In today’s episode of “this won’t hold up in court.”
- Thread starter DesotoCountyDawg
- Start date
LOL... so now the organization that can't decide if chickswithdicks should compete in women's basketball is going to discriminate on the basis of age??
Mormon lawyers are seeing dollar signs.
I don't know if it will hold up or not. But it damn sure needs to.
I like that they thought to use the 19th birthday or HS graduation. Lord knows that a significant percentage of athletes are being held back before 9th grade.
Except it keeps me from coming back and doing my 4 or 5 years. I never used any of my eligibility. **
The lunacy never ends. They spend so much time making rules, they couldn’t see all of this coming even though the O’Bannon case was 10 years ago. They still haven’t figured it out hence the plea to lawmakers to fix it.
What happen to NCAA being an organization with rules? You don’t have to join the organization, but if your member institution chooses to do so, you have to play by the rules they create. Let the players get paid NIL, but setup eligibility and transfer rules.
Well, you should be considered a "Pro" after 5 years and not amateur at that point. Same goes for degrees. After you get your degree, you go get a professional job.
The NCAA is just like a HOA, don’t want to play by the rules, buy somewhere else.
and similarly, different rules for different residents.
Does playing football for 2 years at Liberty count as a religious mission? 2 years at Holy Cross? There is daily prayer and daily community service.
Which would be a disaster for the NCAA if the SEC and B1G decided to do just that.
Courts/everyone: you need to label them employees and collectively bargain
ncaa: how about we do this thing that’s not that
courts/everyone: employment/collective bargaining
ncaa: but what if we actually try this
courts/everyone: employment/collective bargaining
NCAA: hear us out- how about a dog and pony show
Round table with Clay Travis and Tim tebow
courts/everyone- employment/collective bargaining
ncaa: ok ok ok. We hear you. Here’s a new rule that clearly violates anti Trust.
ncaa: how about we do this thing that’s not that
courts/everyone: employment/collective bargaining
ncaa: but what if we actually try this
courts/everyone: employment/collective bargaining
NCAA: hear us out- how about a dog and pony show
Round table with Clay Travis and Tim tebow
courts/everyone- employment/collective bargaining
ncaa: ok ok ok. We hear you. Here’s a new rule that clearly violates anti Trust.
An age limit tied to traditional academic participation has a chance of surviving an anti trust challenge...or a court could find there are less restrictive ways to accomplish the same goals.
But, first, the NCAA needs to win a case brought last week by a Cal football player challenging the entire concept of limiting eligibility to five years. I think the NCAA should win, but at this point I'm not so sure. A couple of courts have hinted eligibility limits may not survive in light of the massive amount of money at stake.
So far, the anti trust violations have related to limits on compensation, not on eligibility rules. The challenges to eligibility have focused on application of the rules, while the rules themselves have remained intact.
Ex: Pavia successfully challenged whether non-NCAA play should count against his 5 years, and Chambliss successfully challenged whether the medical redshirt rules were being applied fairly. But in each case, the rules limiting eligibility to 5 years were not challenged.
NCAA sports are limited to college students, which distinguishes its product from professional leagues. This distinction provides marketplace competition, rather than being anti-competitive.
Im not sure if this age limit is the best way to go, but removing exceptions to the eligibility rules would help a lot.
But, first, the NCAA needs to win a case brought last week by a Cal football player challenging the entire concept of limiting eligibility to five years. I think the NCAA should win, but at this point I'm not so sure. A couple of courts have hinted eligibility limits may not survive in light of the massive amount of money at stake.
So far, the anti trust violations have related to limits on compensation, not on eligibility rules. The challenges to eligibility have focused on application of the rules, while the rules themselves have remained intact.
Ex: Pavia successfully challenged whether non-NCAA play should count against his 5 years, and Chambliss successfully challenged whether the medical redshirt rules were being applied fairly. But in each case, the rules limiting eligibility to 5 years were not challenged.
NCAA sports are limited to college students, which distinguishes its product from professional leagues. This distinction provides marketplace competition, rather than being anti-competitive.
Im not sure if this age limit is the best way to go, but removing exceptions to the eligibility rules would help a lot.
I think what we'll see is different courts in different jurisdictions will give conflicting rulings on these issues. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide.