Free Agent Collegiate Athlete Questions

[SLUMS81]

If the legal system plays out in favor of an unlimited ability of athletes to transfer, will the rate limiting step be the maximum number of players allowed on a give team for a given sport?

Will athletes sign contracts with ‘no cut’ clauses?  If so, with a cap on the number of players per team,  schools may not be able to create space for free agents to transfer (particularly in mid season).    I can imagine a scenario where schools will sue the NCAA to allow a waiver on the number of players on board.
    More business opportunities for agents and attorneys.

[Basketbill]

10 hours ago, SLUMS81 said:

If the legal system plays out in favor of an unlimited ability of athletes to transfer, will the rate limiting step be the maximum number of players allowed on a give team for a given sport?

Will athletes sign contracts with ‘no cut’ clauses?  If so, with a cap on the number of players per team,  schools may not be able to create space for free agents to transfer (particularly in mid season).    I can imagine a scenario where schools will sue the NCAA to allow a waiver on the number of players on board.
    More business opportunities for agents and attorneys.

I do not think the law will say “unlimited” ability to transfer.  Not sure what will happen, the ridiculous part is the inability of the NCAA to be timely.   Did they not see this coming ?  They made the rules, they have a responsibility, and they are failing.

[Lord Elrond]

14 hours ago, SLUMS81 said:

If the legal system plays out in favor of an unlimited ability of athletes to transfer, will the rate limiting step be the maximum number of players allowed on a give team for a given sport?

Will athletes sign contracts with ‘no cut’ clauses?  If so, with a cap on the number of players per team,  schools may not be able to create space for free agents to transfer (particularly in mid season).    I can imagine a scenario where schools will sue the NCAA to allow a waiver on the number of players on board.
    More business opportunities for agents and attorneys.

The cap is on scholarships. If someone is being paid enough that they can pay for school out of what they get in NIL, they can be a walk-on. That has been brought up several times on this board as a way for schools with tons of money to just stockpile a team of 20-25 great players potentially.

The problem with that logic is that playing in college is NOT the major goal of any great player.  The goal is to advance to play professionally, either in the NBA or in an overseas professional league. Every player has a limited period of time to show what they can do, and they don’t get where they want by sitting on the bench, they need to get in games and impress higher leagues with their ability to perform in games. I’ve never thought that a team would ever be able to just stockpile players with money. However much a team may want that and if they don’t care about a budget they can afford it, it just conflicts too much with the goals and ambitions of the players to be a realistic thing that anyone needs to worry much about.

[kshoe]

5 hours ago, Basketbill said:

I do not think the law will say “unlimited” ability to transfer.  Not sure what will happen, the ridiculous part is the inability of the NCAA to be timely.   Did they not see this coming ?  They made the rules, they have a responsibility, and they are failing.

I know everyone wants to pick on the NCAA and they are an easy target, but for about a 100 years they made rules (don't pay players, sit out for a year when transferring, academic qualifications to play, 4 years of eligibility) and everyone had to follow them or risk punishment if caught not following them. They have relaxed those rules over the past two decades but when they still try to set or enforce rules (no two time transfers) they get chewed up by the courts. It was well known going into this year that two time transfers were not going to be allowed unless in extreme circumstances. It's the legal system and congress that has basically said: you aren't allowed to make or enforce any of the rules. Absent congressional action to re-establish the NCAA as a proper rule making authority college sports will forever be changed...and not for the better. 

[Soderball]

12 minutes ago, kshoe said:

I know everyone wants to pick on the NCAA and they are an easy target, but for about a 100 years they made rules (don't pay players, sit out for a year when transferring, academic qualifications to play, 4 years of eligibility) and everyone had to follow them or risk punishment if caught not following them. They have relaxed those rules over the past two decades but when they still try to set or enforce rules (no two time transfers) they get chewed up by the courts. It was well known going into this year that two time transfers were not going to be allowed unless in extreme circumstances. It's the legal system and congress that has basically said: you aren't allowed to make or enforce any of the rules. Absent congressional action to re-establish the NCAA as a proper rule making authority college sports will forever be changed...and not for the better. 

The courts being all up in it is probably why "college sports" is ultimately going to fall apart. I think the blaming the NCAA for stuff like this is out of control.

Here's what to blame the NCAA for: coaches and administrators making millions while athletes are cut out of it entirely.

