OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
I’m guessing we see him end up at North Dakota. Losing a HS running back commit is no loss IMO.Guessing Rigdon decommitting is tied to Gordie leaving
I’m guessing we see him end up at North Dakota. Losing a HS running back commit is no loss IMO.Guessing Rigdon decommitting is tied to Gordie leaving
I'd be surprised if he ends up at North Dakota. I bet a P4 conference team picks him up. He is a freak athlete.I’m guessing we see him end up at North Dakota. Losing a HS running back commit is no loss IMO.
Skattebo is a unicorn. 5'5" (don't believe what the media says) and 225+ pounds. Like tackling a fire hydrant.I'd be surprised if he ends up at North Dakota. I bet a P4 conference team picks him up. He is a freak athlete.
We may never hear his name again. That wouldn't shock me one bit. But I also wouldn't be that surprised if the guy doesn't turn into the next Sam Skattebo.
Hmmm does this mean Allen has some eligibility left?Dax Crum. It was announced that Crum still has eligibility remaining following the recent NCAA ruling regarding JUCO years. Crum is purportedly back on campus working out.
No. NCAA rules specify that a player is no longer eligible once they complete the NFL draft process. Same reason Brett Smith became ineligible despite not even making a roster.Hmmm does this mean Allen has some eligibility left?
I bet it could be challenged. Isn’t this a violation of interstate commerce or however they justify paying players now? How is there still a limit on how long you can stay in college? That also seems to violate that principleNo. NCAA rules specify that a player is no longer eligible once they complete the NFL draft process. Same reason Brett Smith became ineligible despite not even making a roster.
The justification for courts overruling NCAA rules on transfer, NIL and JUCO years has been the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. You’re probably right that the same rationale could be argued to apply to folks who went to the draft and didn’t like where they ended up and want to return to college.I bet it could be challenged. Isn’t this a violation of interstate commerce or however they justify paying players now? How is there still a limit on how long you can stay in college? That also seems to violate that principle
Not really being serious about Allen. That written, the NCAA has a bunch of rules that specified a whole bunch of things that are being tossed when challenged in court. Would this rule be another domino to fall?No. NCAA rules specify that a player is no longer eligible once they complete the NFL draft process. Same reason Brett Smith became ineligible despite not even making a roster.
There's a couple big legal issues with the idea that a private group, such as the NCAA, should be able to make its own rules unchecked because of a right of members to freely associate:Edit - I see you have responded offering your input. I dunno about this stuff. Personally I think people have a right to freely associate and that means creating groups that you can set rules on. Nobody is forcing one to be a member of the group (NCAA) so if you want to be a member you adhere to their rules.
This will likely be reversed as soon as Trump is inaugurated.Just saw on news that Title IX applies to NIL
Title IX applies to revenue sharing under the agency rule. But agency rules don’t carry as much weight anymore with Chevron deference being overruled and the question is subject to judicial determination.Just saw on news that Title IX applies to NIL
I doubt Trump administration does anything with this rule and lets the court decide. I could be wrong but it just doesn’t seem something the incoming administration will care too much about.This will likely be reversed as soon as Trump is inaugurated.
This was simply an interpretation from the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, likely with pressure from the outgoing Biden administration.
Thanks for the input and insight. Yes, there have to be checks and limits. I just fail to see how those limits you list above really apply to say years of eligibility or counting/notcounting JuCo experience. Though I get the courts nudging Congress to act in order to detail just what sort of actions the NCAA/conferences/schools can and can't do.There's a couple big legal issues with the idea that a private group, such as the NCAA, should be able to make its own rules unchecked because of a right of members to freely associate:
1) The group is comprised of many publicly funded entities.
2) We have laws (specifically the federal Sherman Anti-Trust Act) that prevent groups from monopolizing markets to allow for competition and to protect consumers and market participants. In fact, it is part of the Wyoming Constitution:
Article 1, Section 30 - Monopolies and perpetuities prohibited. Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state, and shall not be allowed. Corporations being creatures of the state, endowed for the public good with a portion of its sovereign powers, must be subject to its control.
That said, there are circumstances where we should provide exceptions and Congress is free to do that. Congress has done that with Major League Baseball and certain other organizations in specific ways. The NCAA seems to me to be a case where Congress should act to provide for some exceptions.
Normally, I would agree. But this is literally something Biden's administration forced on their way out. Given that, I think Trump will be keen to reverse it.I doubt Trump administration does anything with this rule and lets the court decide. I could be wrong but it just doesn’t seem something the incoming administration will care too much about.