Is the transfer portal hurting the sport? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Is the transfer portal hurting the sport?

Probably be an antitrust problem . Price fixing pay. Plus it would probably violate the House settlement that is supposed to be entered very soon. And there is no way they can cap things like endorsement money from 3rd parties like shoe companies or Paige’s website, Flaujai’s music etc.
I agree, individual endorsements should have no limits. I don't know the correct terminology, but generic contributions to a school's WBB program should be capped as far as $$$ given to the players. Contributions that exceed the cap could then be used to blingify the locker rooms, provide luxury charters for transportation, etc. Current path seemingly will stretch the difference between the haves and the have nots. What fun would March Madness be if 6 teams have 90% of the WNBA-level players?
 
I've said it elsewhere, that NIL was inevitable and necessary given how unethical -- and illegal -- the existing situation was. The consequence may be a sea change in how college sports look and operate, as many here have already forecast, and we may not like it nearly as much. But it just isn't fair to force an oppressive and very likely illegal system on the athletes. I'll be very sad if our direst predictions come true, but I don't see an alternative here.
 
Exactly. If we follow the law, and especially the founding documents of this country, there is no excuse for any sort of price fixing, salary caps, prior restraint, etc. If a sport gets an exemption from these principles, it can only mean that enough fools in congress (and the folks who vote them into office) think it's a matter of national security.
love it!!
 
Exactly. If we follow the law, and especially the founding documents of this country, there is no excuse for any sort of price fixing, salary caps, prior restraint, etc. If a sport gets an exemption from these principles, it can only mean that enough fools in congress (and the folks who vote them into office) think it's a matter of national security.
I'd welcome you point me to where in the Constitution the antitrust right or prohibition exists. Believe it or not, price fixing has existed since the founding, and salary caps are part of every major sport. This isn't even remotely a constitutional issue.
 
I'd welcome you point me to where in the Constitution the antitrust right or prohibition exists. Believe it or not, price fixing has existed since the founding, and salary caps are part of every major sport. This isn't even remotely a constitutional issue.
It is a constitutional issue, though it is best articulated in the DoI. But we have neglected to see it as one as a nation for long stretches. Just because a group of people (or an entire nation) chooses to compromise its own principles for the sake of a temporary advantage or convenience doesn’t make the principle go away.
 
It is a constitutional issue, though it is best articulated in the DoI. But we have neglected to see it as one as a nation for long stretches. Just because a group of people (or an entire nation) chooses to compromise its own principles for the sake of a temporary advantage or convenience doesn’t make the principle go away.
What principle stops you from making this claim about literally any constitutional right you think should exist and that more than a few other people think should too? I have regularly practiced antitrust law, including in the House case, and I would just advise you that pretty much everyone in the field views this as controlled by the Sherman Act, which didn't exist for the first hundred years after our founding. Moreover, if anything, during the "Lochner era" in the 20s and early 30s, many thought antitrust prohibitions were themselves violations of the constitutional right to contract, so historically, at least, there's been more momentum to think the constitution prohibits antitrust restrictions than requires them.
 
.-.
If this keeps up I could see schools throwing in the towel; that's the last thing we need. Is there a way the NCAA could enforce a salary cap on money given to players? If a school is rich let them upgrade facilities until the cows come home, but at least let access to players be equal financially. Blue Bloods still would have the edge reputationally.
No. There has been consistent money flowing to college athletes before and during the NCAA existence.

I see the evolution into super conference(s) with the remaining 85-90% of schools adapting to the transfer portal.
 
I'd welcome you point me to where in the Constitution the antitrust right or prohibition exists. Believe it or not, price fixing has existed since the founding, and salary caps are part of every major sport. This isn't even remotely a constitutional issue.
Since 1890 there has been a pendulum swinging back and forth with the DOJ involvement in the market place ranging from 'big is bad' to the 'rule of reason'(or currently unreason) with anti trust enforcement.

The departing FTC chair Lina "Wrath of" Khan was an extreme example of big is bad. The pendulum has swung back to benign neglect.

