Tell me you haven’t paid attention to the Alston decision without telling me you haven’t paid attention to the Alston decision.
“NIL … is a good thing. And actually, that part of it is going well on our campus,” Barta told broadcaster Gary Dolphin on the university’s “Fight for Iowa” podcast that was released Thursday. “But what has happened is it is now being used for recruiting inducements. That was never intended. It still is against the rules, but it’s blatantly being abused.”
Barta met with other NCAA powerbrokers recently in Scottsdale, Arizona, to work on charting the course for college athletics.
Repealing the one-time transfer permit wouldn’t affect incoming freshmen’s ability to score a big NIL deal. But, in Barta’s opinion, doing so would help stabilize the wild roster movement that is taking place on a lot of major-college campuses.
“You don’t have to lose your scholarship. But you must sit out a year. Because we can control that,” Barta said. “And that I think would slow down the (NIL) deals, because a booster isn’t going to offer a student-athlete a big sum of money if they know they have to sit out a year.”
Congratulations, genius. You’re
taking notes on a criminal conspiracy describing a textbook antitrust violation. Lawyers across the country are shaking their heads.
This guy is the AD at a P5 university and once served as the front man for the CFP selection committee. Jesus, where do they find these people?
12 responses to “Check out the big brain on Gary.”
Not sure I agree. Nothing says you can’t get NIL in the year you are sitting out. And why is it not an antitrust violation that a player cannot enter the portal after May 1 and be eligible to play the next year?
As Barta describes it, the whole point to reinstating the transfer drag is to reduce NIL compensation. If players have to sit a year, they won’t be as attractive a financial target as they would if they didn’t.
As far as your second question goes, c’mon. All a player has to do is enter the portal before May 1, right?
Did Alston say the NCAA can’t establish a rule of eligibility for transfers? I thought transfers could not be blocked, but if the NCAA says you must complete X time towards your degree at the new school before being eligible to participate they could do that. If the NCAA can’t, then they’ve been truly stripped of any rule making authority. I guess the conference’s could adopt that rule, but as you’ve pointed out, none will unilaterally disarm.
You can’t make transfer rules for the purpose of limiting player compensation. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp.
Thanks for indulging my ignorance on the Alston ruling, but did the case really draw such a bright line test? Seems there could be gray areas on what is a rule of competition vs. a rule designed, intended or otherwise, to limit compensation. SA’s still have to be enrolled and meet academic requirements, so a proposed timeframe to establish they are fulfilling those requirements before being eligible to compete in sports seems to be within that purview. Now, the fact that the coaches want their transfers eligible immediately and thus no rule change is being contemplated, that just goes to the grotesque hypocrisy that guides college sports today.
If you think Barta is discussing a rule about competition there, I still have that choice piece of oceanfront property in Hahira I can let you have for a fair price.
Yes, Barta let’s the cat out of the bag and Mr. Kessler now has that quote in his pocket. But I’m really lost then on what rule making authority the NCAA has left…I’d argue none as long as the leadership is this stupid.
Again, thanks for the ongoing enlightenment on this. I read the Harvard Law Review article on Alston and see how poorly the NCAA defended itself, yet Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did seem to provide an outline of what can be done.
I think what ol Gary was trying to say was it would slow down the NIL deals (For enticement by illegal tampering). I can’t be positive of course, but he either left that important clarifying point out, or he’s incredibly stupid as the Senator suggests.
The lawyers for the kids will say such a rule is to limit NIL, and the schools will say it’s to limit illegal enticement or tampering. I imagine it’s somewhere in the middle of both. Quotes like this one don’t look good for the schools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To add on…a player is free to stay for less money, or transfer and sit for more money. If the market doesn’t offer more money because of the eligibility rule, you’d think the NCAA could win in court on the long established legal precedent of “that’s not our fault”. I just don’t see a logical end to where a player could argue that any rule “limits” what they can earn otherwise.
All a player has to do is decide the right school to start with. How is May 1 fair to a player that leaves spring practice as the #1 guy at his position and then the coach adds an all-American transfer at his position on May 10?
You either have rules on transfers or you don’t.
My solution would be a player and school get to decide on the length of the scholarship commitment. If 2 years, then the player can’t be cut and can’t transfer without sitting out a year until 2 years is up. If one, then one year. If 4, then 4 years. Obviously, the school and player could decide to re-up if only a 1 year deal.
Makes me think of the UGA v Kemp case. Michael Adams, stated,
“all players do not graduate, but we make Mailmen out of Garbagemen”. Case closed, we lose. It does not matter what he was trying to say, it was what came out of his stupid mouth.
(it might not have been Adams, I just dislike him so much I blame
everything on him)
LOLOLOLOLOL. Klassik. Gary, Gary, Gary, please pay attention!