 

People really think year-to-year free agency and mercenary play is good? Insanity. Even the NBA doesn't move guys around like "college" basketball does anymore. However we still live in this world and need to acknowledge where things are headed. It is really wild that politicians are making the decisions for this stuff now. Is nothing going to remain nonpolitical?

 

edit: also we are in a situation after COVID where some players have been around for 7 freaking years and still have eligibility left. I'm sorry guys, I'm off that bandwagon. It's stupid. It's harmful to current high school athletes. It's harmful to the game. This is just pure minor league sports. NBA with less talent.

[Pistol]

The NCAA made its own bed. They benefited from a grossly unjust model for over a century. Now the money has grown exponentially in a relatively short amount of time and they can't withstand the pressure from every side. They had every chance - again, for a century - to get out in front of their current problems before they got here. They didn't. They were too greedy.

People can blame congress and make hacky remarks about government all they want but congress doesn't operate in a vacuum, either. They would've left the NCAA alone if not for pressure from constituents who care more about their college football programs more than anything else congress does.

What we're experiencing right now is a market correction. Corrections are uncomfortable. There will be casualties that will include many of the things that make us love college sports in the first place. It didn't have to be this way.

[Lord Elrond]

37 minutes ago, Pistol said:

The NCAA made its own bed. They benefited from a grossly unjust model for over a century. Now the money has grown exponentially in a relatively short amount of time and they can't withstand the pressure from every side. They had every chance - again, for a century - to get out in front of their current problems before they got here. They didn't. They were too greedy.

People can blame congress and make hacky remarks about government all they want but congress doesn't operate in a vacuum, either. They would've left the NCAA alone if not for pressure from constituents who care more about their college football programs more than anything else congress does.

What we're experiencing right now is a market correction. Corrections are uncomfortable. There will be casualties that will include many of the things that make us love college sports in the first place. It didn't have to be this way.

At the same time that the college sports model was developing in the US for football (and everything else coming along for the ride), in Europe for Soccer a completely different model developed, the transfer market. I’m curious to see if something like that develops in American sports in general as a result of this. 

[cgeldmacher]

49 minutes ago, Pistol said:

The NCAA made its own bed. They benefited from a grossly unjust model for over a century. Now the money has grown exponentially in a relatively short amount of time and they can't withstand the pressure from every side. They had every chance - again, for a century - to get out in front of their current problems before they got here. They didn't. They were too greedy.

People can blame congress and make hacky remarks about government all they want but congress doesn't operate in a vacuum, either. They would've left the NCAA alone if not for pressure from constituents who care more about their college football programs more than anything else congress does.

What we're experiencing right now is a market correction. Corrections are uncomfortable. There will be casualties that will include many of the things that make us love college sports in the first place. It didn't have to be this way.

I am responding to your post about this, even though its a bit off topic, because I know that you were one who advocated for college athletes to have free transfer rules (if I'm wrong let me know).  I'm not trying to pick on you, but I do value your opinion.  So here goes.

The argument seems to be that student athletes should be allowed to transfer at will because they have the same freedoms as everyone else.  No one is required to stay at a job, if they would prefer to take another one.  Why should student athletes be required to stay at a university for any number of years and why should they have their freedom to make decisions for themselves hindered in any why by the NCAA?  There is certainly a lot of sense behind this.  If they are performing a job, which many argue they are, then they should be able to change jobs whenever they want.

If this is true, and courts agree and say that it is true, then there should not be any restriction on transfers at all.  College athletes should not be told you have to stay at a university for three years, two years, one year, one semester, five games, or even two games.  If the logic behind this concept is solid and the courts agree, then the rule should be they can literally transfer whenever they want.  A student athlete should be able to play a game on Thursday night, transfer the next morning, and then play a game for another university on Friday night.  Then, that same person should, if the logic follows, be able to transfer to another university on Saturday morning and suit up for a game on Saturday night.

The logic of the argument that is leading to all of this has zero to do with academics.  If academics were taken into account, then students should be expected to attend a school for four years and get a degree, all the while playing for that school's sports team, just like the old days.  There should not be any argument here about being in school or finishing semesters or school years, as those are related to the education and have nothing to do with the athlete playing for a team or being an employee.  The arguments that are winning in the courts over this don't have anything to do with academics, so academic schedules, shouldn't be considered.

