- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NCAA committee considering 7-figure fines, head coach suspensions for transfer violations
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:39 pm to OleVaught14
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:39 pm to OleVaught14
quote:
Which are largely illegal.
They're hard to enforce, but not illegal nor do they violate any rights.
quote:
No where near the same. Both in terms of current earning potential but also future earnings.
Welcome to the real world. Not every job is equal, but you still have a choice.
quote:
The NCAA is essentially a monopoly. There isn't another option for the kids or schools.
None of this gives a free pass for the NCAA to enforce illegal rules which the schools have very little say in. And the players have absolutely no say in.
Want to be able to enforce illegal rules - collective bargain or get anti-trust protection from Congress. Until either of those happen, the NCAA has no legal ability to enforce rules which violate a wide variety of laws (both federally and state).
Which rules are illegal?
0
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:39 pm to magildachunks
quote:
What laws have been broken?
Antitrust Law (Shearman Act)
Many employment / labor laws
Most lawsuits today involve the violations of the Shearman Act.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:41 pm to CovingtonTigre
quote:
They are not currently classified as employees but based on most court decisions in the last decade, I don’t think that's an argument athletic programs or the NCAA want to make in court.
The players don't want to be classified as employees because then they would be subject to stricter contracts and the penalties for breaking contracts.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:44 pm to OleVaught14
quote:
Antitrust Law (Shearman Act)
Many employment / labor laws
Most lawsuits today involve the violations of the Shearman Act.
How has the NCAA violated the Sherman Act specifically ?
What rules have they enacted that violate "many employment/labor laws and which of those laws specifically did they violate?
ETA:
quote:
Section 1 outlaws every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce. Certain acts, like price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation among competitors, are considered "per se" illegal, meaning no defense or justification is allowed for them. Other agreements are evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard, which requires a case-by-case analysis of their effect on competition.
Nothing in the above has anything to do with players transferring to another school after spring practice.
And here's the other point no one is considering: the rule proposals aren't preventing any players from leaving one school and enrolling in another, they simply can't play (perhaps join the team?) for their new school that next season.
If Vanderbilt wants to acquire State's QB after the portal period, they still can.
But he has to sit out for a season. He can leave State after Spring semester and enroll at Vanderbilt in the fall, but he can't play football that fall.
If someone wants to pay him to be a student, that's their business.
Also, nothing is preventing any player from doing what I just described.
Quit the team, settle any financial arrangements you have, finish the semester and then go enroll at the school of your choice. Just be prepared for the consequences of your choices- like having to sit out a year.
I thought everyone on this website preached "Choices have Consequences".
This post was edited on 2/25/26 at 10:59 pm
Posted on 2/25/26 at 10:48 pm to magildachunks
Look up any of the 100 lawsuits over the last couple years. Federal court ones will be the most relevant. House Settlement is obviously the big one - held that the NCAA restricting NIL / payment violated federal anti-trust law.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 11:04 pm to magildachunks
quote:
The NFL is not a business, it's a "Trade Organization"
quote:
NFL teams are competitive businesses
Posted on 2/25/26 at 11:16 pm to OleVaught14
quote:
House Settlement is obviously the big one - held that the NCAA restricting NIL / payment violated federal anti-trust law
Alright, so here's your problem: the House Settlement mentions nothing about transferring or transfer rules.
It also has nothing to do with eligibility for participation.
It deals with revenue sharing (schools now allowed to share revenue with the athletes), a percentage cap of how much revenue is allowed to be shared, who is eligible to receive revenue funds, back pay for former athletes and who is eligible for that, roster limitations, and 3rd party NIL conditions.
When you research House Settlement and player transfers and eligibility you'll find that the NCAA enacted new rules after the House Settlement voluntarily.
Nobody forced the NCAA to create nor alter any of the rules that existed previous to the changes made in transfer regulations.
Now, having considered that: why would they get involved with the new propositions to the rule books?
Especially since the new rules are specifically targeting athletic programs and their employees?
Posted on 2/25/26 at 11:31 pm to magildachunks
quote:
House Settlement
Just one of a ton of examples.
quote:
transferring or transfer rules.
NCAA changed their rules on immediate eligibility due to facing multiple lawsuits they were about to lose.
quote:
eligibility for participation.
Look at the federal lawsuit the Vandy QB won last year which got the NCAA to change its rules.
quote:
NCAA enacted new rules after the House Settlement voluntarily.
To try to stop losing in court.
quote:
Nobody forced the NCAA to create nor alter any of the rules that existed previous to the changes made in transfer regulations.
The courts have.
quote:
Especially since the new rules are specifically targeting athletic programs and their employees?
A hail mary by the NCAA since they know players will be challenging the "no spring portal" this year and they are hoping that since they can't stop players from transferring in the spring they'll be able to keep schools from taking them. It's a long shot at best - but we'll find out soon enough in court whether they've thread the needle.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 11:34 pm to CovingtonTigre
quote:
The NFL is not a business, it's a "Trade Organization"
quote:
NFL teams are competitive businesses
Now explain the difference between what you posted and the NCAA and it's member institutions?
Is it that Universities aren't considered "businesses"?
The NCAA isn't a business, it's a regulatory body created by Universities and their Conferences to have everyone under the same umbrella and adhering to the same rules.
Different conferences have different rules about all kinds of things, but in the spirit of fair competition they agreed to create a governing agency beholden to no single conference in charge of player eligibility and roster management.
