Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/21/25 at 11:47 am to ukraine_rebel
It’s a restraint of trade. If you had a union with a CBA, you could make it part of that.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 12:09 pm to HeadCall
quote:Portal is fine. Just reinstate the one year sit out rule and the ant hill will settle down.
Just get rid of the portal imo.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 12:21 pm to ukraine_rebel
quote:The only way that would be possible would be if the players organized in a union and signed an agreement with the schools. No other power can change the transfer portal. The elite QBs, WRs, etc. would never go for this, but they would be outnumbered by those who make less.
On what premise? If there was a codified method in which players were allocated, that had precedence, and allowed no silly exceptions, on what grounds would a judge toss it out?
Any rule without the athlete's consent would be unconstitutional.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 12:55 pm to Dallaswho
quote:
Haven’t we always allowed that after a coaching change? I don’t remember.
Only in the last 5-8 years. Can't remember exactly when it was implemented but it was just prior to the current state.
Issue isn't with the transfer portal itself, it is the timeframes in which the portal is open. Unfortunately there isn't a large amount of time for the portal post fall semester and pre spring semester so there isn't much wiggle room.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 12:56 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Just reinstate the one year sit out rule and the ant hill will settle down.
Will not hold up in a court of law.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 2:23 pm to BuckI
quote:
It shall not be unlawful under the antitrust laws to sponsor, conduct or participate in a graduate medical education residency matching program, or to agree to sponsor, conduct or participate in such a program. Evidence of any of the conduct described in the preceding sentence shall not be admissible in Federal court to support any claim or action alleging a violation of the antitrust laws.
The above is as the law was written regarding when anti-trust questions came up in 2002 and signed into law in 2004.
quote:
It shall not be unlawful under the antitrust laws to sponsor, conduct or a matching program for participation in interscholastic athletics, or to agree to sponsor, conduct or participate in such a program. Evidence of any of the conduct described in the preceding sentence shall not be admissible in Federal court to support any claim or action alleging a violation of the antitrust laws.
This would be easily accomplished and as long as the NCAA held to this without exception, it would suffice.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 3:10 pm to ukraine_rebel
A draft isn’t a matching program
Posted on 5/21/25 at 3:11 pm to Dallaswho
quote:
The players aren’t worth a dollar without the universities.
What are universities worth without students? What are programs worth if they’re getting get the shite kicked out of them every week?
If the players weren’t worth the money, people wouldn’t be paying them.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 3:21 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
A draft isn’t a matching program
Tell me you haven't read what I originally posted without telling me you haven't been reading what I originally posted.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 3:22 pm to ukraine_rebel
If this were possible, the NCAA would have already tried it.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 3:26 pm to BuckI
quote:
If this were possible, the NCAA would have already tried it.
There's been no incentive to try something like this until the last 4 years or so. It's not just possible. It's been done for 70 years. This is a proven concept.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 3:28 pm to ukraine_rebel
I guess I’m unclear what you’re proposing then
Posted on 5/21/25 at 3:30 pm to Globetrotter747
quote:
If the players weren’t worth the money, people wouldn’t be paying them.
The schools are trying to compete given the competition and the eligibility rules of the league. Nobody gives a rat’s arse about the talent level. People do care about their universities and competitive game day experiences. Even if all of the talent were in some other league, it wouldn’t affect D1A college football at all. If any of that mattered, everyone would just watch NFL.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 3:49 pm to Dallaswho
quote:
Nobody gives a rat’s arse about the talent level People do care about their universities and competitive game day experiences.
You need the best players available for the competitive part. Unless you’re going to rule people ineligible if they can break a 5.0 40, what difference does it make?
Posted on 5/21/25 at 4:09 pm to nicholastiger
Maybe our years of tanking will finally pay off?!?
Posted on 5/21/25 at 6:37 pm to mckibaj
What I was hoping would happen when this came about was to pay the players a base amount and then allow them to earn extra with their name, image or likeness. Not a free for all bunch of crap.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 7:06 pm to Clark14
I probably should have, but did not, think these deals would reach into the millions. And it’s not all men, either. Women in gymnastics, track and field, basketball, etc are also cashing in.
There’s the workings of a market here in terms of value.
There’s the workings of a market here in terms of value.
Posted on 5/21/25 at 7:42 pm to BuckI
I suspect really no one wants it. It’s not just asking a lot from players, it’s asking coaches and schools to give up a lot of control and advantages. The SEC/Big10 wouldn’t want to be on equal footing in a draft with the ACC/Big12
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News