Please explain to me how there was restricted free agency in the NFL prior to 1994 and how MLB doesn't have unrestricted free agency. Are there contracts? Yes. Does that mean there isn't a chance to get out of a contract and test the market? No
In the NFL or MLB if you were playing for the Cowboys or Yankees and under contract then you couldn't just say I don't want to play here anymore and negotiate with another team. The teams had/have rights to you while under contract and you could negotiate your way out of a contract but a team could refuse that offer. You could still leave but you couldn't play for another team as long as that contract stayed in place.
That's not free agency, that's playing without a contract.
That isn't free agency either. By entering the draft Bo had agreed to the draft rules. He told TB that he wouldn't sign with them because of the crap they put him through to sabotage his baseball career. TB drafted him anyways which means he was under a de facto contract with that team for the year preventing him from going where he wanted. However the moment the 1987 draft kicked off he was no longer under that contract which is how the Raiders got him. Everyone thought Bo wouldn't come back to football but he was worth a 7th round gamble, that paid off once the baseball season and strike was over.
Yes, you are right about contracts. But you are missing what free agency is. Free Agency isn't "you can do whatever you want at any time". It's "both parties abide by the contract and when the contract is up you can do what you want".
I’m not interested in a semantics discussion. So let’s agree that transferring needs to be restricted more than it is now or it will continue to be an issue regarding highest bidder.
I agree that there needs to be contracts for collegiate athletes, which we don't have now. NIL was a step in the right direction but rules will need to keep being adjusted so the system gets better.
If the NCAA is recommending paying the players that is a good sign progress is being made. They wouldn’t have release that statement without the P5 commissioners giving input.
eh, I'll believe it when I see it. Far too many times I've seen this type of "we are investigating this idea" releases just to buy themselves more time. And 10 years from now we will still be discussing this because NCAA has no interest in changing their cash cow system until forced to do so. NIL forced them to take steps but look how long and how many lawsuits that took to happen.
The CBA will take care if this. An "agreement" means both sides give some. The players will have to give up unfettered freedom to move, but teams will have to agree to keep them even if they don't pan out. It will cut both ways. I do agree it's the NIL + transfer that hurts. That said, we just got the one transfer rule and that will likely do what is needed at some level.
Hmmmm. If only someone had been saying this for decades. I seem to recall NO ONE ELSE having this stance. Hmmm
Multi-year contracts would kill the portal abusers.
I addressed both sides in post #64 (I agree both sides should adhere to a contract) and added that the schools also owe some type of medical care responsibility for the players as well. I'm not saying they owe the players medical coverage for life or anything close to that but reasonable policies do need to be put into place so that players don't have to worry about injuries incurred while playing after they graduate.
The healthcare has always been an easy issue. It’s easy to calculate the cost, they have enough money, offering 10 years or something like that of healthcare would be easy. It’s kind of amazing they’ve not done that before. Then again, the TV money has just gotten ridiculous in the last couple years.
It’ll be interesting to see how they do that, as a player gets there and finds out that they recruited over, or they’re not getting any playing time they’re gonna wanna leave. The problem is they can’t have it both ways where you have the unfettered capability to leave, but also want to get paid as if you have an obligation.
The schools have a good deal they can put on the table:
Sure, I agree. I suppose that the team and player could agree to have them transfer. For example, UGA will lose 10-15, and so far of the 7 that are in, we wouldn't want to keep any of them from going. We would have to keep Vandergriif, but can't guarantee PT. And Nyland Green was a former 5 star, but he's been passed by other 5* and 4*. Often the team wants them to leave ... so I guess they could agree, but you couldn't let the team push them out if they don't want to go. That's where it gets nuanced.