I see the constitutional issue in the separation of powers and check and balances embedded in our constitutional order. That is the legislative branch can make legislation impacting merger/combination and price coordination activity and the judicial branch can rule on these pieces of legislation. Given the ambiguity of much "legislation" as we have seen recently, the executive branch can chose or not chose to enforce.

In sport, we see this from the days of Judge Landis to Congressional exemptions for sports leagues to judicial actions on free agency (Curt Flood), gambling, and property rights.

So while this type of controversy/disagreement has roots in the constitution, the NCAA and college sports environment reflects the challenges that the three branches of government encounter in attempting to clarify and apply "law"(in the Hayekian sense) in a dynamic society. The creative destruction in a liberal order leads to these tensions. The alternative to a dynamic society is terrifying for us and our grandkids.

@TheFarmFan points out the complexity of the process as the three branches interact in response to a changing economics, political and entertainment environments. The issue of state involvement in society is a contested one that defies simple advocacy. The economics and law movement in the 1970s initially offered promise in resolving some of these tensions, but unsurprisingly, has contributed to the conflict

50 years ago, has one considered legal gambling on sport (Pete Rose is rolling his eyes) with media sites promoting and benefitting, Las Vegas as a site for sports events, and the integration of these elements organizationally, you would have been called crazy.
 
Last edited:
I'd welcome you point me to where in the Constitution the antitrust right or prohibition exists. Believe it or not, price fixing has existed since the founding, and salary caps are part of every major sport. This isn't even remotely a constitutional issue.
going to guess In the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce , which Congress likely used to pass Sherman Anti-Trust act and related legislation.

Been awhile since I could answer that for sure.
 
Last edited:
going to guess In the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce , which Congress likely used to pass Sherman Anyi-Trust act and related legislation.

Been awhile since I could answer that for sure.
Bingo. Unless SCOTUS says Congress does not have the enumerated power to regulate this kind of commerce among the (many) states (which it does), or it finds some hidden truffle of an individual right in the Bills of Rights against the Sherman Act's restraints on restraints on trade, this is entirely a question of statutory construction and application, and therefore of judges-using-their-gut-judgment. See, eg, Wilkens' order today denying the settlement because a handful of "student"-athletes may get ejected from a roster.
 
My, how times have changed. Back in 2007 or 2008 the NCAA hit UConn with a secondary rules violation because it arranged for Maya Moore and her mother to go on a tour of ESPN. The price of this gratuity amounted to the cost of a phone call. Now it’s okay to offer players mega bucks, rock star publicity and expensive meals at fancy restaurants. Oh, did I forget the sparklers? I am just too old to change.
 
My, how times have changed. Back in 2007 or 2008 the NCAA hit UConn with a secondary rules violation because it arranged for Maya Moore and her mother to go on a tour of ESPN. The price of this gratuity amounted to the cost of a phone call. Now it’s okay to offer players mega bucks, rock star publicity and expensive meals at fancy restaurants. Oh, did I forget the sparklers? I am just too old to change.
I remember Boise St. football team team got a slap on the wrist because some of their players took some recruits to Taco Bell and let them couch dive at their place. Pretty hideous recruiting tactics going on back in the day.

But my all time favorite involved Arizona basketball. Bill Walton took his son Luke and his son's teammate/roommate Richard Jefferson to a Lakers' playoff game. Oh, you can't do that! I think Jefferson had to sit out 3 games. This wasn't a recruiting gimmick, both Luke and Richard were already at Arizona and were roommates and friends. If they weren't ball players, the family of your friend could take you on all expense paid month long trip to Europe or whatever, but pretty much everything was illegal according to the NCAA back then. As opposed to now, when as far as I can tell nothing is illegal. I must be some kind of idiot thinking there is possibly some middle ground between nothing is okay and everything is okay?
 
.-.
I remember Boise St. football team team got a slap on the wrist because some of their players took some recruits to Taco Bell and let them couch dive at their place. Pretty hideous recruiting tactics going on back in the day.

But my all time favorite involved Arizona basketball. Bill Walton took his son Luke and his son's teammate/roommate Richard Jefferson to a Lakers' playoff game. Oh, you can't do that! I think Jefferson had to sit out 3 games. This wasn't a recruiting gimmick, both Luke and Richard were already at Arizona and were roommates and friends. If they weren't ball players, the family of your friend could take you on all expense paid month long trip to Europe or whatever, but pretty much everything was illegal according to the NCAA back then. As opposed to now, when as far as I can tell nothing is illegal. I must be some kind of idiot thinking there is possibly some middle ground between nothing is okay and everything is okay?
Great exemplar of the ineffective, incoherent, self aggrandizing, inefficient, petty, arbitrary, incompetent organization FKA the NCAA.

The philosophy and actions of the bureaucrats that controlled this cartel were NEVER about the athletes or the game(s).

The sooner this "organization" is discarded to the dustbin of history the better.
 
Great exemplar of the ineffective, incoherent, self aggrandizing, inefficient, petty, arbitrary, incompetent organization FKA the NCAA.

The philosophy and actions of the bureaucrats that controlled this cartel were NEVER about the athletes or the game(s).

The sooner this "organization" is discarded to the dustbin of history the better.
But what takes its place?


The Big 10 - SEC coalition? Might do a better job, but still . . ..
 
Absolutely it is hurting the sport, especially when combined with NIL. Too many players are no longer even pretending to be college "athletes", but minor league professionals, seeking the highest payday before becoming an official professional.
 
But what takes its place?


The Big 10 - SEC coalition? Might do a better job, but still . . ..
Whatever emerges to facilitate collaboration for elie collegiate athletics will be far superior to the NCAA.

I'm not certain what the emergent collaboration mechanism will be but I suspect it will be heavily influenced by the media as collegiate sports at the elite level is entertainment.

For the 90% of collegiate Athletics that is not elite money making the institutions and conferences will be sufficient for collaboration.
 
Absolutely it is hurting the sport, especially when combined with NIL. Too many players are no longer even pretending to be college "athletes", but minor league professionals, seeking the highest payday before becoming an official professional.
At the elite level they are apprentice entertainers. At the elite levels college athletics for football and basketball in particular but also in some of the more Minor sports is merely entertainment. It has really only peripheral connection to the collegiate experience.

The vast majority however of collegiate athletes are still collegiate athletes and they are students first and then golfers, Lacrosse players, rugby players, wrestlers second
 
I think nIL chasing players to the most committed programs and forming a larger number of legitimate contenders is probably good for the sport.
 
.-.
Absolutely it is hurting the sport, especially when combined with NIL. Too many players are no longer even pretending to be college "athletes", but minor league professionals, seeking the highest payday before becoming an official professional.
The attendance, the TV ratings, and the higher interest in women’s basketball has never been better The players are making money that they never envisioned and creating lifetime opportunities for themselves that were never there.

while you may personally yearn for a different time it’s pretty obvious that NIL and the transfer portal h as s elevated the sport
just look at the number of posts on this forum that
Potential transfers to Uconn has generated
 
It probably won't happen in women's basketball, but I'm waiting for the day when private equity starts buying the rights to player's NIL contracts. It may sound laughable, but look how many musicians have sold their rights for a big payout. If it trickles down to college athletics, now we're talking anarchy.
 
I view the alignment of college athletics with the rule of law, recognition of the reality of the abuse by the NCAA members schools in exploiting students, and imposition of the rule of law consequences on this monopoly that emerged and deepened over the last 100 years as a positive.

Wetzel's analysis is an important historical overview and clear review of the ethical and legal considerations that prompted the 9-0 supreme Court ruling. (I do wish SCOTUS had similar clarity on even more important issues)


For those of us who want to spectate the joy of sport minus business we certainly still have these opportunities with our local high school teams as well as many of the colleges, the vast majority who are not part of big business.

As an alumni of McClintock High School in Tempe Arizona I have the opportunity to see those girls engage in our sport unsullied by the business aspects as they are not professionals yet.

