|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 12, 2022 10:55:16 GMT -6
Coach, I think Shakespeare would apply here. "A rose by any other name..." Point being it doesn't matter what you call it. Function over title. The NCAA has spent the better part of 7 decades claiming that there is no employee/employer relationship. The term "student-athlete" was coined before most members here were born (and likely before ANY member here was coaching) to avoid labor law protections and workman's compensation claims by arguing that there was no employee / employer relationship. What you are suggesting seems VERY much like an employee/employer relationship. The reason you say it is a common sense thing (I don't disagree with you) is that...SURPRISE.... the NCAA Institutions (and by extension the NCAA) are ABSOLUTELY in an employee/employer relationship with athletes participating in revenue generating sports. Just like I don't think there would ever be an artificial cap on coach and admin salaries, I can't see the NCAA willingly just saying "Ok, you got us... there is and has been an employer/employee relationship for the past 70 years..." HOW IS SIGNING A 2 (or 3 or 4) YEAR SCHOLARSHIP DIFFERENT THAN SIGNING A 1 YEAR SCHOLARSHIP?  ?? Because you are suggesting that limitations on movement could/would be attached which would be argued as horizontal restraints restricting trade and in violation of anti-trust laws Saying "Hey, we will honor 4 years of scholarship payments if you choose to come here" as an enticement to recruit an athlete would be fine. Saying "BUT...we are attaching a non compete clause with it" would not. Remember all of this--- ALL of it-- stems from the fact that the NCAA Institutions have been in an employer/employee relationship with athletes for 70 years but it has never been treated as such. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 12, 2022 11:25:17 GMT -6
Getting back to the original point, the AD's use of the transfer portal to justify releasing the players makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because athletes in non-revenue sports have been able to transfer without penalty for a while. The portal has nothing to do with volleyball.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 12, 2022 11:30:15 GMT -6
Getting back to the original point, the AD's use of the transfer portal to justify releasing the players makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because athletes in non-revenue sports have been able to transfer without penalty for a while. The portal has nothing to do with volleyball. Keep in mind that the transfer portal is not about "penalties" or eligibility. It is simply a transparent clearinghouse through which athletes reopen their recruitment. I believe that is the difference. Prior to that, everything had to be done by "back channels" to avoid NCAA violations. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Apr 12, 2022 11:35:55 GMT -6
HOW IS SIGNING A 2 (or 3 or 4) YEAR SCHOLARSHIP DIFFERENT THAN SIGNING A 1 YEAR SCHOLARSHIP? ?? Because you are suggesting that limitations on movement could/would be attached which would be argued as horizontal restraints restricting trade and in violation of anti-trust laws Saying "Hey, we will honor 4 years of scholarship payments if you choose to come here" as an enticement to recruit an athlete would be fine. Saying "BUT...we are attaching a non compete clause with it" would not. Remember all of this--- ALL of it-- stems from the fact that the NCAA Institutions have been in an employer/employee relationship with athletes for 70 years but it has never been treated as such. Just do not buy your logic at all. Don't think that would hold up in a court of law the way you think it would. As you point out, it was done that way for 70 years. It is STILL being done that way currently after they use their "free" transfer. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 12, 2022 12:06:29 GMT -6
Because you are suggesting that limitations on movement could/would be attached which would be argued as horizontal restraints restricting trade and in violation of anti-trust laws Saying "Hey, we will honor 4 years of scholarship payments if you choose to come here" as an enticement to recruit an athlete would be fine. Saying "BUT...we are attaching a non compete clause with it" would not. Remember all of this--- ALL of it-- stems from the fact that the NCAA Institutions have been in an employer/employee relationship with athletes for 70 years but it has never been treated as such. Just do not buy your logic at all. Don't think that would hold up in a court of law the way you think it would. As you point out, it was done that way for 70 years. It is STILL being done that way currently after they use their "free" transfer. Court cases are now being won by plaintiffs attacking the NCAA anti trust laws. First O'bannon, now Alston (unanimous SC decision). Justice Gorsuch in the majority opinion stated In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh stated It doesn't take a Con Law scholar to see that Kavanaugh is just ITCHING to strip more of the faux amateur facade away from the NCAA image. He essentially is signaling more to challenge things here. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Apr 12, 2022 15:23:37 GMT -6
