or anything



The Florida state case about the committee should seek out this same judge
 

Clearly, they need to abolish all waivers. One ‘free’ transfer per athlete, all others require the one year sit. Kibosh the grad transfer immediate play too as they can still have the free transfer if haven’t already used theirs. This will cut down on the 6+ year players, and allow more athletes the chance to play.
 



One transfer yes. Two no, not without sitting out a year. You shouldn't be able to just go do whatever when you have scholarships and commitments in the school. It has to work both ways.
 



WAGopher said:
Clearly, they need to abolish all waivers. One ‘free’ transfer per athlete, all others require the one year sit. Kibosh the grad transfer immediate play too as they can still have the free transfer if haven’t already used theirs. This will cut down on the 6+ year players, and allow more athletes the chance to play.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't making 2nd transfers sit a year increase the number of 6+ year players, i.e without sitting they would be gone after 5?
 



GopherTheJugular said:
Wouldn't making 2nd transfers sit a year increase the number of 6+ year players, i.e without sitting they would be gone after 5?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that is a separate issue that is entirely to do with Covid

Players still have 5 years to play 4 seasons. It doesn’t count as one of your 4 if you play 4 games or fewer.

The only way to get a 6th year is medical redshirt.




The reason there are so many right now is because 2020 didn’t count for anyone’s 4 or for anyone’s 5
 

WAGopher said:
Clearly, they need to abolish all waivers. One ‘free’ transfer per athlete, all others require the one year sit. Kibosh the grad transfer immediate play too as they can still have the free transfer if haven’t already used theirs. This will cut down on the 6+ year players, and allow more athletes the chance to play.
Click to expand...
I like this option.

Mind you, the waiver language only ever had good intentions. Granting a waiver to an athlete because of military service, religious service, pregnancy, etc. All seem fair. All it takes is one person to ruin things.


If they do go this route, could have implications for BYU athletes.

As I understand the Mormon process: you enroll there first, do a redshirt year, then leave for two years on a mission trip, then come back to do your normal four years.
 


as I read it, the issue is with the subjective nature of the waiver process. Player A gets a waiver - Player B does not get a waiver.

so IMHO, the issue comes down to having a transfer policy that will stand up to a court challenge.

if it's one free transfer and you sit out a year after that, then that has to be an iron-clad policy for everyone with no exceptions.

if it's free transfers for everyone all the time, then that has to be the iron-clad policy for everyone with no exceptions.

------ but, I suspect that any transfer restrictions will be met with a court challenge. there is clearly a group of lawyers who want the players to have total freedom in terms of transfers, NIL opportunities, etc. And Justice "I like Beer" Kavanaugh has made it fairly clear that he is not a fan of the NCAA.
 

disco said:
Correct. The key statement is:

We are looking forward to proving definitively that the NCAA has violated the Sherman Act by failing to maintain a consistent and defensible transfer rule and by denying these student athletes the chance to play," Morrisey said.
Click to expand...
The court has insulted the NCAA's Wheel of Random Decisions.
 


MplsGopher said:
I like this option.

Mind you, the waiver language only ever had good intentions. Granting a waiver to an athlete because of military service, religious service, pregnancy, etc. All seem fair. All it takes is one person to ruin things.


If they do go this route, could have implications for BYU athletes.

As I understand the Mormon process: you enroll there first, do a redshirt year, then leave for two years on a mission trip, then come back to do your normal four years.
Click to expand...
I was only thinking about transfer waivers. Of course, the other medical and service waivers are needed.
 

As far as restricting Transfers, even for those that took advantage of 1 freebie, I have big problem with not allowing those whose Head Coach has moved on to another school or got canned to compete right away.
 

Sadly there is never a shortage of lawyers. I hear there’s a crying room somewhere.

Good luck.
 

Ope3 said:
As far as restricting Transfers, even for those that took advantage of 1 freebie, I have big problem with not allowing those whose Head Coach has moved on to another school or got canned to compete right away.
Click to expand...
Nothing will be perfect. However, the athlete should be choosing the school, as well as the coach. Unlimited free transfers combined with the open NIL money will create more chaos and hurt more high school players. It will become the norm that a vast majority of players will have attended multiple schools. I’m not a ‘fan’ of that possibility.
 


Ope3 said:
As far as restricting Transfers, even for those that took advantage of 1 freebie, I have big problem with not allowing those whose Head Coach has moved on to another school or got canned to compete right away.
Click to expand...
I don’t.
playing sportsball is not a right. I think the any league has a right to set standards for participation for competitiveness and balance.
It’s just a matter of those violate the us constitution or labor laws
 

WAGopher said:
Nothing will be perfect. However, the athlete should be choosing the school, as well as the coach. Unlimited free transfers combined with the open NIL money will create more chaos and hurt more high school players. It will become the norm that a vast majority of players will have attended multiple schools. I’m not a ‘fan’ of that possibility.
Click to expand...

More chaos sure, and I'm not a fan of that either. The restrictions however seem to be to be a clear "restraint of trade violation".

The NCAA member institutions have stated that the players are "Student-Athletes" not "Employees", thus without a Labor Agreement I don't see how it stands in court.
 

Some guy said:
I don’t.
playing sportsball is not a right. I think the any league has a right to set standards for participation for competitiveness and balance.
It’s just a matter of those violate the us constitution or labor laws
Click to expand...
I presume Antitrust laws are also being scrutinized.
 


Ope3 said:
More chaos sure, and I'm not a fan of that either. The restrictions however seem to be to be a clear "restraint of trade violation".

The NCAA member institutions have stated that the players are "Student-Athletes" not "Employees", thus without a Labor Agreement I don't see how it stands in court.
Click to expand...

If eligibility rules cannot be enforced as a restraint of trade then the 5 to play 4 rule doesn’t make sense either. Year round open portal? We could have 35 year old players working on their fourth bachelor’s degree like a Starbucks barista.

The argument should be: does the transfer rule or rules make sense in terms of promoting the game, promoting competition, and maybe counterintuitively helping the player from making shortsighted decisions that affect post-football life. The churn creates excitement in fan bases though. Like the NFL draft. Every player a future star.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
If eligibility rules cannot be enforced as a restraint of trade then the 5 to play 4 rule doesn’t make sense either. Year round open portal? We could have 35 year old players working on their fourth bachelor’s degree like a Starbucks barista.

The argument should be: does the transfer rule or rules make sense in terms of promoting the game, promoting competition, and maybe counterintuitively helping the player from making shortsighted decisions that affect post-football life. The churn creates excitement in fan bases though. Like the NFL draft. Every player a future star.
Click to expand...
Yup. The courts could end college sports if they want to.
Then the only limitation would be collective bargaining
 

WAGopher said:
It will become the norm that a vast majority of players will have attended multiple schools. I’m not a ‘fan’ of that possibility.
Click to expand...
I kind of feel like we have already reached this point. Turn on any game and pay attention to the number of times the announcers mention where a kid transferred in from in a college football or basketball game.

There may be a number of guys on the roster that never transferred but more and more the key players on teams are coming from somewhere else and did not start their career at that school.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom