… that the use of payments at any time during the recruiting or playing careers of college athletes will continue to be the way rosters are built and maintained.
The process is pure free agency. It cannot be controlled by the NCAA because its attempts at intervention have resulted in lawsuits asserting that their rules are illegal restraint of trade which interferes with recruits and players rights to negotiate payments for their NIL. The NCAA has already lost one class action lawsuit and three others have already been filed. The complaints appear to be well founded in federal law.
The NCAA’s recent decision to permit complete freedom for players to transfer from school to school, makes the NIL free agency even more unsettling to coach’s attempts to build and maintain rosters of players in traditional ways.
There is little to be gained in attempting to resist how NIL payments have changed the process of recruiting and keeping athletic teams together since the Supreme Court of the U.S. made payments for NIL completely legal three years ago.
The developments involving players of just one position since the end of last season demonstrates what is happening. Twenty-four (24) QBs, almost all from FBS teams, entered the Transfer Portal and almost all of them quickly committed to transfer within a matter of less than a week. Was tampering by agents or offers of NIL payments fundamental to such unprecedented player movement?
Despite the apparent fact that the majority of schools have totally embraced the free agency which has resulted, some schools are undecided on whether to participate in the new practices for recruiting and maintaining rosters in team sports .
A few schools have actively resisted the new free agency, even though its legality is well established under the law. Michigan is one of those schools which is resisting, as a matter of policy. Michigan’s position does not appear to be based on any kind of official institutional decision. Rather, it’s Athletic Director has taken every opportunity to slow or block the development of programs to keep Michigan competitive with the majority of schools which are attempting to compete at a high level using the free agency created by the SCOTUS ruling regarding NIL and the NCAA’s loosening of transfer rules.
What happens next? Is the NCAA a toothless enforcing agency? Will conferences choose to take the legal risk of setting and attempting to enforce new rules? Will the most well-funded schools become even more aggressive in the new free agency? What will Michigan do? Will the Board of Regents or President Ono establish a policy position? Or will the AD be permitted to continue to block efforts to create a competitive NIL program based on his personal beliefs?
The process is pure free agency. It cannot be controlled by the NCAA because its attempts at intervention have resulted in lawsuits asserting that their rules are illegal restraint of trade which interferes with recruits and players rights to negotiate payments for their NIL. The NCAA has already lost one class action lawsuit and three others have already been filed. The complaints appear to be well founded in federal law.
The NCAA’s recent decision to permit complete freedom for players to transfer from school to school, makes the NIL free agency even more unsettling to coach’s attempts to build and maintain rosters of players in traditional ways.
There is little to be gained in attempting to resist how NIL payments have changed the process of recruiting and keeping athletic teams together since the Supreme Court of the U.S. made payments for NIL completely legal three years ago.
The developments involving players of just one position since the end of last season demonstrates what is happening. Twenty-four (24) QBs, almost all from FBS teams, entered the Transfer Portal and almost all of them quickly committed to transfer within a matter of less than a week. Was tampering by agents or offers of NIL payments fundamental to such unprecedented player movement?
Despite the apparent fact that the majority of schools have totally embraced the free agency which has resulted, some schools are undecided on whether to participate in the new practices for recruiting and maintaining rosters in team sports .
A few schools have actively resisted the new free agency, even though its legality is well established under the law. Michigan is one of those schools which is resisting, as a matter of policy. Michigan’s position does not appear to be based on any kind of official institutional decision. Rather, it’s Athletic Director has taken every opportunity to slow or block the development of programs to keep Michigan competitive with the majority of schools which are attempting to compete at a high level using the free agency created by the SCOTUS ruling regarding NIL and the NCAA’s loosening of transfer rules.
What happens next? Is the NCAA a toothless enforcing agency? Will conferences choose to take the legal risk of setting and attempting to enforce new rules? Will the most well-funded schools become even more aggressive in the new free agency? What will Michigan do? Will the Board of Regents or President Ono establish a policy position? Or will the AD be permitted to continue to block efforts to create a competitive NIL program based on his personal beliefs?
Last edited:
