Coming soon: NCAA v. California

Sure. Kid signs with, say, Tennessee, it's a bad fit, wants to transfer to, oh, Louisville. Sentiment is with that kid. Let him transfer, hell, let him play right away somewhere else. He's a kid. He doesn't get paid.

I do not feel this sentiment for Jalen Ramsey, a great player who is nevertheless deeply disingenuous about his desire to play for a "winner," when the team he currently plays for has a terrific chance of winning its division. Ramsey doesn't just get to leave the Jags. He can ask, the Jags may say yes, they may say no, but he doesn't just get to leave. He's under contract. Jacksonville is clearly a bad fit for him but, tough shit. He's a millionaire.

There's a difference.

 

Libertarian =/= liberal as the terms are used in American politics. To say otherwise is to be willfully obtuse in order to stick to some script.

 

Yeah, Ramsey signed a contract worth a lot of money that his union/association negotiated for. The kid signed up for something that can be taken away from him, wasn't negotiated for, and, for some players, is nowhere near his value.

 

I’m not sure where the disagreement is here.

 

Sentimental protections are not the hypothetical kid's choice and are worth nothing for him. I don't think he would give a shit about losing them if it meant getting what he is worth.

 

If we look at actual NCAA transfer rules as currently written, "sentimental protections" are no protection at all.

So I presume we're talking about doing away with those rules in the spirit of libertarianism.

 

- sidebar -

I'm told there are left libertarians. Anarcho-syndicalists, etc.

Not sure I've ever seen one in the wild in America.

 

Said player may lose his freedom of movement - The ability to transfer - In the process.

The court of public opinion help drive the push for the transfer portal.

 

This isn't too complicated.

People associated with their colleges want to see their affiliated teams shine in the brightest lights, TV exposure, etc. They don't care how the $$ gets divvied up, just make it happen.

Administrators and coaches, knowing a good thing when they see it say "let's not screw this up, keep the $$ for ourselves."

Kids (yes that's what they are, 95% below alcohol drinking age) are left with nothing except "we'll give you a scholarship; and oh BTW, in addition to your school work you're expected to give full-time plus to the sport otherwise we'll yank it at our discretion."

The arena that we're talking about is worth multiple BILLIONS, yet the kids reap less than 1%? 5%? 10%? of that every year.

 

With all the other states starting to jump on, this had to be creating an unfair advantage for the Cali schools.

This is not about kids. It's about money.

Always, follow the money.

 

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out once the Title IX lawyers get involved. And yeah, the money doesn't come from the institutions. But it comes because of opportunities created by the institutions, therefore is an opportunity that must be equal to a corresponding athlete of the opposite gender.

Also, this will create a bigger gap between the haves and have-nots. Mid-level programs don't have boosters with big pockets. Nobody's going to give a MAC athlete any money, because there will be no ROI. So the mid-level, and lower-level programs instantly become non-factors from a competition standpoint. How is that good?

 

Yeah, the MAC is so competitive right now. Get real. There are like six schools in football and maybe 10 in basketball who have realistic chances of being national champions EVER, let alone this year. It's already a fucking monopoly. This just makes the monopoly cough up some of the cash to its workers.