UNC basketball 2026 transfer portal

[superrific]

The heavy majority of the players would also benefit from longer term contracts. Perfect examples: Bogavac and Evans.

In a pro league you would have to let them play out their deal unless there was an agreement to a buyout or mutually agreed release. In the current NCAA setup, the very best players can leave every year to keep getting raises, and those who are the best players on their current teams can attempt to "level up" from low major to mid, mid major to P4, etc...but there are just as many players who are getting tossed out because they didn't live up to their salary the previous year. No pro player would want to be a free agent every single year - that gives you 0% stability and at risk that even a minor injury could have you unemployed.

But as we saw with the Duke QB, the longer term contracts are not necessarily helpful.

Pro leagues don't nullify player movement via contract. They nullify it by eligibility rules -- namely, that a player cannot play in the NBA if that person is under contract for a different team. An NBA player can leave midseason to go play in Europe if he wants. The contract he leaves behind deals with the finances, but not his ability to do so.

The courts have messed this up big time. The current state of affairs is clearly unsustainable. There is absolutely no reason that a "five to play four" eligibility rule can pass antitrust muster when a "one time transfer" rule or a "sit out a year unless you get a buyout or permission" cannot. They are all of a piece. But recently, the courts deciding the eligibility of the player who had been an NBA draftee, and the one seeking a 7th year -- they have realized that the slipshod application of antitrust law here would basically eliminate the entire product. So they aren't enjoining these rules, even though it makes no sense.

It's frustrating.

 

[UNCatTech]

Just don’t feel like colleges should be in the business of minor league sports. I’m not even sure if it’s helping the education budget anymore.

They could completely separate and the college could license their name

 

[CarolinaFever]

It can start being fixed tomorrow if the schools will simply admit that the athletes are employees…but they refuse to do so.

Now they’re holding out hope that Congress will save them so they don’t have to make the athletes employees to create a better system.

The NCAA could have avoided all of this and fixed it decades ago, and it could have been a lot better with regards to the players going to a new school every year. But they refused to be proactive about it mainly because they were greedy.

 

[superrific]

The NCAA could have avoided all of this and fixed it decades ago

Sort of. They couldn't fix this problem. They might have prevented it from getting here.

 

[heelinhell]

The heavy majority of the players would also benefit from longer term contracts. Perfect examples: Bogavac and Evans.

In a pro league you would have to let them play out their deal unless there was an agreement to a buyout or mutually agreed release. In the current NCAA setup, the very best players can leave every year to keep getting raises, and those who are the best players on their current teams can attempt to "level up" from low major to mid, mid major to P4, etc...but there are just as many players who are getting tossed out because they didn't live up to their salary the previous year. No pro player would want to be a free agent every single year - that gives you 0% stability and at risk that even a minor injury could have you unemployed.

100%

These players who agree to come to UNC or any college deserve more than a 1 year contract. That is an advantage for the college because if that player doesn't pan out they can kick him to the curb. That doesn't seem fair. With a multi year contract then the payer knows he can rely on his pay for more than a year no matter his performance. That would put the onus on the college to more carefully scout and analyze the quality of the player they want to hire to play for the team.

That would give the players an opportunity to evaluate which school is offering the best muti year contract to secure their services.

 

[HeelInTheOzarks]

But as we saw with the Duke QB, the longer term contracts are not necessarily helpful.

Pro leagues don't nullify player movement via contract. They nullify it by eligibility rules -- namely, that a player cannot play in the NBA if that person is under contract for a different team. An NBA player can leave midseason to go play in Europe if he wants. The contract he leaves behind deals with the finances, but not his ability to do so.

The courts have messed this up big time. The current state of affairs is clearly unsustainable. There is absolutely no reason that a "five to play four" eligibility rule can pass antitrust muster when a "one time transfer" rule or a "sit out a year unless you get a buyout or permission" cannot. They are all of a piece. But recently, the courts deciding the eligibility of the player who had been an NBA draftee, and the one seeking a 7th year -- they have realized that the slipshod application of antitrust law here would basically eliminate the entire product. So they aren't enjoining these rules, even though it makes no sense.

It's frustrating.

In soccer, players don't just leave Spain to go play in Italy - they have to have the contract terminated, the receiving club has to pay a transfer fee, or they need to be a free agent. There has to be a way to make it work.

 

[heelinhell]

In soccer, players don't just leave Spain to go play in Italy - they have to have the contract terminated, the receiving club has to pay a transfer fee, or they need to be a free agent. There has to be a way to make it work.

Why couldn't it work the way it works with coaches. The coach signs a multi year contract( like Hubie ) and the college decides to fire the coach before the end of the contract because it didn't like the coach's performance and buys out the contract. But if the coach outperforms then he can negotiate an extended contract. Why not the same for players ?

So I'm guessing Caleb Wilson is going to go in the NBA lottery and the pick may depend upon evaluating his injury, but the #4 pick is around 10 million/year for two years.

What if we offered him a 2 year contract for 8 million/year with a free out of the contract clause after the 1st year.

I would love to see Caleb back at UNC next year !!!

