Period . It’s the only way this gets some semblance of credibility and stability. Ridiculous right now. Not even an NBA team completely rebuilds every year.
Last edited:
CBB Needs 2 Year minimum NIL contracts.
- Thread starter SBP
- Start date
I had the same thought the other day.
Either something along these lines regarding length of NIL deals -- OR -- how about a rule that you can't use the transfer portal 2 years in a row. Perhaps with an exception if the head coach leaves. (If you choose to transfer anyway, then you sit for 1 year like the old days.)
This nonsense were some schools literally have no players returning has got to stop.
Yes, I know. This is crazy talk and it will never happen. But somebody needs to do something soon to bring some semblance of sanity and stability to the sport.
NCAA has already lost the transfer argument. If regular students can transfer, athlete's will be allowed.
Respectfully, I think you mean that old-schoolers (like me) need it. But it seems that most fans and most stakeholders are just fine with whatever NCAA sports is becoming. Personally, I think the product was better before, when it was distinctly different than professional sports. But lets be honest -- most people will keep watching and following it, and it will grow in popularity rather than wane.
For myself, I know that I might turn my back on it, because I have already turned my back on professional sports (when, for example, my Redskins became a team of players from other "NFL branch offices"). But most people won't.
Next season will be a real test for me, as a Maryland fan. In basketball, The Terrapins will feature a coach and full roster of players who have never had anything to do with Maryland (and this is a team coming a Sweet Sixteen/Final ranking of #9 season). It makes it less interesting to me. I don't know how I will feel about it.
For myself, I know that I might turn my back on it, because I have already turned my back on professional sports (when, for example, my Redskins became a team of players from other "NFL branch offices"). But most people won't.
Next season will be a real test for me, as a Maryland fan. In basketball, The Terrapins will feature a coach and full roster of players who have never had anything to do with Maryland (and this is a team coming a Sweet Sixteen/Final ranking of #9 season). It makes it less interesting to me. I don't know how I will feel about it.
Last edited:
Need a two year commitment between schools and players to clean a lot of this crap up. Not even pros jump around like we’re seeing in college. Two year contracts unless you’re a fifth year senior wanting to transfer for one season..
GO RU
GO RU
And coaches are allowed to break contracts at will so the athlete's will be allowed too.
Coaches have buyouts, can we start to Institute those on kids?
I sympathize. But an agreement between schools to offer only two-year contracts would be a violation of the antitrust laws and would subject the schools to treble damages in a suit brought by players. The only way to bring about what you suggest would be for Congress to enact legislation granting an exemption from the antitrust laws. There's been talk of legislation for a few years now, but it's far from clear whether there will be and what it would say.
NIL should be multi-year contract.
Prorated by years at school
Length of contract should be 4 years- credited school years. Freshman sign 4 year deals, sophomore 3, etc. if you stay for season it gets paid out. If u transfer out early, funds go to school & not student.
Prorated by years at school
Length of contract should be 4 years- credited school years. Freshman sign 4 year deals, sophomore 3, etc. if you stay for season it gets paid out. If u transfer out early, funds go to school & not student.
Many NIL deals are pitched as multi year contracts. Payments are made either weekly or monthly during the season. Every NIL deal ceases the minute a player enters the transfer portal or leaves the team even if it is a multi year package.
You also can’t withhold what was earned. The courts will likely come down hard on schools that attempt this because the players are not the school’s property. That end with the abolition of slavery.
In theory but when do you see coaches breaking contracts on a yearly en masse? Doesn’t happen. There needs to be a binding contract between institution and athlete that goes beyond a year which gives college athletic rosters more stability year to year.
GO RU
The only way it's going to happen is for the NCAA to get an antitrust exemption from Congress. Then it will have the power to put rules into place and force the players to unionize and collectively bargain. Until then, the NCAA is powerless. This is backed up by the fact that they've lost every court case on their past practices.
Oh, can't leave it up to the NCAA, just need to start putting them into multi year contracts
Good point. Because i think if schools are on the hook for two years they might be less likely to take a flyer on a kid. Maybe will cool down the rampant free agency crap going on
Individual schools can do what they want to structure contracts. But the antitrust laws bar them from agreeing among themselves to only offer, say, two-year contracts. Would players freely opt for a two-year rather than a one-year contract? If not, the schools that offer two-year contracts would be at a disadvantage.