I have the opportunity to celebrate coaches such as Geno for working with these high school girls - Karen Self as an example.

Let's remember those 15,000 Plus arenas, television performances, tournaments and exotic locations, vast array of merchandise, and proliferation of ancillary businesses profiting from the activity of these athletes is reflective of a business.

For far far too long have these athletes at the elite level been exploited. The hypocrisy of those exploiters was and is breathtaking. And illegal. And immoral.
Seriously, that's what you have. That what was, is immoral, exploitive and illegal. Talk to the many thousands of female student athletes who have their entire college education, lodging, food, travel and tutors paid for. The vast majority who will never ever play beyond college. Ask them if they were exploited. I would bet the answer would floor you. Please tell us how these young athletes were exploited. We now have what you seem to think is nirvana in college sports. Did the old system need to be changed and updated? No doubt it did, like a lot of changes' things have gone from bad to worse. At UConn it will take longer for unlimited money and a free for all transfer portal to rear its ugly head. About as long as Genos last day on the job. Then we become another LSU or any of the other schools who we speculate about. How many $ we dangle to entice HS players or transfers to play pro ball at UConn. If the players want and have unlimited freedom of movement and money just maybe the players should be charged for their apartments, travel, food coaching and gym time. Only seems fair to me, unless you want the schools to be exploited while being used, lied to and pooped on like you feel the players have been. After all, when all is said and done, I guess that almost half a mil invested in a student is nothing. Yes the system needed changes and will change again very soon, cause what you seem to think is right means that any contract the athlete signs with any school is just dust in the wind.
 
Seriously, that's what you have. That what was, is immoral, exploitive and illegal. Talk to the many thousands of female student athletes who have their entire college education, lodging, food, travel and tutors paid for. The vast majority who will never ever play beyond college. Ask them if they were exploited. I would bet the answer would floor you. Please tell us how these young athletes were exploited. We now have what you seem to think is nirvana in college sports. Did the old system need to be changed and updated? No doubt it did, like a lot of changes' things have gone from bad to worse. At UConn it will take longer for unlimited money and a free for all transfer portal to rear its ugly head. About as long as Genos last day on the job. Then we become another LSU or any of the other schools who we speculate about. How many $ we dangle to entice HS players or transfers to play pro ball at UConn. If the players want and have unlimited freedom of movement and money just maybe the players should be charged for their apartments, travel, food coaching and gym time. Only seems fair to me, unless you want the schools to be exploited while being used, lied to and pooped on like you feel the players have been. After all, when all is said and done, I guess that almost half a mil invested in a student is nothing. Yes the system needed changes and will change again very soon, cause what you seem to think is right means that any contract the athlete signs with any school is just dust in the wind.
The athletes, particularly the women, who labored and achieved excellence are and continue to be inspiring. Their preparation and participation are what continue to draw many of us to the sport(s) they play. It would be a mistake to romanticize the role played by the NCAA - the room and board and tuition support were provided by the individual colleges, in may cases in spite of the NCAA. The arcane and insane rules and regulations that the NCAA imposed across college athletics are remarkable, in may ways similar to the IRS -

Remember it was Title 9 and most certainly NOT the NCAA that began the long journey to today.

"The NCAA became concerned by what it perceived to be the potential weakening of its position as the dominant and controlling body of intercollegiate athletics. If Title IX was to apply to intercollegiate sports at all levels and women were to be elevated to a status equal to the men, its financial assets and political power were threatened. The first approach of the NCAA, when faced with the threat of equality in intercollegiate athletics, was to attempt to limit Title IX’s application. The NCAA tried to offer its interpretation of Title IX (Acosta & Carpenter, 1985). It encouraged a narrow interpretation of the law, excluding athletic departments from the scope of Title IX. The NCAA argued that because athletic departments did not receive federal funds, they should be excluded from compliance."
A History of Women in Sport Prior to Title IX

The current transitionary state of college athletics is certainly not nirvana, merely an improvement over the past.

