Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Y'all need better lawyers.  Pretty much everyone else is whipping the snot out of the NCAA.

The lawyers are fine. Need better judges.

Eligibility duration limitations simply aren't going to hold up in court.  The athletes have not signed a collective bargaining agreement that would sign away their rights to remain on campus, and therefore they retain those rights as long as university policy allows.

I'm still not totally sure about this.

The NCAA is a voluntary membership among the universities.  Nobody is saying Chambliss can't play at Ole Miss forever, if he wants to.  They are simply saying he is ineligible to partcipate in NCAA games for Ole Miss.

The rub here, is two things.

1.) Courts seem to be kinder to the players in interpreting the NCAAs antitrust argument.  I didn't think it would be open and shut as they have continuously treated it.

2.) The NCAA is a voluntary membership of schools, but it's not like its the NCAA and the schools on one side, and the players on the other.  In each of these cases, it was a school, along with the player, against the NCAA.

The Chambliss case was also just a terrible hill for the NCAA to die on. Just bad facts for them.

The Agular case is going to be one of watch because it’s more egregious and weird. 

Yeah it'll be interesting to see if there are cases that will establish just where the limits might exist.

But of course courts in various different jurisdictions across the country, won't necessarily be consistent.  So it will remain a mess.

Part of me wonders if it would be good to start by thinking about real non-negotiables and then working in? But that also might immediately establish the boundaries that people start pushing.

Like, playing more than four full-ish non-COVID seasons seems like it’s held up, and coming from the NBA or G league also seems like it’s going to be a pretty firm line.

The JUCO thing seems like it might’ve been lost, though Agular in four years of JUCO may challenge that on the “well this is silly” scale.

It’s also clear giving up the sit-out year was a mistake, as was dressing it in the stupid old timey language it used to have. Although maybe that would’ve been out with the bath water.

And as you said, the problem with all of this is everyone wants rules and no one wants to follow them, even for the most modest of gains.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.


https://twitter.com/PeteNakos/status/2022353303527657590

It is what the NCAA is asking for.

And that outfit is so competent...

Almost everything in Pillar Three will get struck down in court, including and especially any federal laws targeted at placing limitations on the line items in Pillar Three.

Actually, probably not. The antitrust laws are merely creations of congress, not the Constitution. So if congress passes new laws specific to the NCAA, they would override a broader statute not directed specifically at the NCAA, especially so if the new laws specifically exempt these new things from the antitrust laws, but probably even if they didn't.