There are two sides to every coin. I always find it interesting how easy some people can envision spending other peoples’ money.
I don’t think anyone could consider HS kids as employees of the school. They’re not paid (i.e. given scholarships) to play there. They just “go out for the team.” However, if someone wants to pay a HS star for his NIL, I see no reason he can’t accept it without damaging his “amateur” status.
I’m sure there’s a temptation in many HS districts for a fan or some fans to pay a great player to transfer in from another district. That’s probably against the rules, but it’s probably not against the law.
You would know the legal issues, but it seems to me if a coach can move from one program to a perceived better opportunity in a city or close by, then why can’t a budding star player do the same thing.
Beats me, but I know in Arkansas the AAA doesn’t allow it. One of the raps on the private schools in Arkansas is that they recruit while the public schools can’t.
I expect the rationale behind it is that a HS student needs to attend school in the district where he lives and that another school (or its fans) don’t need to be interfering in that just to improve their football or basketball team. I also expect it has something to do with state or federal funding. Schools are awarded state funds based upon enrollment. They don’t want some bigger school coming in & taking away a student. Those are just guesses, though.
I see your point Swiney. At on time, a University Diploma was worth what the Athletes were getting. A chance for real economic advancement after college. Today, most Degrees are not worth the paper their printed on. University is no longer about Education. It is nothing but a multi billion dollar shell game. The Athletes do deserve our sympathies. But so should the ordinary students paying their own way, or being smothered by crippling dept.
Good points. Like most consequential issues there are counter balancing results to consider. As usual, the coin has two sides to it. One side generally ends up feeling aggrieved. Life tends to play out more like a fractal graphed than a nice sin x graph, maybe a three-sided coin would work out better in many instances.
What’s the cost of a high school football ticket? How much does espn pay those Texas high schools?
Actually, I think the answer is simple but not going to happen. I would go back to the 50’s rules, a transfer loses a year of eligibility. No portals.
However, that is not about to happen and I agree, collegiate sports as I knew them will no longer exist soon.
Losing a year of eligibility means nothing to players since most don’t stay all 4 years. Sitting out a year would be a significant penalty but courts will shoot that down. The portal is here to stay. It is unlimited NIL $ that may eventually damage NCAA sport & run off the fans.
I keep forgetting that in the 50’s, for the most part, collegiate sports was an amateur thing.
And the NBA and NFL were blood fest. Bruised and bloody knuckles were the norm. Fierce mano a mano.
I’m not so sure of that
Players with NFL or NBA aspirations will not be willing to sit out & waste a year, & based on recent rulings the courts are not going to prohibit NCAA players access to $ which eligibility limitations via portal transfers would do.
I’m sure you’re right about players with pro aspirations not being willing to sit out, but that’s a different issue. The NCAA can’t stop them from going pro. I never suggested it could. What I’m not sure of is that a court would tell the NCAA it couldn’t have a rule requiring a player to sit a year before becoming eligible at his new school
Under the court’s attitude lately, expect that they would throw out any NCAA rule that denies or limits the player’s right to pay or NIL $ by requiring him or her to sit out a year when choosing to transfer to another school.
You could be right, but I just don’t think so. A rule like that is not nearly as restrictive as those that prohibited a player’s right to benefit from his NIL. It just makes them less marketable. This is something similar to a covenant not to compete. Courts uphold them as long as they’re not too restrictive. Since a “sit out a season” rule has never been tested, I don’t know how a court would rule, but I am not certain they’d strike it down. Players can still turn pro. Players can drop to a lower division.
It will be easy for attorneys to argue that sitting out a year when players transfer schools is a financial penalty/limitation to players. The current courts have already shown that they will rule in favor of college player financial rights & strike down NCAA rules if & when they restrict player compensation. To be determined over time what is player compensation - ie scholarships, NIL, colleges/alumni direct pay to players…
NCAA sports are quickly evolving into semi-pro NFL & NBA sports (farm teams) so expect the NCAA imposed rule & financial penalty of sitting one year will be overturned & consistent with minor league sports. I don’t like the changes but can’t disagree with the legal & financial arguments. Hopeful but doubtful there can be a compensation cap to somewhat keep all colleges on a level playing field.
Agree going pro or drop to lower division play remains an option, but that is a different matter & not relevant to the discussion about transfers.
I don’t believe the sit a year out would be upheld because a coach can move at will. Too much similarities in positions now. Courts hate covenants not to compete and I just don’t see the harm to player outweighing any arguments to have them.
Not gonna restrict player movement.
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.