So, here's my question, if the courts think that student athletes should have freedom to transfer independent of the traditional academic calendars and the NCAA's restrictive rules that have been in effect for 100 years, then where is the line?  It would seem that if the courts say that an athlete can transfer at the end of each season, then the court is inserting an arbitrary restriction on the athlete no different than the NCAA.  Would it be a shorter time frame than the NCAA's prior rules?  Yes, but it is still an arbitrary restriction.  Why would the athlete be required to stay for an entire season if the goal is enforcing their freedoms and rights?

[Soderball]

48 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I am responding to your post about this, even though its a bit off topic, because I know that you were one who advocated for college athletes to have free transfer rules (if I'm wrong let me know).  I'm not trying to pick on you, but I do value your opinion.  So here goes.

The argument seems to be that student athletes should be allowed to transfer at will because they have the same freedoms as everyone else.  No one is required to stay at a job, if they would prefer to take another one.  Why should student athletes be required to stay at a university for any number of years and why should they have their freedom to make decisions for themselves hindered in any why by the NCAA?  There is certainly a lot of sense behind this.  If they are performing a job, which many argue they are, then they should be able to change jobs whenever they want.

If this is true, and courts agree and say that it is true, then there should not be any restriction on transfers at all.  College athletes should not be told you have to stay at a university for three years, two years, one year, one semester, five games, or even two games.  If the logic behind this concept is solid and the courts agree, then the rule should be they can literally transfer whenever they want.  A student athlete should be able to play a game on Thursday night, transfer the next morning, and then play a game for another university on Friday night.  Then, that same person should, if the logic follows, be able to transfer to another university on Saturday morning and suit up for a game on Saturday night.

The logic of the argument that is leading to all of this has zero to do with academics.  If academics were taken into account, then students should be expected to attend a school for four years and get a degree, all the while playing for that school's sports team, just like the old days.  There should not be any argument here about being in school or finishing semesters or school years, as those are related to the education and have nothing to do with the athlete playing for a team or being an employee.  The arguments that are winning in the courts over this don't have anything to do with academics, so academic schedules, shouldn't be considered.

So, here's my question, if the courts think that student athletes should have freedom to transfer independent of the traditional academic calendars and the NCAA's restrictive rules that have been in effect for 100 years, then where is the line?  It would seem that if the courts say that an athlete can transfer at the end of each season, then the court is inserting an arbitrary restriction on the athlete no different than the NCAA.  Would it be a shorter time frame than the NCAA's prior rules?  Yes, but it is still an arbitrary restriction.  Why would the athlete be required to stay for an entire season if the goal is enforcing their freedoms and rights?

When we have players around for seven years that further throws the academics out the window. A LOT of high school students have lost out on scholarships because of the insanity of the past several years. They were materially harmed and will never recover from that.

The whole thing is stupid and what the courts are stating is that college athletics as we know it has never existed legally.

 

The actual reality is all money.

And yes, what you are saying is the correct conclusion to where we are headed. The only option is for athletes to be full fledged employees of the university. That means ditching all non-revenue sports and then just having some paid minor league athletes on the university's payroll.

That redefines the relationship and gives the school greater legal authority. I think that's where the subdivision proposal was coming from.

Most schools this is a non-issue because the money is just not there to begin with.

[Pistol]

I'm not advocating for a free-for-all. My point is simply that the NCAA is reaping what it sowed.

In a free market economy, the NCAA had rules in place preventing people from earning their market value. That created a relatively small black market that grew and grew over time until it was obvious to most people that the NCAA's system had no justification behind it. So the market opened and it's chaotic, and it didn't have to be that way because the NCAA could've shaped a fairer system all along and chose not to in order to enrich itself and its member programs. That's the NIL side.

On the transfer side, it's another case of the NCAA being unable to get out of its own way, and It's another case of having rules with no legal or ethical justification behind them. Instead of having a clear system that could actually serve its student-athletes well, it's an opaque case-by-case system that infuriates fans and screws over players.

Zac and I for quite a while now have been advocating for very clear transfer rules:

1. Everyone gets one free transfer at any time for any reason.
2. When a coach leaves, you get a waiver for immediate eligibility at a new school.
3. If your school changes conferences or divisions or shuts down your sport, you you get a waiver for immediate eligibility at a new school.
4. The grad transfer rule stays in place.
5. Waivers may be granted on an individual case basis for extraordinary circumstances, such as personal safety or termination of an academic program.
6. As always, eligibility is subject to meeting admission requirements and ongoing academic standards at your institution.

