During the roundtable, Tuberville called for Donald Trump to sign an executive order to (1) reinstitute the NCAA’s one-time transfer policy and (2) create a new eligibility standard permitting athletes five years to play five seasons with no waiver or exceptions.

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) March 10, 2026

Surely Pine Box knows that such an order would be struck down faster than a Coach trying to hightail it out of a Lubbock recruitment dinner.

Panama Red said:

---

During the roundtable, Tuberville called for Donald Trump to sign an executive order to (1) reinstitute the NCAA’s one-time transfer policy and (2) create a new eligibility standard permitting athletes five years to play five seasons with no waiver or exceptions.

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) March 10, 2026

Shirley Pine Box knows that such an order would be struck down faster than a Coach trying to hightail it out of a Lubbock recruitment dinner.

---

Honestly, I want CFB back to being something other than a wild west version of open free agency NFL minor leagues as much as anybody. But I don't think the president should be doing anything about it via executive order. If Congress wants to get involved and give the NCAA anti-trust cover to get it done, fine. But I think there is insufficient opportunity for graft for Congress to want to do anything about it.

Panama Red said:

---

During the roundtable, Tuberville called for Donald Trump to sign an executive order to (1) reinstitute the NCAA’s one-time transfer policy and (2) create a new eligibility standard permitting athletes five years to play five seasons with no waiver or exceptions.

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) March 10, 2026

Surely Pine Box knows that such an order would be struck down faster than a Coach trying to hightail it out of a Lubbock recruitment dinner.

---

Tuberville being known for his towering intellect and substantial knowledge of constitutional law.

I'm surprised he didn't ask Trump for an EO overturning the law of gravity.

Funny exchange

On limiting transfers, Tuberville and Murphy had an exchange. Tuberville says athletes should be able to transfer once before a penalty of a year (one-time policy).

Said Murphy: “Coaches too?”

Tuberville, after a few seconds of silence: “You got me there, Murphy.”

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) March 10, 2026

While I agree a that unfettered transfers is something that needs to be addressed, not so sure Tubberville is the one to be carrying that torch

NIL isn't the problem. IMHO NIP is the best thing to happen to college football in 50 years.

The problem is immediate, limitless transfers with instant eligibility. No league can work that way. If you have to make them employees to enforce multi year contracts, then do that. But this is the problem that has to be solved.

What will fix it is the collapse of it by people not watching anymore.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

NIL isn't the problem. IMHO NIP is the best thing to happen to college football in 50 years.

The problem is immediate, limitless transfers with instant eligibility. No league can work that way. If you have to make them employees to enforce multi year contracts, then do that. But this is the problem that has to be solved.

---

Just ban NIL payments in a player"s first season with a team. That will take a lot of the pay for play out of the picture if they can't get paid until their sophomore season and can't get paid immediately for transferring.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What will fix it is the collapse of it by people not watching anymore.

---

let us know when that starts to happen

txags92 said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

NIL isn't the problem. IMHO NIP is the best thing to happen to college football in 50 years.

The problem is immediate, limitless transfers with instant eligibility. No league can work that way. If you have to make them employees to enforce multi year contracts, then do that. But this is the problem that has to be solved.

---

Just ban NIL payments in a player"s first season with a team. That will take a lot of the pay for play out of the picture if they can't get paid until their sophomore season and can't get paid immediately for transferring.

---

NIL is not supposed to be tied to the sport even though, in practice, it is. You can't tie NIL payment to anything related to eligibility or playing.

Burdizzo said:

---

txags92 said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

NIL isn't the problem. IMHO NIP is the best thing to happen to college football in 50 years.

The problem is immediate, limitless transfers with instant eligibility. No league can work that way. If you have to make them employees to enforce multi year contracts, then do that. But this is the problem that has to be solved.

---

Just ban NIL payments in a player"s first season with a team. That will take a lot of the pay for play out of the picture if they can't get paid until their sophomore season and can't get paid immediately for transferring.

---

NIL is not supposed to be tied to the sport even though, in practice, it is. You can't tie NIL payment to anything related to eligibility or playing.

---

My logic for that on NIL is that a player who has never played a down for a team has no intrinsic NIL value as a spokesman or advertising vehicle. Once he has played a year for the team, his name, image, or likeness will have value due to the recognition from fans who have seen him play.

txags92 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

txags92 said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

NIL isn't the problem. IMHO NIP is the best thing to happen to college football in 50 years.

The problem is immediate, limitless transfers with instant eligibility. No league can work that way. If you have to make them employees to enforce multi year contracts, then do that. But this is the problem that has to be solved.

---

Just ban NIL payments in a player"s first season with a team. That will take a lot of the pay for play out of the picture if they can't get paid until their sophomore season and can't get paid immediately for transferring.

---

NIL is not supposed to be tied to the sport even though, in practice, it is. You can't tie NIL payment to anything related to eligibility or playing.

---

My logic for that on NIL is that a player who has never played a down for a team has no intrinsic NIL value as a spokesman or advertising vehicle. Once he has played a year for the team, his name, image, or likeness will have value due to the recognition from fans who have seen him play.

