While those artilces are interesting, they are not entiely accurate. As noted in post #2 the new red-shirt rule says nothing about transfer eligability. It simply allows a player to not use up a year of actual eligibility by playing in 4 or less games in a year. Similarly, the restitution rule only hurts a school where it allows an ineligable player to play while the NCAA is attempting to appeal a judge's ruling that the NCAA was wrong to suspend the player. Under most state's law and federal law, where a temporary injunction is entered, the court has the power to have an expedited hearing on the actual merits so that neither side is harmed by delay. Still, the idea that the NCAA tries to play hardball is 100% accurate. But, lawyers representing players are being more aggressive themselves. Waivers are requested based upon racial attacks, because a university condoned or protected anti-female abuse. Waive the protected class flag and the NCAA may well back off simply because to be wrong would expose it to not only damages but public outrage. I predict that waivers will become more common as time goes by. Perhaps there will be a limit such as no in conference transfers or no following a coach transfer. But, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, times they are a-changing.