Just do not buy your logic at all. Don't think that would hold up in a court of law the way you think it would. As you point out, it was done that way for 70 years. It is STILL being done that way currently after they use their "free" transfer. Court cases are now being won by plaintiffs attacking the NCAA anti trust laws. First O'bannon, now Alston (unanimous SC decision). Justice Gorsuch in the majority opinion stated In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh stated It doesn't take a Con Law scholar to see that Kavanaugh is just ITCHING to strip more of the faux amateur facade away from the NCAA image. He essentially is signaling more to challenge things here. But all that is regardless of whether they change from 1 year only scholarships to my model of offering 1, 2, 3, or 4 year scholarships or not. Which give the players MORE choices and more protections and even more transferability if desired!! So not sure if you are understanding what I am saying. I get your point. Do you at least get what I am trying to say even if you disagree? All I hear is, "CONTRACTS, EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE." |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 12, 2022 15:52:31 GMT -6
Court cases are now being won by plaintiffs attacking the NCAA anti trust laws. First O'bannon, now Alston (unanimous SC decision). Justice Gorsuch in the majority opinion stated In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh stated It doesn't take a Con Law scholar to see that Kavanaugh is just ITCHING to strip more of the faux amateur facade away from the NCAA image. He essentially is signaling more to challenge things here. But all that is regardless of whether they change from 1 year only scholarships to my model of offering 1, 2, 3, or 4 year scholarships or not. Which give the players MORE choices and more protections and even more transferability if desired!! So not sure if you are understanding what I am saying. I get your point. Do you at least get what I am trying to say even if you disagree? All I hear is, "CONTRACTS, EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE." No, I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that such endeavors will very likely be viewed as employer/employee arrangements. The reason that is all you hear is because that is ALL THAT MATTERS in this discussion. That is the NCAA's concern. That finally there will be sentiment to say "enough is enough... the emperor has no clothes...those men and women are employees." For example I have an ex student who had a solid HS career at a big time HS, signed with a solid FCS school and after a few years BLEW UP (in a good way). He is now at an ACC school. Based on the language in these opinions, I can definitely see the NCAA being extremely concerned if they tried to defend something along the lines of "You signed a 4 year deal, you have to sit out a year" in court WITHOUT it being a prima facie case of employee/employer relationship. Quite frankly, I am sure there are several policies that the NCAA recognizes will likely not stand the scrutiny of legal challenges on the basis of anti trust law. Kavanaugh also states As I mentioned, it doesn't take someone steeped in Constitutional Law to see that the court in general, and Justice Kavanaugh in particular sees right through the past 100 years of "student athlete model". Colleges are already offering the multi year scholarship model if they so choose. The difference here is that you seem to want some caveats to protect the monopsony (my new word of the day) practices of the NCAA as a whole. What I am saying is the courts recent rulings invalidate any "well, this is how they have been doing it" thought processes so any reference to previous "transfer rules" may not be valid. I am suggesting that the Supreme Courts language in the unanimous Alston decisions is signaling that future challenges to the "amateur nature of college athletics" being necessary may very well also go against the NCAA. And, as I mentioned before--Brian Kelly, Lincoln Riley, Billy Napier.. all had agreements with Universities to be there multiple years. Before someone says "well that's different, they were employees--, my entire point is that the NCAA is extremely concerned that the next step will be courts saying "You know what, so are the players". |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Apr 12, 2022 17:23:51 GMT -6
But all that is regardless of whether they change from 1 year only scholarships to my model of offering 1, 2, 3, or 4 year scholarships or not. Which give the players MORE choices and more protections and even more transferability if desired!! So not sure if you are understanding what I am saying. I get your point. Do you at least get what I am trying to say even if you disagree? All I hear is, "CONTRACTS, EMPLOYER, EMPLOYEE." No, I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that such endeavors will very likely be viewed as employer/employee arrangements. The reason that is all you hear is because that is ALL THAT MATTERS in this discussion. That is the NCAA's concern. That finally there will be sentiment to say "enough is enough... the emperor has no clothes...those men and women are employees." For example I have an ex student who had a solid HS career at a big time HS, signed with a solid FCS school and after a few years BLEW UP (in a good way). He is now at an ACC school. Based on the language in these opinions, I can definitely see the NCAA being extremely concerned if they tried to defend something along the lines of "You signed a 4 year deal, you have to sit out a year" in court WITHOUT it being a prima facie case of employee/employer relationship. Quite frankly, I