---

It doesn't matter what creates their value. You can't tie NIL money to what they do or might do on the field even though we all know that's where it comes from. That is why it is called "Name Image Likeness" and not "Name Image Likeness Eligibility and Stats". It comes down to the basis of the lawsuit that started all this. The colleges and NCAA can't interfere with the students' inalienable rights to sell their own names and faces to whomever is willing to pay.

thats not very logical as many players already have NIL value before they ever step on campus.

either way, that is something that is never going to happen.

A week after the White House roundtable, Donald Trump’s staff is working toward an executive order to address athlete employment (non-employment), transfers (1X policy), eligibility, collectives (limitations) & Olympic sports (requiring resources), sources tell @YahooSports. https://t.co/MNsyAcXPG2

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) March 13, 2026

They know the executive order won't hold up. It's a springboard to get congress to act.

Originally set for a vote next week, any SCORE Act vote has now been pushed to mid-April at the earliest.

Under discussion are several modifications, including the… Lane Kiffin Rule?

More in our weekly sports biz column for @On3 - https://t.co/1veaYnx26S

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) March 19, 2026

The "Lane Kiffin Rule" is a proposed modification to the SCORE Act (a bill creating federal NIL standards, revenue-sharing caps, transfer rules, and NCAA antitrust protections).

It's named after LSU coach Lane Kiffin, who left playoff-bound Ole Miss in Dec 2025 for a ~$90M LSU…

— Grok (@grok) March 19, 2026

The score act is a terrible idea and in no way conservative.

pagerman @ work said:

---

The score act is a terrible idea and in no way conservative.

---

The only "true conservative" option is to just get rid of antitrust laws. There's no chance that happens.


So what do you propose in the meantime be done?

This is dumb

BMX Bandit said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

The score act is a terrible idea and in no way conservative.

---

The only "true conservative" option is to just get rid of antitrust laws. There's no chance that happens.


So what do you propose in the meantime be done?

---

Nothing.

This is a solution in search of a problem.

So you think there is nothing wrong with the current state of college football where there are essentially no enforceable rules?

You may be right, but that is a take I've hear very few people make.

Panama Red said:

---

So you think there is nothing wrong with the current state of college football where there are essentially no enforceable rules?

You may be right, but that is a take I've hear very few people make.

---

The rules are set by the NCAA, a sanctioning body that all participants agree to use. This is no concern of the federal government. If the participants feel a change is need, they need to be lobbying the NCAA (the schools elect this leaders, BTW).

Panama Red said:

---

So you think there is nothing wrong with the current state of college football where there are essentially no enforceable rules?

You may be right, but that is a take I've hear very few people make.

---

There are plenty of enforceable rules, just a lot fewer around eligibility than there used to be. Most people that are complaining about the "current state of football" are the equivalent of old people that don't like change. It's disruptive to how college football has always functioned, which really upsets people (the "powers that be": the NCAA, rich alumni, sports media, universities, coaches, fans and basically everyone that wasn't a student athlete).

It's not that I think that there nothing wrong with the "current state of college football", but rather that most of the people complaining think that the problems are new (never mind the insipid notion that Congress is somehow capable of, much less empowered to, "fix" it.

The problem is that college football was always massively corrupt to its core. But that corruption was at least predictable, which is really what people are pining for. It's very comforting to know that the same handful of teams will be guaranteed by the system to always be good, always be favored and granted the benefit of any doubt, and be allowed to use their massive power and wealth to maintain the status quo while simultaneously leaving just enough table scraps to sustain the have-nots in their rightful (if unenviable) place.

Having Congress (the most corrupt institution in America) pass legislation to restore the NCAA (a top 10 corrupt institution itself) to power is among the most egregious examples of backscratching since the feds bailed out the airlines and car makers.

Complaining "chicken little" style about the current state of college football and its alleged "unsustainability" is like listening to plantation owners whine that they just can't make sense of the world since Lincoln went and emancipated all the help. Yep, things have changed, but that doesn't mean it's worse.

Why shouldn't college athletes be paid for the millions upon millions of dollars they generate? Your average college student is free to find a job paying them as much as the market will bear. Why shouldn't they be able to transfer? Your average college student is free to do so.

Burdizzo said:

---

Panama Red said:

---

So you think there is nothing wrong with the current state of college football where there are essentially no enforceable rules?

You may be right, but that is a take I've hear very few people make.

---

The rules are set by the NCAA, a sanctioning body that all participants agree to use. This is no concern of the federal government. If the participants feel a change is need, they need to be lobbying the NCAA (the schools elect this leaders, BTW).

---

Have you even paid attention to all of the lawsuits going on that saying the NCAA, would you call the sanction body, is not allowed to put these rules in place?


The NCAA literally cannot make the changes it wants to make. Why? Because of federal law.


If you think change is needed, and it's OK if you don't, the only way is through federal legislation.

Oh yes, the old "they slaves on a plantation"


Personally, I don't care how much money they make. The more the better in my opinion. But when you start making analogies to slavery in plantations, you kind of make a fool of yourself

I can't wait for the federal government to outlaw the forward lateral. We need football to get back to its roots.

Burdizzo said:

---

I can't wait for the federal government to outlaw the forward lateral. We need football to get back to its roots.

---

I see you have been day drinking. Great day for it given the NCAA tournament.

Quote:

---

It's not that I think that there nothing wrong with the "current state of college football", but rather that most of the people complaining think that the problems are new (never mind the insipid notion that Congress is somehow capable of, much less empowered to, "fix" it.

---

How is the issue regarding transferring and basically free agency not "new"?


And since the problem is 100% caused by federal antitrust laws, how would anyone but Congress be the person to fix this?

And I have to echo BMX on the "plantation" comment. It doesn't help your argument Rev Sharpton

BMX Bandit said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

I can't wait for the federal government to outlaw the forward lateral. We need football to get back to its roots.

---

I see you have been day drinking. Great day for it given the NCAA tournament.

---

If Aggie football doesn't cause you to drink year round, you must be into harder drugs

pagerman @ work said:

---

Panama Red said:

---

So you think there is nothing wrong with the current state of college football where there are essentially no enforceable rules?

You may be right, but that is a take I've hear very few people make.

---

There are plenty of enforceable rules, just a lot fewer around eligibility than there used to be. Most people that are complaining about the "current state of football" are the equivalent of old people that don't like change. It's disruptive to how college football has always functioned, which really upsets people (the "powers that be": the NCAA, rich alumni, sports media, universities, coaches, fans and basically everyone that wasn't a student athlete).

It's not that I think that there nothing wrong with the "current state of college football", but rather that most of the people complaining think that the problems are new (never mind the insipid notion that Congress is somehow capable of, much less empowered to, "fix" it.

The problem is that college football was always massively corrupt to its core. But that corruption was at least predictable, which is really what people are pining for. It's very comforting to know that the same handful of teams will be guaranteed by the system to always be good, always be favored and granted the benefit of any doubt, and be allowed to use their massive power and wealth to maintain the status quo while simultaneously leaving just enough table scraps to sustain the have-nots in their rightful (if unenviable) place.

Having Congress (the most corrupt institution in America) pass legislation to restore the NCAA (a top 10 corrupt institution itself) to power is among the most egregious examples of backscratching since the feds bailed out the airlines and car makers.

Complaining "chicken little" style about the current state of college football and its alleged "unsustainability" is like listening to plantation owners whine that they just can't make sense of the world since Lincoln went and emancipated all the help. Yep, things have changed, but that doesn't mean it's worse.

Why shouldn't college athletes be paid for the millions upon millions of dollars they generate? Your average college student is free to find a job paying them as much as the market will bear. Why shouldn't they be able to transfer? Your average college student is free to do so.

---

The problem with college football right now is that there are effectively no rules. If this keeps up, you will end up with only a handful of teams that have any kind of a chance of winning a title. That's not good for the long-term health of the sport, and we are already seeing schools cutting back on programs because they can't keep up in this arms race.

One of the reasons the NFL smokes college football in popularity is because of the rules in place that encourage parity. It gives teams like the Cleveland Browns or the Dallas Cowboys hope that this is their year. There have been 25 teams since realignment in 2002 that have finished last in their division, then win it the next year. That leveling of the playing field and enforcement of the rules on the salary cap and contracts keeps people watching, and more eyeballs on the screens means more money. Yes, it's socialist, but the model has been proven to work for the NFL. College seems to want to go the other route, and we'll see what happens there.

You used Dallas, Cleveland, and hope in the same sentence.

Let's be honest, these kids haven't been student athletes for 20 years.

The old era was ESPN and the schools making the money and the people who were on the field made nothing comparatively. That's worse than socialism. That's authoritarianism.

In the new system, the workers make the money.

It's FAR from perfect, but I think it's fair that the players get paid for doing the work.

Quote:

---

If this keeps up, you will end up with only a handful of teams that have any kind of a chance of winning a title.

---

That's how college football has been forever.

The transfer portal has screwed up college sports.

My bill is simple: you get 5 consecutive years to play 5 seasons and you get 1 transfer.

After that, if you transfer again, you sit out a year.

This will fix 80% of the issues in NIL today. https://t.co/Ei8DfGHXg5

— Tommy Tuberville (@CoachForGov) March 24, 2026

competing bill. don't think this one will gain much traction.

I don't think Tommy Tuberville is known for his legal acumen when it comes to drafting bills.

infinity ag said:

---

American greed at work again.

We ruined a decent working system in the quest to squeeze more $$$ out of it and it is now completely broken and will soon die .

---

Universities and TV made billions while athletes made pennies is not a "decent working system".

It needed to change but unfortunately the NCAA decided to ignore the elephant in the room for too long and now it's loose.

It 100% need to be fixed with a CBA, athletes cannot enter the portal every freaking year, salary caps like the NFL, etc. But 100% of this lies at the feet of the NCAA.