I should add that there is a way other than Congressional legislation to give the schools more power -- that would be for the players to unionize and reach a collective bargaining agreement with the schools. The antitrust laws don't apply to collective bargaining agreements.
I should add that there is a way other than Congressional legislation to give the schools more power -- that would be for the players to unionize and reach a collective bargaining agreement with the schools. The antitrust laws don't apply to collective bargaining agreements.
No one is going to do that because NIL agents will just direct their clients elsewhere. All the leverage is with the players right now because the NCAA & schools were never setup to operate in this environment.
Players are already pitched multiple times year NIl packages but both sides know they may only be one year agreements because the player or school may move on.
That's fine -- so long as those offering multi-year NIL agreements don't agree among themselves to only offer multi-year agreements. It's the agreement that creates antitrust liability.
I believe the players or their NIL agents, where they have multiple years, are asking for them to gauge which schools are offering the most if they are there more than one year.
Sure: the player wants to figure out whether a one-year or two-year deal is more advantageous for him. That's fine. The only problem arises if those offering NIL deals agree among themselves what terms to offer the players -- or for that matter if the players agree among themselves only to accept certain terms.
I'm sure you never imagined that being a college sports fan would make you an expert on antitrust law!
I don’t see how the NCAA can’t find a legal argument to support the 1 year sit rule once revenue sharing is in place. My employment contract has a non-compete.
Again, an individual employer can pretty much do what it likes. But employers cannot make deals with each other. Company A and B can both demand non-compete agreements, but they can't agree together that both will do that.
BTW, as you probably know, New York and New Jersey restrict (but do not ban) non-compete agreements. The Federal Trade Commission last year made a rule banning non-compete agreements. It got tied up in court and, given the new administration, the rule will almost certainly be withdrawn.
The NCAA entered into a binding settlement with the DOJ, that among other things required the NCAA to give up the 1 year sit out rule. What is the NCAA supposed to do now, go back and ask for a do over?
Even if the current DOJ gave it up, athletes could sue the NCAA for treble damages on antitrust grounds saying that the 1 year sit out rule is an unreasonable restraint of trade. Only Congress or a collective bargaining agreement could re-establish the 1 year sit out rule.
At this point it seems like schools are wary of locking in a NIL player for more than one year as well. If a player is given a large sum to transfer and say they underperform in that year, a school maybe wanting to move off from said player and allocate funds in another direction.
A player like Cliff could be an example if he had another year of eligibility. Did he perform above, At or below what Bama offered him? Who’s to say and it’s debatable but Bama may not have wanted Cliff back and wanted to move in another direction if he still had a year left to play.
My point is players are jumping around for the best deal but schools that give players “the talk” are moving off players too to find better fits. Coaches may not care about roster stability as much as we think.
At the end of the day, fans are the ones that are getting shellshocked with the constant turnover. Both schools and players are taking chances by a two year commitment requirement.
GO RU
A player like Cliff could be an example if he had another year of eligibility. Did he perform above, At or below what Bama offered him? Who’s to say and it’s debatable but Bama may not have wanted Cliff back and wanted to move in another direction if he still had a year left to play.
My point is players are jumping around for the best deal but schools that give players “the talk” are moving off players too to find better fits. Coaches may not care about roster stability as much as we think.
At the end of the day, fans are the ones that are getting shellshocked with the constant turnover. Both schools and players are taking chances by a two year commitment requirement.
GO RU
Just a public service announcement. (please save the snarky remarks) but I believe that Bret Baier is having all 4 power conf. Commissioners on his show tonight at 6 to talk about NIL.
Wait until they sue claiming all "4/5/6 years of eligibility" rules are an unreasonable restraint of trade. You're gonna have 38 year olds that have been playing college basketball for 20 years (for 11 different schools) and have earned four bachelors degrees.
This is a growing issue. I'm sure you know that a court in Kentucky (I think) knocked out the rule saying that JC transfers must count their JC play against their four years. That's an issue that the House settlement will not deal with. This is one more reason we need *sensible* Congressional legislation, assuming that's not a contradiction in terms.