am sure there are several policies that the NCAA recognizes will likely not stand the scrutiny of legal challenges on the basis of anti trust law. Kavanaugh also states As I mentioned, it doesn't take someone steeped in Constitutional Law to see that the court in general, and Justice Kavanaugh in particular sees right through the past 100 years of "student athlete model". Colleges are already offering the multi year scholarship model if they so choose. The difference here is that you seem to want some caveats to protect the monopsony (my new word of the day) practices of the NCAA as a whole. What I am saying is the courts recent rulings invalidate any "well, this is how they have been doing it" thought processes so any reference to previous "transfer rules" may not be valid. I am suggesting that the Supreme Courts language in the unanimous Alston decisions is signaling that future challenges to the "amateur nature of college athletics" being necessary may very well also go against the NCAA. And, as I mentioned before--Brian Kelly, Lincoln Riley, Billy Napier.. all had agreements with Universities to be there multiple years. Before someone says "well that's different, they were employees--, my entire point is that the NCAA is extremely concerned that the next step will be courts saying "You know what, so are the players". Understand. How is that different than a kid who uses his transfer up after his freshman year and wants to transfer his junior year? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 12, 2022 17:43:41 GMT -6
No, I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that such endeavors will very likely be viewed as employer/employee arrangements. The reason that is all you hear is because that is ALL THAT MATTERS in this discussion. That is the NCAA's concern. That finally there will be sentiment to say "enough is enough... the emperor has no clothes...those men and women are employees." For example I have an ex student who had a solid HS career at a big time HS, signed with a solid FCS school and after a few years BLEW UP (in a good way). He is now at an ACC school. Based on the language in these opinions, I can definitely see the NCAA being extremely concerned if they tried to defend something along the lines of "You signed a 4 year deal, you have to sit out a year" in court WITHOUT it being a prima facie case of employee/employer relationship. Quite frankly, I am sure there are several policies that the NCAA recognizes will likely not stand the scrutiny of legal challenges on the basis of anti trust law. Kavanaugh also states As I mentioned, it doesn't take someone steeped in Constitutional Law to see that the court in general, and Justice Kavanaugh in particular sees right through the past 100 years of "student athlete model". Colleges are already offering the multi year scholarship model if they so choose. The difference here is that you seem to want some caveats to protect the monopsony (my new word of the day) practices of the NCAA as a whole. What I am saying is the courts recent rulings invalidate any "well, this is how they have been doing it" thought processes so any reference to previous "transfer rules" may not be valid. I am suggesting that the Supreme Courts language in the unanimous Alston decisions is signaling that future challenges to the "amateur nature of college athletics" being necessary may very well also go against the NCAA. And, as I mentioned before--Brian Kelly, Lincoln Riley, Billy Napier.. all had agreements with Universities to be there multiple years. Before someone says "well that's different, they were employees--, my entire point is that the NCAA is extremely concerned that the next step will be courts saying "You know what, so are the players". Understand. How is that different than a kid who uses his transfer up after his freshman year and wants to transfer his junior year? It probably isn’t, and I would be interested to see what happens if That is ever challenged Keep in mind however that many if not most transfers after a junior year are now graduate transfers. I believe Kansas just won the national championship in basketball with a player who played for four different schools over a seven year period Or hypothetically- Lets say in two years Lincoln riley leaves USC to make somewhere else the “mecca of college football”. Caleb williams would likely be able to transfer as a graduate student to play there (if he doesnt declare for the NFL) under the current rules. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Apr 12, 2022 18:14:59 GMT -6
At least in the Pros, the players have a contract......... That they are increasingly paying no attention to. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Apr 13, 2022 13:26:40 GMT -6
yes... except the NCAA would then not be able to stand in front of courts and say that the participants were not employees. THAT is the point of no return that the NCAA has so desperately tried to avoid for multiple decades. Plus I would suspect that such provisions would be akin to "non compete" clauses- and as such the signers would look to be compensated for such things. Don't the coaches already have contracts? Didn't Lincoln Riley, Brian Kelly, Billy Napier, and Mario Cristobal all have contracts? Forget the word contract. The school and the student already sign a scholarship but it is good for just one year. Just have scholarships that can be 1, 2, 3, or 4 year long. If you sign a 1 year, you are free to leave after that year and go anywhere including signing back at your school. You could then sign 1 year or even a 3 year after that. If you sign another 1 year, then you are free to transfer or stay again. But if you sign a 4 year, you have to play there for 4 years. But you also get the security of knowing the school has to honor the scholarship for 4 years. BUT, you can still transfer like you used to be able to, BUT, you have to sit a year. This just seems like the most common sense thing. the only issue I see here is transfer credits. If you transfer "on contract" you get to keep all of your credits or some such thing. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 13, 2022 15:46:43 GMT -6
Forget the word contract. The school and the student already sign a scholarship but it is good for just one year. Just have scholarships that can be 1, 2, 3, or 4 year long. If you sign a 1 year, you are free to leave after that year and go anywhere including signing back at your school. You could then sign 1 year or even a 3 year after that. If you sign another 1 year, then you are free to transfer or stay again. But if you sign a 4 year, you have to play there for 4 years. But you also get the security of knowing the school has to honor the scholarship for 4 years. BUT, you can still transfer like you used to be able to, BUT, you have to sit a year. This just seems like the most common sense thing. the only issue I see here is transfer credits. If you transfer "on contract" you get to keep all of your credits or some such thing. ? Whenever you transfer you always "keep" your credits at the university you are leaving. Now, whether they are accepted by the new university for a field of study at their school is a different matter. What I find extremely disturbing about the recent high profile transfers is the timing. Classes began at USC on January 10th, and QB Caleb williams registered around January 28th (according to espn.com) Now the article goes out of its way to say that he "registered registered for classes with his academic adviser late Friday, ahead of the school's final deadline to do so" Even with the MLK Holiday, if his classes were MWF He missed 8. If T Th he missed 6. Where is the "Come On" man shout when you need it. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Apr 13, 2022 16:21:34 GMT -6
the only issue I see here is transfer credits. If you transfer "on contract" you get to keep all of your credits or some such thing. ? Whenever you transfer you always "keep" your credits at the university you are leaving. Now, whether they are accepted by the new university for a field of study at their school is a different matter. What I find extremely disturbing about the recent high profile transfers is the timing. Classes began at USC on January 10th, and QB Caleb williams registered around January 28th (according to espn.com) Now the article goes out of its way to say that he "registered registered for classes with his academic adviser late Friday, ahead of the school's final deadline to do so" Even with the MLK Holiday, if his classes were MWF He missed 8. If T Th he missed 6. Where is the "Come On" man shout when you need it. That's what I'm talking about. I'm saying not sure a shorter contract would work b/c many kids would fear a 1 year contract and if they leave will credits be accepted. Hence many might opt for 4 year contracts, which essentially becomes the same thing we have now. Hence, we're kind of spinning our wheels. Now on the other hand if credits could be protected, then some kids might agree to something other than 4 years. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 13, 2022 16:38:12 GMT -6
? Whenever you transfer you always "keep" your credits at the university you are leaving. Now, whether they are accepted by the new university for a field of study at their school is a different matter. What I find extremely disturbing about the recent high profile transfers is the timing. Classes began at USC on January 10th, and QB Caleb williams registered around January 28th (according to espn.com) Now the article goes out of its way to say that he "registered registered for classes with his academic adviser late Friday, ahead of the school's final deadline to do so" Even with the MLK Holiday, if his classes were MWF He missed 8. If T Th he missed 6. Where is the "Come On" man shout when you need it. That's what I'm talking about. I'm saying not sure a shorter contract would work b/c many kids would fear a 1 year contract and if they leave will credits be accepted. Hence many might opt for 4 year contracts, which essentially becomes the same thing we have now. Hence, we're kind of spinning our wheels. Now on the other hand if credits could be protected, then some kids might agree to something other than 4 years. Actually what we have right now is that the vast majority of athletic Grant and aids are one year renewable. People love to say that their child got a quote for your full ride scholarship“ but that’s simply not the case and hasn’t been the case. Because of the bad publicity from situations like this Grambling situation, some schools starting to offer four year grant in aids but that is the minority case. I’m gonna be honest for the majority of the athletes we are talking about who are shopping their athletic skills, I don’t think they are concerned about classes transferring. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Apr 13, 2022 16:55:00 GMT -6