These guidelines are simple, clear, and would eliminate the free-for-all that is the current transfer market. Players would really have to be thoughtful about their next steps, knowing that they can't move around every year.

[Soderball]

26 minutes ago, Pistol said:

I'm not advocating for a free-for-all. My point is simply that the NCAA is reaping what it sowed.

In a free market economy, the NCAA had rules in place preventing people from earning their market value. That created a relatively small black market that grew and grew over time until it was obvious to most people that the NCAA's system had no justification behind it. So the market opened and it's chaotic, and it didn't have to be that way because the NCAA could've shaped a fairer system all along and chose not to in order to enrich itself and its member programs. That's the NIL side.

On the transfer side, it's another case of the NCAA being unable to get out of its own way, and It's another case of having rules with no legal or ethical justification behind them. Instead of having a clear system that could actually serve its student-athletes well, it's an opaque case-by-case system that infuriates fans and screws over players.

Zac and I for quite a while now have been advocating for very clear transfer rules:

1. Everyone gets one free transfer at any time for any reason.
2. When a coach leaves, you get a waiver for immediate eligibility at a new school.
3. If your school changes conferences or divisions or shuts down your sport, you you get a waiver for immediate eligibility at a new school.
4. The grad transfer rule stays in place.
5. Waivers may be granted on an individual case basis for extraordinary circumstances, such as personal safety or termination of an academic program.
6. As always, eligibility is subject to meeting admission requirements and ongoing academic standards at your institution.

These guidelines are simple, clear, and would eliminate the free-for-all that is the current transfer market. Players would really have to be thoughtful about their next steps, knowing that they can't move around every year.

The issue is; HOW? How are there rules with the way the courts are moving on this matter. The only solution i see is to eliminate "student" from the equation.

Employees have obligations, or they can be fired. It's not so simple with students.

 

I agree with your assessment and i think that would be straightforward and easier; but how do you actually make that happen under the current rulings? They didn't argue the waiver issue; they just issued a blank allowance for everyone to be able to transfer at-will. I agree that in-season transfers are next.

[billikenfan05]

41 minutes ago, Pistol said:

I'm not advocating for a free-for-all. My point is simply that the NCAA is reaping what it sowed.

In a free market economy, the NCAA had rules in place preventing people from earning their market value. That created a relatively small black market that grew and grew over time until it was obvious to most people that the NCAA's system had no justification behind it. So the market opened and it's chaotic, and it didn't have to be that way because the NCAA could've shaped a fairer system all along and chose not to in order to enrich itself and its member programs. That's the NIL side.

On the transfer side, it's another case of the NCAA being unable to get out of its own way, and It's another case of having rules with no legal or ethical justification behind them. Instead of having a clear system that could actually serve its student-athletes well, it's an opaque case-by-case system that infuriates fans and screws over players.

Zac and I for quite a while now have been advocating for very clear transfer rules:

1. Everyone gets one free transfer at any time for any reason.
2. When a coach leaves, you get a waiver for immediate eligibility at a new school.
3. If your school changes conferences or divisions or shuts down your sport, you you get a waiver for immediate eligibility at a new school.
4. The grad transfer rule stays in place.
5. Waivers may be granted on an individual case basis for extraordinary circumstances, such as personal safety or termination of an academic program.
6. As always, eligibility is subject to meeting admission requirements and ongoing academic standards at your institution.

These guidelines are simple, clear, and would eliminate the free-for-all that is the current transfer market. Players would really have to be thoughtful about their next steps, knowing that they can't move around every year.

I have gone back and forth on the consequences of adding that entering the portal closes the door behind you. 

[ACE]

In an ideal world, college football and basketball would be like hockey and baseball... you would have a minor league that high school kids could drafted into. There would still be a path to go the college route, for those who still want to pursue education while developing their athletic skills.

It would give kids more options. Some need money or simply don't want to go to college - so a minor league route would be the way to go. It would also be best for colleges by returning to something closer to the student-athlete concept. College sports would still remain wildly popular as fans will continue to root for the front of the jersey.

And yes, I understand this would require the pro leagues in football and basketball investing in this. I said an ideal world...

[Dr Bird]

2 hours ago, Pistol said:

I'm not advocating for a free-for-all. My point is simply that the NCAA is reaping what it sowed.

In a free market economy, the NCAA had rules in place preventing people from earning their market value. That created a relatively small black market that grew and grew over time until it was obvious to most people that the NCAA's system had no justification behind it. So the market opened and it's chaotic, and it didn't have to be that way because the NCAA could've shaped a fairer system all along and chose not to in order to enrich itself and its member programs. That's the NIL side.

On the transfer side, it's another case of the NCAA being unable to get out of its own way, and It's another case of having rules with no legal or ethical justification behind them. Instead of having a clear system that could actually serve its student-athletes well, it's an opaque case-by-case system that infuriates fans and screws over players.

Zac and I for quite a while now have been advocating for very clear transfer rules:

1. Everyone gets one free transfer at any time for any reason.
2. When a coach leaves, you get a waiver for immediate eligibility at a new school.
3. If your school changes conferences or divisions or shuts down your sport, you you get a waiver for immediate eligibility at a new school.
4. The grad transfer rule stays in place.
5. Waivers may be granted on an individual case basis for extraordinary circumstances, such as personal safety or termination of an academic program.
6. As always, eligibility is subject to meeting admission requirements and ongoing academic standards at your institution.

These guidelines are simple, clear, and would eliminate the free-for-all that is the current transfer market. Players would really have to be thoughtful about their next steps, knowing that they can't move around every year.

on #2, do you mean Head Coach or any coach (a la Forte)?

#5 "personal safety" could get arbitrary but agree there needs to be some outlet for extraordinary circumstances. it's just hard to define.

[Pistol]

3 hours ago, Dr Bird said:

on #2, do you mean Head Coach or any coach (a la Forte)?

#5 "personal safety" could get arbitrary but agree there needs to be some outlet for extraordinary circumstances. it's just hard to define.

Head coach, yes.

I was just citing examples. There have been examples of athletes being abused, victims of violence, etc. That is a reason for an exception now, it's just rarer than other circumstances.

[Pistol]

5 hours ago, Soderball said:

The issue is; HOW? How are there rules with the way the courts are moving on this matter. The only solution i see is to eliminate "student" from the equation.

Employees have obligations, or they can be fired. It's not so simple with students.

I agree with your assessment and i think that would be straightforward and easier; but how do you actually make that happen under the current rulings? They didn't argue the waiver issue; they just issued a blank allowance for everyone to be able to transfer at-will. I agree that in-season transfers are next.

It might be too late for an ideal system. This is the NCAA's fault. Had they implemented clear and fair transfer rules, and allowed players to financially benefit from their own names, images, and likenesses from the start, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Soderball]

1 minute ago, Pistol said:

It might be too late for an ideal system. This is the NCAA's fault. Had they implemented clear and fair transfer rules, and allowed players to financially benefit from their own names, images, and likenesses from the start, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Players want a salary pistol. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It was only ever going to end one way.

 

Everything in this has always been about the money, 100%. It's always just been about how to move money from boosters and to the field.

That's why coach pay exploded, that's why player pay has come and will rule the roost.

[Pistol]

Just now, Soderball said:

Players want a salary pistol. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It was only ever going to end one way.

Yes, they do now. That's my whole point. It didn't have to come to this if they had allowed players to trade on their own names all along. A nominal stipend to all athletes and let them pursue marketing opportunities and you'd have a framework for something that would have had everyone fairly compensated. Now the money has gotten huge and we just went from "you get nothing" to "fine, you can get paid" and the floodgates have burst open.

[Soderball]

13 hours ago, Pistol said:

Yes, they do now. That's my whole point. It didn't have to come to this if they had allowed players to trade on their own names all along. A nominal stipend to all athletes and let them pursue marketing opportunities and you'd have a framework for something that would have had everyone fairly compensated. Now the money has gotten huge and we just went from "you get nothing" to "fine, you can get paid" and the floodgates have burst open.

I seriously disagree, the less successful players were never going to be satisfied with that arrangement.

People want to get paid. That's it. Full stop. Whatever will get more, more money is how it will go down. The leagues have minimum contracts for a reason. "College" sports will too(and yes we should begin calling this "college" sports. Give it a few years and the attending classes charade will be over with)