Interesting discussion today with a college friend who is connected to what goes on at the governance level at the NCAA.
Why the sudden clamp down on a couple high profile transfers?
Well, the NCAA can't affect NIL by resolution. At least not to any meaningful degree that reasserts unilateral control. They know that. But what they CAN do, is control transfers and eligibility rules. If they come down hard on "questionable" transfers, it asserts some authority over collectives and boosters inducing kids to transfer based on NIL offers.
They still have the portal, transfer windows, etc. But if the ability to abuse the process is contained, then maybe so is the free for all every January that created a free agent market where kids are selling themselves to the highest NIL bidder.
Will it change things much? Don't know. Maybe not. But expect the NCAA to try to follow the letter of the law in resolving these transfer requests that aren't clearly within the bounds of the rule's intent.
Why the sudden clamp down on a couple high profile transfers?
Well, the NCAA can't affect NIL by resolution. At least not to any meaningful degree that reasserts unilateral control. They know that. But what they CAN do, is control transfers and eligibility rules. If they come down hard on "questionable" transfers, it asserts some authority over collectives and boosters inducing kids to transfer based on NIL offers.
They still have the portal, transfer windows, etc. But if the ability to abuse the process is contained, then maybe so is the free for all every January that created a free agent market where kids are selling themselves to the highest NIL bidder.
Will it change things much? Don't know. Maybe not. But expect the NCAA to try to follow the letter of the law in resolving these transfer requests that aren't clearly within the bounds of the rule's intent.