The long over due changes are disorienting and challenging, but the empowerment for the athletes who compete at the level of Uconn is long, long overdue.

We all remember the history of women's sports before Title 9 and after. Of women sleeping on gym floors when on the road, Pat Summit's early experience in coaching is informative.

So, we can agree to disagree - progress is often challenging to those accustomed to the past and to the myths constructed by those in power. In my mind, only the naive would consider the NCAA other than a malignant.

While Slate is a media source that has issues or problems in reporting and editorial direction this article comes close to capturing the insidious nature of the NCAA

'Almost nobody likes the NCAA. Plenty of people like college sports, in the same way plenty of people like the NFL or the NBA. But very few like “the NCAA,” the governing body that oversees America’s college athletic contests. For many, that’s because when the NCAA isn’t working to prevent athletes from being paid, it’s working to make sure women’s sports are treated as something less than men’s sports. "

How the NCAA Has Been Screwing Over Women’s Sports for Years

Slate goes on in the article above to point out

"And the NCAA’s high-profile failures around the 2021 women’s tournament expose how much the bosses cared about that event compared to the men’s tournament. NCAA president Mark Emmert called the disparity “inexcusable,” and of course he did. It is!

But Emmert failed to admit that this tournament’s failures rhyme with how the NCAA treats women’s basketball every other day of the year. It goes beyond money."

So, no nirvana today in women's sports, merely progress.
 
I thought that this topic warranted its own thread. Is it good or bad? How so? What would improve it while continuing to recognize an athlete’s right to profit from their name, image and likeness? I think fans need to be vocal and present and not have their opinions over run by other stakeholders. No fans and viewers are a powerful bargaining position. I can speak of my own experience. I haven’t watched a NBA game in many many years because IMO money, the distribution not necessarily the amount, ruined the spirit of the game. It just has a different feeling.
I think what you might be referring to is the sameness of the pro game. Up and down the court, a minimum of defense, dunk, dunk, dunk or a three pointer. If you grew up with the Celics of Bird, McHale and Parrish you become bored after a few games. The women's game continues to employ crisp passing and medium range shots along with equal distribution which makes it so much more watchable.
 
I would like to see player contracts with buyouts. As Geno has said, call it what it is, “ Professional Sports”. if a player wants to enter the portal they would need to pay the school a buyout fee.
I definitely see it evolving into more defined contractual relationships where players are offered multi season deals.
 
.-.
Here's where Cal and Stanford fans can lock arm in arm. I totally agree. I'm really pumped to be a Valks season ticket holder and I don't even mind that we'll suck this year because I'm just happy to support a league that is growing, in line with my values, and seeks to be transparent and above board. Unfortunately my interest in WCBB has been rapidly waning over the past two years.
“Unfortunately my interest in WCBB has been rapidly waning over the past two years.”
This. I never thought I’d get to this point but I agree. One huge issue emerging is college athletics is it is operating under this new system of NIL and transfers with the assumption the other portions of the landscape are going to remain unchanged. I could definitely see an impact to the current revenue stream.
 
It probably won't happen in women's basketball, but I'm waiting for the day when private equity starts buying the rights to player's NIL contracts. It may sound laughable, but look how many musicians have sold their rights for a big payout. If it trickles down to college athletics, now we're talking anarchy.
This is starting to happen already, to an extent. For example, Kendrick Perkins is part of a company called Nilly which links a percentage of NIL earnings to the money being given to athletes for a specific term. Per this CBS article, they are funded by an equity firm.

 
This is starting to happen already, to an extent. For example, Kendrick Perkins is part of a company called Nilly which links a percentage of NIL earnings to the money being given to athletes for a specific term. Per this CBS article, they are funded by an equity firm.

Well that pretty much settles that... I'm bummed but not surprised. At least the musicians are selling their back catalogue. By selling your future earnings, you're setting yourself up for an equity form riding you relentlessly to get the most bang for their buck. Talk about flogging horses.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,158
Messages
4,555,161
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom