Airing of Grievances: NIL/Portal

[XUGRAD80]

I am learning a lot from these posts guys. Thanks.

What was so awful about having transfer rules in NCAA sports?
Are there not eligibilty rules the NCAA can stand by?

Are there a number of hours an athlete can practice and still collect a full paycheck?
Is everything determined by the NIL free market?

I read somewhere Val and the BE are barking because of this payout or something to the football schools.

Anyone care to shed some light on that for me?

Basically it comes down to this…….

All of this NIL stuff started because the NCAA was using the name, image, and likeness of FOOTBALL players to generate money for the organization. Some players and former players didn’t like that they weren’t getting a cut of that money and sued the NCAA. The courts agreed that they should be getting a cut. Now some former players have sued saying that they are owed money for the years that the NCAA was collecting money off of their N-I-L. The NCAA knows that they are going to lose that lawsuit too and has agreed to an out of court settlement that goes over a billion dollars. The NCAA doesn’t have that much money and wants its member schools to make up the difference. ALL of its member schools, not just the schools in the power football conferences. However the D2, D3, lower level D1 schools, and non-football schools are all crying foul. They believe they are being asked to pay proportionally more than the real football powers that really caused the problems and benefited most from the old system. They don’t see how that is fair. (Neither do I)

I predict that those entities will end up suing the NCAA too, in an effort to get their share of the settlement payout to be eliminated or at least reduced. I also predict that they will be ultimately successful and that the NCAA will eventually declare bankruptcy.

[muskiefan82]

I predict that those entities will end up suing the NCAA too, in an effort to get their share of the settlement payout to be eliminated or at least reduced. I also predict that they will be ultimately successful and that the NCAA will eventually declare bankruptcy.

I think I might be okay if that happened

[xukeith]

I think I might be okay if that happened

So if NCAA declares bankruptcy then what are the pros vs cons of that bankruptcy happening?


Then what might be a likely scenario?

[xubrew]

I am learning a lot from these posts guys. Thanks.

What was so awful about having transfer rules in NCAA sports?
Are there not eligibilty rules the NCAA can stand by?

Are there a number of hours an athlete can practice and still collect a full paycheck?
Is everything determined by the NIL free market?

I read somewhere Val and the BE are barking because of this payout or something to the football schools.

Anyone care to shed some light on that for me?

I'll try and keep this concise...

So up until 2015 all student-athletes in all three divisions basically signed a document as part of their eligibility that they could not profit from their name, image, and likeness while being a student athlete, and that the NCAA had the rights to that "in perpetuity." Then we started coming out with these video games, and then we had the O'Bannon Case. To me, that's when the first cracks in the dam were made. He sued, the courts ruled in his favor (as I think they should have), and that's what created the first legal precedence of the NCAA not being able to control someone else's NIL. But...they initially continued to do so anyway, and this of course created more litigation, and we've had constant litigation ever since, and the NCAA has seemingly come out on the losing end every single time.

When you ask what was so "awful" about having transfer rules in NCAA sports? I'm not sure what context you're talking about. I personally didn't think the rules were all that awful in and of themselves, but I absolutely think it worked against the NCAA when it came to litigation. They tried to claim that these weren't employees, but "student-athletes." And the ultimate rebuttal to this was "Well, if that's the case, then what other students are prevented from transferring freely? You' say they're students, yet you deny them the rights that other students have!" The NCAA had no answer, and I guess listened to their lawyers, and have been walking back the transfer rules ever since (there are other reasons as well, but this is perhaps the biggest one) to the point to where now there really aren't any rules anymore.

Are there eligiblity rules that the NCAA can stand by?? I really don't know. That is a GREAT question! Could the current eligibility rules be in violation of antitrust laws? If a player is declared to be ineligible and can't "work" because of it, and sues because they themselves were never represented when it came to negotiating these rules, then what would the courts say?? I hope the NCAA is asking themselves this question!! But, I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt that they are. They are far more reactive than proactive, and sometimes they're even far too slow to be reactive in time.

Is everything determined by the NIL free market or the free market in general? As I understand the basics of antitrust law, that is the law. It has to be. Any sort of limits or caps must be collectively bargained, and the players (or someone representing their interests) must be involved. This has never happened. And, from a legal standpoint, that's why the NCAA is now having to pay out close to $2.8 billion in damages.

[xubrew]

I'm not smart enough to know how to paste this image, but I do distinctly remember one of the NCAA's most ridiculous moments in the courtroom. They were basically trying to argue that this was not Tim Tebow, and that they were not using his name, image, or likeness for the video game. It wasn't this EXACT image, but the image that was being used looked even more like him than this one did.

I mean....


https://www.playstationlifestyle.net...0/04/TEBOW.jpg

[paulxu]

[xubrew]

thank you!

[MHettel]

I'll try and keep this concise...

They tried to claim that these weren't employees, but "student-athletes." And the ultimate rebuttal to this was "Well, if that's the case, then what other students are prevented from transferring freely? You' say they're students, yet you deny them the rights that other students have!"

This is the asinine part. They never said that a Student Athlete couldn't transfer freely, like a "regular" student. They could transfer if they wanted, but would have to sit out a year. "Regular students" that dont play sports would also not be playing a sport the year after transferring.

I dont know why they couldnt peel this apart. 1) All student can transfer, period. Whether you are a "regular" student or a "student athlete." 2) for student athletes, if you transfer you sit out a year. IT IS IRRELEVANT for "regular student."

You arent actually treating them differently. To the extent that they are the "same" (both are students), they receive the same treatment (ability to transfer). To the extent they are different (one student is an athlete and the other is not) there are additional conditional requirements.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

[D-West & PO-Z]

This is the asinine part. They never said that a Student Athlete couldn't transfer freely, like a "regular" student. They could transfer if they wanted, but would have to sit out a year. "Regular students" that dont play sports would also not be playing a sport the year after transferring.

I dont know why they couldnt peel this apart. 1) All student can transfer, period. Whether you are a "regular" student or a "student athlete." 2) for student athletes, if you transfer you sit out a year. IT IS IRRELEVANT for "regular student."

You arent actually treating them differently. To the extent that they are the "same" (both are students), they receive the same treatment (ability to transfer). To the extent they are different (one student is an athlete and the other is not) there are additional conditional requirements.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

Yeah except it didn't apply to all athletes in all college sports. Most D1 athletes were allowed to transfer without having to sit a year. It was only mens and womens basketball, football, baseball, and men's ice hockey which the rule applied to.

Now why would that be?

[blueblood]

You arent actually treating them differently. To the extent that they are the "same" (both are students), they receive the same treatment (ability to transfer). To the extent they are different (one student is an athlete and the other is not) there are additional conditional requirements.

It doesnt make any sense to me.

Different athletes were treated differently. Until recently I thought the one year of sitting out only applied to "major sports" (i.e. basketball and football) athletes and that "minor sports" athletes were eligible to transfer and play right away without sitting out.

Of course the reason for that is one set of athletes had significant economic value to the university and NCAA . . . and the other athletes they didn't care because the economic value was insignificant.