Court upholds NCAA rule requiring transfers to sit out one season
"The NCAA can require student athletes to wait at least one full academic year before playing when transferring to a new Division 1 university or college, a federal appeals court in Chicago has ruled.
On Monday, July 25, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Indiana federal judge’s findings that the NCAA’s so-called “year in residence” rule does not violate federal antitrust law, dismissing a class action lawsuit brought by a former punter for the football squad at Northern Illinois University."
You can read the Seventh Circuit's opinion here: LINK
The one part that jumped out for me was the lawyers in Ann Arbor representing the NCAA: "The NCAA is represented by attorneys with the firms of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, of Indianapolis; Schiff Hardin LLP, of Ann Arbor, Mich.; Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, of Ann Arbor; and attorney Jacob K. Danziger, of Ann Arbor."
July 25th? I guess today is my birthday then!
Sad part is that's the quoted portion.
I checked the link. The original article still says July 25.
Hey we're birthday twins!
Must be the day for egregiously bad and totally indefensible court decisions.
No politics! DON’T. TAKE. THE. BAIT.
Nobody cares what you think on here. Get some friends.
Indefensible? Apparently = does not agree with my opinion.
Crap I just got myself banned, didn't I.
Not all opinions were made equally.
Meh...opinions are like assholes....everybody's got one and most of 'em stink
:::(pauses to see if Bolivia is included in the travel ban...):::
The big Ann Arbor connection with counsel for the NCAA is Ann Arbor attorney Greg Curtner, who is a true legal superstar in Ann Arbor. I've had the honor of working with Greg; he is a machine. An antitrust and sports law specialist whose experience matches anyone in the nation. He's been involved in more big cases than I can count.
Funny thing is that I see Schiff Hardin listed as counsel, but I think Greg left them to join another national firm, Riley Safer.
Hi Greg!
He forgot to mention that on top of all that Greg has a twinkling smile, ripped abs and an ass to die for.
Greg is human perfection. Find a new slant.
Ah, that's the other name that I'd tie to it. Didn't realize he was at RSHC so that makes total sense.
Regarding the law firms, they are both Chicago-based law firms, who also have offices in Ann Arbor. Schiff Hardin has been involved in a lot of the NCAA's recent antitrust cases (O'Bannon, Keller, etc.), and RSHC is a spin-off from Schiff Hardin when a number of attorneys left to start their own firm a few years ago.
Wierenga in particular from Schifff Hardin (AA office, 2x UM grad) has been around sports antitrust for a while and is a pretty well known name if you follow that type of thing (who doesn't?). He's a common name to see around NCAA antitrust cases at this point.
Am I missing why this is a big deal?
”Judge decides institution can set its own rules.”. This does not preclude the NCAA from changing the rule themselves - which they are exploring.
This is completely different than the O’Bannon case imo - players have recourse, just not the ease of transfer they desire.
Personally, I am completely against a free-for-all transfer system in the NCAA. Even if/when the players rightfully get a piece of the revenue stream this is still an academic based system and free agency cheapens it. Maybe a one-time only transfer when/if a primary coach leaves within the first 2 years at a school would be a happy medium.
I haven't read the case, but it's an antitrust issue - at a very high level, the issue is that it's multiple entities (schools) agreeing to do something together that arguably restricts the market.
What we think is secondary to the question of whether the NCAA's rule is anti-competitive. The NCAA is a private institution and it can make its own rules, but the athlete has no choice and no options. I would guess that the current SCOTUS would not overturn the decision.
It just seems like a weak argument to me. Players CAN transfer under the existing rules and/or go to a JuCo if they don’t want to sit a year. Players agree to the rule when they sign their LOI or financial agreements.
It seems to me - specific to football - the lack of an alternative out of HS is a better argument. Being a free market believer, maybe this is an opportunity for Non Power-5s to split away and offer more open transfer options as an enticement to lure higher ranked players out of HS.
As Coyote mentions below, a total free agency approach - which may actually help Michigan - is bad for the sport imo. I don’t want to see Saban (or Harbaugh) approaching George Karlaftis at Purdue in 3 years and say come to my school for your 3rd year and we’ll get you a 1st round selection in the draft and a chance at a NC.
I understand the court upholding it based on the argument they had. Theoretically, taking away the year in residence rule would end up gutting lower-level teams or even mid-level teams as soon as the powers had gaps to fill.
I think there could have been a stronger argument made in favor of restricting the "year in residence" rule, particularly for those not on scholarship. If you are a walk-on, and perform well, it seems that "free trade" should allow you to shop scholarship at your current university, or if they do not offer, at other universities willing to effectively pay for your services. I also wonder if there could have been an argument (though not for this case specifically) that the year in residence shouldn't count against your eligibility if you have already taken a redshirt year (it could be argued that it unfairly targets players that are less developed out of high school or something along those lines).
Good points. If not on scholarship you should be free to move anywhere one is offered without siting a year, whether or not your current school is then offering.
OtT - off this topic
Can’t make a new topic on Mobile but SHOULD WE STAY BUCKLED?!
I caught the tail end of Sam Webb this AM and the first few minutes of Spath and both hinted at more (multiple?) good recruiting news likely to be discussed tomorrow. Not looking for paywall info but does anyone have details? Was thinking it could mean W. Robinson, DiCosmo, or that Safety from the DC area - guessing the 5 stars will still be waiting a bit.
Update - Sam just put it a CB for DiCosmo and his father just tweeted out a link to his interview on WTKA with Sam from last week so I am guessing this projects as a V over Stanford coming up.