WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina State 81 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina State 81 (/thread-25395.html)

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina State 81 - Spiny_Norman - 01-14-2025

(01-13-2025, 09:22 PM)martyup Wrote:  

(01-13-2025, 05:47 AM)Jskass Wrote:  Yes no wait transfers just compound NIL distortions. I think of those as a double whammy and then compounded temporarily by Covid year. But they need to either reinstate one year wait or modify NiL such as having a waiting period to get the money.

One example of how the NIL issue is destroying college athletics is how USC bought Kiki for $800K.  Another example is how Canady was purchased by TXA&M for $1 million.  There are thousands of other examples of this "pay to play" activity going on.  

Today I was thinking about how the NCAA can come up with rules that won't violate the court's ruling on NIL but will prevent athletes from being poached away from the team to which they committed.  Certainly bringing back the one year sit out rule for transfers would be a good start.  Another potential rule could focus on separating the right to receive NIL payments and eligibility to play.  Making an athlete ineligible to participate in their sport(s) does not deprive them of the ability to receive NIL payments directly from those individuals or entities that want to purchase and use the athlete's name, image, and/or likeness.  Certainly impeding their ability to compete would lower their potential earnings when those NIL payments are in reality "pay to play."  I have not studied the Alston ruling, so perhaps another member that is familiar with that court decision could help in fleshing out this idea.

Marty, I don't think any of your suggestions would survive a court challenge. Every restriction that the NCAA has placed or tried to place on transfer eligibility and NIL payments has been challenged and knocked down by the courts. The NCAA's court record is a perfect 0-fer. Absent an anti-trust exemption from Congress that would allow it to collectively bargain these types of terms with the athletes, I think the NCAA is powerless to limit transfers or NIL payments.

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina State 81 - BostonCard - 01-14-2025

(01-14-2025, 03:46 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:  Marty, I don't think any of your suggestions would survive a court challenge. Every restriction that the NCAA has placed or tried to place on transfer eligibility and NIL payments has been challenged and knocked down by the courts. The NCAA's court record is a perfect 0-fer. Absent an anti-trust exemption from Congress that would allow it to collectively bargain these types of terms with the athletes, I think the NCAA is powerless to limit transfers or NIL payments.

I agree that if the steps that Marty mentions are taken with the goal of reducing bidding for successful student athletes or to reduce their opportunities, they can (and probably should) be struck down.  However, I think that if the NCAA did its homework and took steps with the explicit aim of improving educational outcomes that it might succeed a bit better in court.  For example, if it determined that transferring students who sit out a year graduate at a higher rate than students who transfer and play immediately (or have better mental health outcomes, or otherwise do better), it might have more of a case.  Of course, the NCAA to date has displayed a wanton disregard for athlete well-being so it would still might be an uphill climb (and, of course, it is possible that transferring and playing immediately is no worse than having to sit out a year).

BC

---

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 North Carolina State 81 - BobK - 01-14-2025

The NCAA wanted to change back to the sit out a year but had to back off

---