Court Decision Clears Way for Recruit to Play for URI
James Malachowski, Sports Columnist
Court Decision Clears Way for Recruit to Play for URI
This ruling effectively means any college athlete can play immediately this school year, even if they have transferred one, two, or even three times. It is free agency for all college athletes for this academic year.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST
URI’s David Green can suit up.
Locally, this decision directly impacts URI’s two-time transfer, David Green, who is now eligible to play. Green is a 6’7” shooting forward who the Rams hope will add depth to their frontcourt. Green initially enrolled at Hofstra University and transferred to Louisiana State after one year. In 2023, he transferred to URI but was not eligible to play because the NCAA’s multi-transfer rule requires players to sit out a year. The court decision and subsequent action make him eligible to play immediately.
This decision does not impact any Providence College, Brown University, or Bryant College basketball players.
NCAA requiring two-time transfers to sit out a year is a restraint of trade.
Now that athletes can make money through name, image, and likeness (NIL), the NCAA will likely lose every court case related to restraint of trade. The rule that requires an athlete who transfers a second time to sit out a year unfairly restricts an athlete’s ability to engage in the market for their services and leads to a loss of earnings. In issuing the TRO, the judge wrote that the transfer rule “is the exact kind of unreasonable restraint of trade within labor markets that relevant antitrust laws prohibit.”
Now that the NCAA has abandoned the year sit-out clause in its multi-transfer rule for this year, whether the lawsuit will continue to be litigated remains to be seen. The NCAA spends approximately $40 million a year on legal fees and, in this case, would be wise to stand down. What are the ramifications if this happens or if the NCAA continues to fight in court and loses?
As stated above, it means free agency for all college athletes. Athletes will be able to change schools every year without restriction as long as they meet academic standards. Free agency will result in NIL money playing an even more significant role in recruiting athletes. With NIL payments to athletes rising steadily, players will go to the highest bidder. An example of what is happening now and will increase under free agency is the decision of Hunter Dickinson, the 7’2”, 260-pound center who played for Michigan for three years. Dickinson was the face of the program. He repeatedly publicly stated how much he loved Michigan. He reportedly made just under six figures in NIL money playing for the Wolverines. This year, his senior year, Dickinson transferred to Kansas, where his NIL earnings have been evaluated to be worth $281,000. No loyalty, just mercenary behavior.
Due to the COVID-19 extension, Dickinson has an additional year of eligibility after this season. If free agency remains in place in 2024, he can leave Kansas without restriction and transfer to another school for even more money.
The NCAA has spent decades trying to convince everyone there was a difference between an amateur college athlete and a professional player. There will not be any difference if restrictions on transferring are removed. With a revolving door, college athletes will lose their connection to the campus community. Nor will transient hired guns develop ties to the community where the college is located. Multi-transfer players will be perceived differently than those who stick with a program. College athletes who hop around will not be able to build a legacy at their school and will not have as strong an affinity for the school they eventually graduate from.
Mid-majors become feeder programs
Mid-major conferences like the Atlantic-10 will become similar to AAA minor league baseball teams developing talent for the majors. If the big power conferences misjudge the talent level of a high schooler who ends up at URI or a Ram player develops more rapidly than expected, schools in the Power Five conferences will swoop in, flash their money, and steal the player away. URI will, in turn, raid players from the lower-tier (Double-A) conferences. This hierarchical trickle-up happened this year. Ishmael Leggett got scooped up by the ACC. In turn, URI recruited players from the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (Luis Kortright) and the Big South Conference (Jaden House), which are lower-rated conferences than the A-10. With no restrictions on transferring, this big dog eats middle dog who eats little dog scenario will intensify, occur annually, and become the norm.
To prevent one-and-done athletes, will multi-year player contracts be explored? Will NIL player contracts with collectives have two- or three-year terms tying the athlete to the program for multiple years? Would that be legal or enforceable? If schools sign personal service contracts with players, the athlete becomes an employee of the school, and there is direct pay for play. Historically, the NCAA has been adamantly against an athlete becoming an employee of the school. However, an increasing number of people believe that will eventually happen. Taken to the extreme, in the future, will athletes have any academic requirements? If athletes become employees, are they no longer students?
More to come
The transfer rule court case may bring far-reaching impacts on college athletics. If that weren’t enough, another significant development is taking place.
At the beginning of December, Charlie Baker, the President of the NCAA, distributed a letter to member institutions that described a new framework for schools with the wealthiest athletic programs. These schools would have the option of being split off into a new “subdivision” and be allowed to pay their athletes directly. Schools that opt-in would gain the autonomy to adopt some rules outside of the control of the NCAA. Baker’s letter aimed to spur discussion of this new concept. It will be the subject of a future article.