Executive order aims to limit NCAA athletes to 5 years, 1 transfer

Except the clock STILL starts when you first enter college. The problem only arises for people like Clinger where they spend a year in college and then go on their mission.

lol. That will cost you more money than you will make in your lifetime not to mention the process will run longer than your eligibility. Lose-lose.

Except you would want it done by someone who is sane and consults experts. Much like the iran war this will be completely random and without planning. We can all agree on that right?

So is this EO only aimed at the D1 level, or is it forcing the same limitations across D2 and D3 (since I know their eligibility lengths are defined differently from D1)?

It won't cost any money. Plaintiff lawyers get a share of the settlement, and they will turn it into a class action. But yes, it will definitely run longer than the eligibility.

Im trying to transfer to a d2 or juco to just do school for a year and then transfer again to actually run basically a gap year, but this won't allow me to do that. Know school would give me any scholarship to sit out a year. I sure hope this doesn't get enforced and I hope Trump actually addresses what he should and not stick his fingers in the ncaa.

No*

UCLA's starting PG is a 6th yr student from New Zealand who transferred from Washington State. (She got an extra year because of Covid and took a red shirt last season. She is older than both Clark and Bueckers.) Two of the other rotation players are Mexican and Serbian, although they were born and raised in the US. They also have a Croat and a Swede on the roster.

South Carolina has players from Kenya, France and Canada. UConn has players from Ecuador, Egypt and Ireland. Texas has players from Ireland and Sweden. So a total of 13 players in Final Four alone. And then you have Swords at Michigan, Fournier at Duke, Prosper at Notre Dame, Suarez at TCU and a lot more among Elite Eight teams.

Oh, maybe you just meant "men's" basketball...

I will say....no way he thought of this himself, someone was in his ear. Which leads me to be shocked that he didn't package this with "no foreign born athletes" on NCAA teams. Shocked.

Yeah, that first amendment right to freedom of religion sure is a pain.

I’m glad this issue has been brought forward. Whether people are for or against it, at least it’s drawing attention to something worth discussing, as another poster reasonably pointed out.
That said, the level of knee-jerk reaction on these boards is hard to ignore. It often feels like critical thinking and any appreciation for political gamesmanship get set aside in favor of outrage.
Let’s be honest there’s clearly some level of provocation going on toward political opponents and foreign governments. It is entertaining to watch, but it also raises a legitimate question about what is appropriate behavior for a President of the United States. We all can agree it’s not appropriate, both sides need to put real leaders up for us to choose from. I have yet to see one that meets the criteria for all, and guess what….. never will.

This was a just an issue that needs zero executive federal input. It just isn't remotely important enough. Have the NCAA come up with a plan and get the required laws passed. Having the government interfering everywhere sounds good right up until they interfere with stuff you support.

5 years isn't the issue in track. Starting at 22 is. In the ball sports, you sort of also have to factor in stuff like coaching changes . And make all the deals public... Leys make it clear what a top 10 qb is worth ..

Reads like an April Fool’s joke or The Onion. So many real world problems, ffs.

I smell lawsuits.

Ehh, not exactly.

The NCAA's amateurism rules are a blatant violation of the Sherman Act. Most of the antitrust community knew that the NCAA was going to get absolutely wrecked in court eventually. As Justice Kavanaugh put it, you can't get together with your competitors and agree not to pay your labor on the theory that the product you're selling is "unpaid labor."

That doesn't mean, however, that everything the NCAA does is illegal. Sports leagues have significant latitude under the antitrust laws to make horizontal agreements that would probably be illegal in other industries. The reason is that sports cannot exist as a product unless competitors agree to cooperate in some ways.

The transfer issue is easy to fix, and the NCAA wouldn't even have to declare a policy. It could just say that it won't interfere with the agreements that schools enter with athletes. Then schools could sign athletes to contracts to stay for their full college career. The terms could vary, however, and they could be renegotiated. For example:

- An agreement could state that a student is free to transfer, but he has to pay back the value of his scholarship up to the point he left, so in practice, the school to which he is transferring would have to pay the school he's leaving. That would significantly reduce transfer activity, without stopping it.

- Or lesser schools might offer more flexibility to their top recruits, on the theory that a young athlete might be willing to take guaranteed playing time until he's proven he can lead a big program, rather than get locked up on a contract that might see him on the bench for years.

- An agreement might state that a student can transfer for free if he doesn't start half the team's games for which he's healthy and available.

- An agreement might state that a student can only transfer to a school not ranked in the top-25.

- An agreement could be valid only so long as the head coach remains at the school.

- Or an agreement could simply say that a player cannot transfer to another school and compete in the same sport, period.

We know that this would work because it's how pro sports work. We don't have players reshuffling themselves around the league on a whim every year, but we also don't lock them down to a single team for a career. Mostly, we adopt an approach of bilateral contracts, negotiated at arm's length, with league rules as guard rails. The result is a pretty good balance, in most leagues, between team stability and player mobility.

Part of what's going on right now is that the NCAA wants this transfer chaos so that the federal government will hopefully step in and, in the process of fixing what's broken, give the NCAA back what it really wants: limits on student-athlete compensation. The thing is, there is just no necessary connection between those two things. Unlike athlete compensation, the current transfer chaos is not actually mandated by the antitrust laws.

People here complain about the current free-for-all. Then they complain about an EO to try to limit that. What would generate mostly kudos?

One no questions asked transfer is still better than the old system. 5 years to get 4 in makes sense because you can be a masters grad and still compete if you have eligibility. There needs to be an age limit though. Once you’re 26 your eligibility is done. Also NIL should have nothing to do with the institution. If a an individual athlete can get a million bucks from Nike, that’s great. But they should be able to compete for any school they want. The Ohio State football teams and OSU XC teams of the world shouldn’t be able to buy championships.

The bigger problem football coaches have is the unlimited transfers rule. 5 schools in 5 years is now not uncommon and chaotic for the institution(s). It is why a school has to hire a GM nowadays.

Very little transferring in T&F compared to the revenue sports.

Name this last time a star QB had to sit out a season due to academic flunking.

Focusing on substance and putting the politics aside:

I can't tell what this would actually change. If it still allows 6+ uears for missions, military service, etc...what does it no longer allow? Medical redshirts?

IMO a more helpful route would be an age cap

Pretty sure he had lunch with Nick Saban a couple weeks ago.