Add an exception for when a head coach leaves, and this would improve the major college sports by a ton. Similar ideas get mentioned all the time, but this really needs to get implemented.

Arkansas HC John Calipari pitched a solution for the transfer portal situations back in July. What do you think of the idea?

🎥 X / Steve Sullivan pic.twitter.com/OnjKeLj8jE

— FOX College Hoops (@CBBonFOX) December 29, 2025

DCIAP

Bring back the prior rules. One free transfer and you get another if you graduate. Other than that, you sit a year or go down to another division to play for a year.

"Easy" if you ignore all of the antitrust lawsuits that the NCAA keeps losing

They're not being paid to play, right? Why wiuld making them sit out a year affect their ability to receive NIL?

BMX Bandit said:

---

"Easy" if you ignore all of the antitrust lawsuits that the NCAA keeps losing

---

This would end once they become "employees" right? So once the schools are paying players directly, do they not begin to have rights to protect themselves from "damages" associated with free player movement? That's really the only difference between pro and collegiate sports, and that will change next year.

contracts and collective bargaining, it's a professional league now. it's not school.

The Banned said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

"Easy" if you ignore all of the antitrust lawsuits that the NCAA keeps losing

---

This would end once they become "employees" right? So once the schools are paying players directly, do they not begin to have rights to protect themselves from "damages" associated with free player movement? That's really the only difference between pro and collegiate sports, and that will change next year.

---

becoming employees does not change antitrust laws.

a school can put protections in place in the contract they have with players. that is a separate issue than schools agreeing amongst themselves to inhibit transfers of students.


what is it you see changing in the next year?


the key difference between pro and collegiate sports is collective bargaining. that surely isn't happening in the next year, no matter how much the democrats want to push that on us (sorry to make this political, but there is no way around it)

BMX Bandit said:

---

The Banned said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

"Easy" if you ignore all of the antitrust lawsuits that the NCAA keeps losing

---

This would end once they become "employees" right? So once the schools are paying players directly, do they not begin to have rights to protect themselves from "damages" associated with free player movement? That's really the only difference between pro and collegiate sports, and that will change next year.

---

becoming employees does not change antitrust laws.

a school can put protections in place in the contract they have with players. that is a separate issue than schools agreeing amongst themselves to inhibit transfers of students.


what is it you see changing in the next year?


the key difference between pro and collegiate sports is collective bargaining. that surely isn't happening in the next year, no matter how much the democrats want to push that on us (sorry to make this political, but there is no way around it)

---

My understanding is that the NCAA structure violated antitrust laws because it unfairly impacted the players, and only the players. Starting next year, schools are paying players directly. I don't see there being any reason why an individual school can't put a claw back provision in place to disincentivize transfers. Other schools could follow suit, independently.

I also don't see why noncompete language wouldn't be enforceable, as long as it was properly limited in scope. If a sales guy can be restricted from taking clients for two years, why can't a player be prevented from using his talents against you next season? It would likely have to be limited to interconference transfers. Maybe there is a flaw there I'm not seeing.

The contract market hasn't quite developed enough for either side to "give up that much leverage" in current contracts IMHO. Right now the future is so unstable neither side (and their contract attorneys) want to take risk of contract length if the rules change (which they will). They can change fast to reflect where the entertainment industry wants this to go with having content to air or they can change much slower piecemeal with fans looking at individual issues and trying to tweak them.

School started paying players directly this year.


The things you're talking about are all individual agreements between a school and a player.

That is totally different than an agreement among schools to have a rule in place. It wouldn't matter if they were employees or not. Just like McDonald's and Burger King cant agree what to pay their employees.

That is what we were talking about violating antitrust laws. And that is why it's not an easy fix.

JW said:

---

contracts and collective bargaining, it's a professional league now. it's not school.

---

The alternative is shutting down intercollegiate sports. The lawsuits have been lost and this is the system that the NCAA and the member institutions chose.

The idea of John Calipari fixing anything related to college athletics is hilarious.

I don't believe a noncompete is enforceable in a Right to Work State, such as Texas. I've known several people that won that argument, even after signing a noncompete at the start of their employment.

Noncompete agreements and right to work (deals with not being required to join a union as a condition of employment) are two separate concepts have nothing to do with one another.


But you were right that the enforceability of a noncompete agreement is going to be a function of state law.

Doc Hayworth said:

---

I don't believe a noncompete is enforceable in a Right to Work State, such as Texas. I've known several people that won that argument, even after signing a noncompete at the start of their employment.

---

Noncompetes when it comes to not taking business from your former employer are enforceable in every state outside of CA, as far as I'm aware. It's not hard to show how a former employee is now trying to make you lose a game would be competing with your former employer.

BMX Bandit said:

---

School started paying players directly this year.


The things you're talking about are all individual agreements between a school and a player.

That is totally different than an agreement among schools to have a rule in place. It wouldn't matter if they were employees or not. Just like McDonald's and Burger King cant agree what to pay their employees.

That is what we were talking about violating antitrust laws. And that is why it's not an easy fix.

---

Makes sense. What if it happened at the conference level, leaving the players a chance to enter into another conference if they really want out. This allows for reasonable opportunities to further their career while also being held to a standard in conference.

Not saying a conference would do that, but could they? If so, theoretically the B1G and the SEC could create their own standards independently of one another the would put a major slow down on the current situation.

Nah - this all wrong.

Go wide open - transfers anytime, even during season.

Then in playoffs, when a team beats another team, they can take any players they want to the next game.

And cut coaches salary to max of $500K per year.

Doc Hayworth said:

---

I don't believe a noncompete is enforceable in a Right to Work State, such as Texas. I've known several people that won that argument, even after signing a noncompete at the start of their employment.

---

Noncompete contracts are legal in Texas. They have to meet certain requirements to be enforced.

scoodogg said:

---

Bring back the prior rules. One free transfer and you get another if you graduate. Other than that, you sit a year or go down to another division to play for a year.

---

That won't work any more with NIL and collective bargaining. If a player can't transfer, they lose all their leverage, which means the school they're at will pay them a minimal amount unless they're under some kind of contract. So the only way to implement that is to first apply restrictions on NIL or collective bargaining via contracts to prevent players from losing all their leverage.

Divining Rod said:

---

They're not being paid to play, right? Why wiuld making them sit out a year affect their ability to receive NIL?

---

I was once under the belief that NIL only applied to the standouts - Manziel and the like - and that not every player received NIL funds. You know, for actual name, image, likeness, where a player who brought a following or significant revenue to the school was compensated. Now, it appears all players receive NIL, whether they play or not, as a condition prior to enrolling at that school.

Quote:

---

If so, theoretically the B1G and the SEC could create their own standards independently of one another the would put a major slow down on the current situation.

---

and they'd get slapped with an injunction saying they can't do it in short order

Players starting a Union in 3...2...1..