Eric Blevins

Agree with Mit that it would be surprising if this does not lead to a lawsuit. The NCAA had its one-time transfer rule declared illegal in court. And the NFL’s ‘60s-era Rozelle Rule (which effectively prevented free agency) suffered the same fate. Any NCAA rule imposing transfer restrictions will have to contend with these.

@onuss_ Yes, I’d read the question as what if the NCAA wanted/tried to implement some rule

@EricJBlevins x.com/rossdellenger/…

It would be difficult, and that’s what is happening now, like we saw with Xavier Lucas to Miami. A court already told the NCAA its one-time transfer rule was illegal under antitrust, so that precedent poses an obstacle. We’ve also seen schools try to control transfers through language in NIL contracts, with interesting results (compare Demond Williams and Darian Mensah). The other options are Congress or collective bargaining.

A very thorough analysis that touches on many of the biggest legal issues in college sports: NIL arbitration, eligibility litigation, the athlete-employment question. One more that could significantly affect college sports’ direction: Title IX. It’s currently being litigated and those outcomes could shift big-picture trajectories.

Even though this would mean more money for players, this proposed “retention cap” still is not protected from scrutiny under antitrust law.

This piece advocates for protecting the 99% of college sports from the issues plaguing the 1% of "big-time" revenue sports. One alternative solution that isn't discussed: What if we merge the athletic and academic experience for the 99%, like music and other performing arts programs? And treat them differently from the 1%. This model potentially could not only save teams from getting cut, but provide legal protections that prevent them from being swallowed up by the legal issues straining the 1%. This is the topic of our Harvard journal article published this week: journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/wp-conten…

Full article here: journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/wp-conten…

I'm happy to share the final publication of a college sports article that @SportsLawGuy and I have co-authored for the @harvardjsel. With college sports straining under legal scrutiny, there have been many proposals to save it. One that's been less-discussed: why not treat some sports like true academics? Thanks to the entire journal staff for their thoughtful contributions to this piece.

The NCAA has said it wants to continue litigating Cortez Braham's case in part because it wants to enforce the "rule of restitution" against Memphis. In a hearing today, a judge wondered why. "What did these institutions do? They followed a court order?”commercialappeal.com/story/sports/c…

@samcehrlich It would be surprising to see the court buy the NCAA's "not commercial in nature" argument on this. The big questions overall felt like 1) is this moot? 2) did the athletes offer enough to prove the relevant market?

Finally getting into the merits, and one judge: "I read [some key language] from O'Bannon as dicta, and regardless things have changed since Alston." Oof for the NCAA. (Here's the language in question... also worth noting that the Third Circuit overturned Smith in Elad)

Arguments for Braham/Martinson are starting now.

Hearing has ended. One interesting note from the very end. The court grilled NCAA counsel on the Rule of Restitution and whether the NCAA would actually punish a school for playing an athlete permitted by a court order. Counsel said that the NCAA hasn't actually decided whether or not it will take action against Memphis under the Rule of Restitution (if the order barring it is lifted).

@RossDellenger Braham/Martinson's counsel is up. Court is now pushing on the above issue about evidence of the relevant market. Athlete's counsel: "No we did not use any experts in our case." That was fatal to Elad and Fourqurean's claims in the 3rd and 7th Circuit.

Today is big as a federal appeals court hears argument at 12 ET in 2 eligibility cases the NCAA lost: Braham and Martinson. Quick explainer followed by live updates 🧵

In about an hour, we'll get our fourth set of federal appellate oral arguments in NCAA eligibility rule cases -- this time by the Ninth Circuit in Braham & Martinson v. NCAA. You can listen here: youtube.com/watch?v=pp721G…