SEC is considering restoring a transfer policy for intraconference transfers

this would be a great way to drive more talent to the B1G

If its stupid , Sankey is all in.

Can’t be the only conference to do it.

B10 praying to the man upstairs this goes through

quote:

---

And a serious antitrust violation.

---

Conference rules are an antitrust violation?

I am not for this.
But I dont see your logic.

Lol thank god lsu doesnt have anyone on the board the last decade. Cant pin this on us. This is some of yalls fault. Reign in these retards from your schools

quote:

---

Conference rules are an antitrust violation?

I am not for this.
But I dont see your logic.

---

Unless SEC institutions will be paying intraconference transfers to sit a year, bringing back the one year would be restricting athletes' ability to play & be compensated for their play.

Also, the NCAA has already lost a court decision behind the one year for the same antitrust reasoning.

quote:

---

NCAA Suspends Transfer Eligibility Rule After Court Ruling

---

quote:

---

A federal court ruling has forced the NCAA to suspend its transfer eligibility rule, bringing temporary relief to college athletes seeking to transfer schools without sitting out a year of competition.

The rule, which requires certain Division I athletes who transfer schools to defer a year of competitive eligibility, was challenged in a federal lawsuit filed by several U.S. states. The states allege the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and harms student-athletes in the market for their athletic services.

On Dec. 13, 2023, U.S. District Judge John Preston Bailey issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), preventing the NCAA from enforcing the transfer eligibility rule until a hearing scheduled for Dec. 27. The hearing will determine whether Judge Bailey issues a preliminary injunction, which could suspend enforcement of the rule until the lawsuit is resolved.

The Ruling Explained

In granting the TRO, Judge Bailey found the seven states were likely to prove that the transfer eligibility rule violates the Sherman Act.

Judge Bailey wrote that the rule brings three primary harms to college athletes. First, the rule imposes a one-year ineligibility penalty that may discourage student-athletes from transferring even when another school better suits their academic, mental, or economic well-being.

Second, transferring student-athletes face a competitive disadvantage because many schools may hesitate to offer scholarships to athletes who will not be eligible immediately.

Third, the rule hinders student-athletes’ economic opportunities by limiting their ability to secure name, image, and likeness (NIL) endorsement deals and restricting their exposure to professional sports leagues.

---

LINK

You

quote:

---

Unless SEC institutions will be paying intraconference transfers to sit a year, bringing back the one year would be restricting athletes' ability to play & be compensated for their play.

Also, the NCAA has already lost a court decision behind the one year for the same antitrust reasoning

---

You didnt comprehend the decision.
The NCAA cannot implement the rule because the courts deem them to be a monopoly. Which is stupid. An organization can't set rules for voluntary participation?

However, that same verdict is the exact reason why the SEC can implement the rule.
The SEC is a 16 team organization. There are about 120 other D1 schools outside the SEC.
By definition, it is not a monopoly.
If you aren't a monopoly, then it isn't an antitrust violation.

And a serious antitrust violation.

Not if it’s a conference rule. The SEC and NCAA are private organizations and can decide their own rules.
I like it and hope it’s adopted as long as every conference does this.