[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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