They not only gave this governing agency the ability to make rules, but also the power to enforce those rules.
Now they are burying their heads in the sand, too chicken shite to stand up to schools in their conference and y'all are acting like the NCAA is the weakling.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 12:03 am to OleVaught14
quote:
Look at the federal lawsuit the Vandy QB won last year which got the NCAA to change its rules.
You mean the same class action still currently going on and the Judge (same judge that granted Pavia an injunction) just denied an injunction for the "5 for 5" rule?
Pavia Was granted the injunction because the judge agreed that while he had played 5 years of college football, he only played 3 years in the NCAA, therefore he wasn't in violation of the NCAA rule of 4 years of eligibility as he was about to begin his 4th year of NCAA football.
Chambliss was denied eligibility because he has played his entire career in the NCAA. This same judge gets that case in front of him, Chambliss gets denied eligibility like the "5 for 5" defendents.
You can keep claiming "100s of cases" that have resulted in the NCAA losing.
Quick Google search presented this:
quote:
of February 2026, more than two-thirds of the nearly 60 lawsuits filed by athletes seeking additional NCAA eligibility have ended in a dismissed case or an NCAA win in a preliminary injunction decision. This means approximately 40 or more of these specific cases have been dismissed or decided in the NCAA's favor.
?Yahoo Sports
Key statistics regarding these lawsuits:
Approximately 57 eligibility lawsuits have been filed against the NCAA since late 2024.
Of those cases, 31 preliminary injunctions have been denied, favoring the NCAA.
In contrast, judges have granted preliminary injunctions in 12 cases, allowing the athletes to play.
?Reddit +1
These numbers are specific to the wave of lawsuits that started in late 2024, many of which use a similar legal strategy following the initial success of Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia's case. The legal landscape is rapidly evolving, with different court rulings creating a "circuit split" that could eventually lead to the U.S. Supreme Court taking up the
So....let's examine your claim:
Not even 60 cases have been filed, much less "100s".
Of those cases brought against the NCAA, over 2/3 have been dismissed, denied, or resulted in an NCAA victory.
So ~20% of the lawsuits brought against the NCAA seeking eligibility have resulted in temporary injunctions while the case is pending. None have resulted in any type of judgement for the parties involved, but history is not on the plaintiffs' side.
What's your next hill to die on?
This post was edited on 2/26/26 at 12:07 am
Posted on 2/26/26 at 7:08 am to magildachunks
Believe it or not, lawsuits (including eligibility lawsuits) have been filed against the NCAA forever, not just beginning in 2024. And yes there have been 100+ lawsuits filed against the NCAA. I have no idea why you (or Google AI) decided to place a limit of just the last 2 years...
This all started in 1984 when a federal court ruled for OU that the NCAA was violating anti-trust law and the ball has been rolling since then. But sure, pretend like all this started in 2024.
This all started in 1984 when a federal court ruled for OU that the NCAA was violating anti-trust law and the ball has been rolling since then. But sure, pretend like all this started in 2024.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:00 am to Buckeye06
quote:
make a calendar that makes sense in today's world
One transfer window but put it in the spring.
Decrease the number of spring in the field practices and add them to the summer schedule.
This would allow teams to finish the season with intact rosters while allowing the kids to still have freedom of movement.
Shift the coaches mindset for installation of schemes to the summer versus the spring.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:01 am to magildachunks
quote:
How is this any different?
The professional sports leagues are in unions and have collectively bargained for these time frames.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:03 am to magildachunks
quote:
Like a "No Compete" Clause.
While litigated, roundly dismissed in court as illegal.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:05 am to RLDSC FAN
I don’t think it matters what rules the NCAA comes up with. At this point, they seem to have zero ability to enforce them. Especially in football.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 8:06 am to magildachunks
quote:
What grounds would they possibly have to file a grievance?
A non employer restricting the ability to pursue employment elsewhere. A crafty lawyer may even call it pursuing happiness.
Posted on 2/26/26 at 9:26 am to Oilfieldbiology
The thing about a potential college athletics players union is that the players will have to decide who should and shouldn’t be in them… and the sheer volume of college athletes and the differences among them will not make it easy.
Arch Manning and benchwarmers in the SWAC are both Division I athletes, but they’re vastly different people who have different interests… and any union that limits itself to a certain group of athletes is a non-starter
Arch Manning and benchwarmers in the SWAC are both Division I athletes, but they’re vastly different people who have different interests… and any union that limits itself to a certain group of athletes is a non-starter
Posted on 2/26/26 at 10:55 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
The real solution is to end the playoffs at new years.
Regular season ends Thanksgiving weekend, playoffs in December.
January transfer portal.
This may well be the right answer.
NSD this year was terrible as it was during CCG week. They need to figure that out too as a sidenote
Posted on 2/26/26 at 11:08 am to magildachunks
quote:
What's your next hill to die on?
Why do you post like you are in a fight to the death? People can disagree with you and not be stupid.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 5:51 am to mule74
quote:
I don’t think it matters what rules the NCAA comes up with. At this point, they seem to have zero ability to enforce them. Especially in football.
This may be true, but at some point you’d think some adults in the room at these schools would put together that the benefit of abiding by the rules they agreed to far outweigh any short term talent upgrade they may get from subverting rules they agreed to.
A clear, if temporary, solution is for the schools themselves to develop a backbone and tell their coaches no.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News