[martyup]

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.

[martyup]

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.