? Whenever you transfer you always "keep" your credits at the university you are leaving. Now, whether they are accepted by the new university for a field of study at their school is a different matter. What I find extremely disturbing about the recent high profile transfers is the timing. Classes began at USC on January 10th, and QB Caleb williams registered around January 28th (according to espn.com) Now the article goes out of its way to say that he "registered registered for classes with his academic adviser late Friday, ahead of the school's final deadline to do so" Even with the MLK Holiday, if his classes were MWF He missed 8. If T Th he missed 6. Where is the "Come On" man shout when you need it. Hence many might opt for 4 year contracts, which essentially becomes the same thing we have now. Remember, under my plan, the college has to offer that. This is also a great way to equalize colleges recruiting. Bama might offer a 5 star a four year scholarship. But might only offer a 3 star a one year. But Ole Miss might offer that same 3 star a four year offer giving them a leg up on recruiting him. Of course that 3 star might only want a 1 year and same for the 5 star. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 13, 2022 17:58:15 GMT -6
Hence many might opt for 4 year contracts, which essentially becomes the same thing we have now. Remember, under my plan, the college has to offer that. This is also a great way to equalize colleges recruiting. Bama might offer a 5 star a four year scholarship. But might only offer a 3 star a one year. But Ole Miss might offer that same 3 star a four year offer giving them a leg up on recruiting him. Of course that 3 star might only want a 1 year and same for the 5 star. But isn't that all based on the assumption that the kids being recruited would place value on remaining on scholarship at a University where they weren't really wanted/weren't contributing (ie not playing) to their sport? I don't really think that would appeal to them, ESPECIALLY if that came with the provision they were not able to go play somewhere else. (Ignoring the employee / employer aspect of that here). Given how rare it has been historically for a kid in good standing to not have a scholarship renewed, and given our new social media fueled transfer portal frenzy why would any athlete agree to something so restrictive when it is highly unlikely they value the commitment from the university aspect. I believe that a HUGE, MONSTEROUS factor in the explosion of the transfer portal is twitter. The kids are so wired to get attention (including social media attention) that I think many enter the transfer portal simply to reopen their recruiting and be able to tweet "I am entering the transfer portal". (I also think this same phenomenon is leading to the growth of these online "prep programs"--different topic). I feel that it is FAR more likely that the "student athlete" would desire the opportunity to reopen their recruitment (transfer portal) free from restriction than they would desire the ability to stay on scholarship when not in the teams plans. And this is without starting to think about the unintended consequences of having a student athlete taking up a scholarship/roster spot when they are not wanted by the program. I am sure there are numerous ways that a program might act to try and get that student to leave voluntarily. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 5, 2022 16:51:55 GMT -6
UPDATE-- the Coach has been terminated, after an "internal investigation" Scholarship players and Walk ons will continue to hold their roster spots.
Will be interested to see what happens to the AD. He supported this in April.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jul 5, 2022 17:10:48 GMT -6
disgusting
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jul 5, 2022 17:27:20 GMT -6
UPDATE-- the Coach has been terminated, after an "internal investigation" Scholarship players and Walk ons will continue to hold their roster spots. Will be interested to see what happens to the AD. He supported this in April. I'm shocked this didn't work out for them. The only thing that would make this better is if all the players refused to play. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 5, 2022 17:36:31 GMT -6
I would be interested in learning what was discovered during this "investigation" given that the AD seemed to give this his blessing 3 months ago. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 5, 2022 18:14:49 GMT -6
I would be interested in learning what was discovered during this "investigation" given that the AD seemed to give this his blessing 3 months ago. My guess is that they couldn't get enough to field a team and it is July 5th, so ... |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 5, 2022 21:24:35 GMT -6
UPDATE-- the Coach has been terminated, after an "internal investigation" Scholarship players and Walk ons will continue to hold their roster spots. Will be interested to see what happens to the AD. He supported this in April. Good. Hope the AD's next. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 6, 2022 6:20:19 GMT -6
I will say that several articles state that the headline of "all players cut" was not accurate. Those articles said that was an exaggeration, and that the coach was retaining 4 or 5 (about 25%). Who knows? I do agree, I think it would be good to see the Administrator fry a bit on this too. In April, it seemed like he was OK with the deal. So maybe this firing was not related to the roster cuts, but it is being used as cover for the event.
|
|