 

[Calheel]

Why couldn't it work the way it works with coaches. The coach signs a multi year contract( like Hubie ) and the college decides to fire the coach before the end of the contract because it didn't like the coach's performance and buys out the contract. But if the coach outperforms then he can negotiate an extended contract. Why not the same for players ?

So I'm guessing Caleb Wilson is going to go in the NBA lottery and the pick may depend upon evaluating his injury, but the #4 pick is around 10 million/year for two years.

What if we offered him a 2 year contract for 8 million/year with a free out of the contract clause after the 1st year.

I would love to see Caleb back at UNC next year !!!

The problem is that Caleb would then have to wait an extra year for his second contract - potentially costing him tens of millions of dollars. No rational person would do that.

 

[rodoheel]

Why couldn't it work the way it works with coaches. The coach signs a multi year contract( like Hubie ) and the college decides to fire the coach before the end of the contract because it didn't like the coach's performance and buys out the contract. But if the coach outperforms then he can negotiate an extended contract. Why not the same for players ?

So I'm guessing Caleb Wilson is going to go in the NBA lottery and the pick may depend upon evaluating his injury, but the #4 pick is around 10 million/year for two years.

What if we offered him a 2 year contract for 8 million/year with a free out of the contract clause after the 1st year.

I would love to see Caleb back at UNC next year !!!

1. It can't work the way it works for coaches because coaches are employees. Players aren't, because schools don't want them to be.

2. Even assuming we could afford to pay Caleb $8 million per year, why would Caleb take less up-front money to stay at UNC and delay, by one year, the time within which he can get to a lucrative NBA extension? That would be an entirely illogical decision.

 

[hedge]

The heavy majority of the players would also benefit from longer term contracts. Perfect examples: Bogavac and Evans.

Yeah, but we might benefit by replacing them with better players. Yes, I know, you don't get to watch them grow in that scenario (funny talking about watching a 23 year old former professional "grow") but just saying the benefits work both ways...

 

[superrific]

In soccer, players don't just leave Spain to go play in Italy - they have to have the contract terminated, the receiving club has to pay a transfer fee, or they need to be a free agent. There has to be a way to make it work.

Right. But the law is different. The EU antitrust framework for sports is sensible: do eligibility and player movement rules serve to organize the sport in a necessary way. Not sure how necessary is defined (I might have known this long ago), but I'm confident that it is deferential to league rules but not completely so (there was a case called Bosman late last century that invalidated a restriction preventing players from leaving on a free). The transfer rules are administered by FIFA and promulgated by the national football associations (which are public regulatory entities I think).

There is a way in the US, but as I said, either Congress has to do something or the courts need to.

 

[Icky Mettle]

1. It can't work the way it works for coaches because coaches are employees. Players aren't, because schools don't want them to be.

2. Even assuming we could afford to pay Caleb $8 million per year, why would Caleb take less up-front money to stay at UNC and delay, by one year, the time within which he can get to a lucrative NBA extension? That would be an entirely illogical decision.

Yep, delaying that by one year could very much result in throwing away ~$50 million.

 

[superrific]

1. It can't work the way it works for coaches because coaches are employees. Players aren't, because schools don't want them to be.

It isn't really about being an employee. It is about contract. The coach has a contract, and he can violate that contract to leave for another school and would have to pay damages. The buyout replaces the damages in the contract. Darius Mensah also had a contract. The court allowed him to repudiate his contract and presumably pay damages to Duke (I don't remember how the case was fully resolved, if it even has been).

Basically, coaches are currently treated about the same as players. But the effects are quite different because coach movement is small compared to player movement. Players need to cycle just because of eligibility; a school who wants to replace a coach need make only one hire whereas a team requires many more; etc. And a coach rarely has a one-year relationship with a school. Players can have more, of course, but we've already been living in a go-pro world when lots of players stayed only one or two years.

 

[rodoheel]

It isn't really about being an employee. It is about contract. The coach has a contract, and he can violate that contract to leave for another school and would have to pay damages. The buyout replaces the damages in the contract. Darius Mensah also had a contract. The court allowed him to repudiate his contract and presumably pay damages to Duke (I don't remember how the case was fully resolved, if it even has been).

Basically, coaches are currently treated about the same as players. But the effects are quite different because coach movement is small compared to player movement. Players need to cycle just because of eligibility; a school who wants to replace a coach need make only one hire whereas a team requires many more; etc. And a coach rarely has a one-year relationship with a school. Players can have more, of course, but we've already been living in a go-pro world when lots of players stayed only one or two years.

The difference between an employment contract and the contract Mensah signed was a big reason that Mensah had leverage to settle the case with Duke, and that Duke had a weak enforcement position. Mike Malone's contract with UNC is a contract that pays him to work for UNC. Mensah's contract with Duke, as I understand it, was a contract for Mensah's NIL rights. The contract said that Duke was paying him in exchange for those rights, not to play football at Duke. But apparently the contract also stated that Mensah could not transfer to another school. That (plus the simple fact of Duke suing Mensah for transferring to another school) created the obvious argument that the contract was, in fact, a thinly disguised pay-for-play contract, which (1) is against NCAA rules, (2) is arguably a disguised employment contract, making Mensah an employee, and (3) arguably violates Mensah's legal rights by purporting to prevent him from attending whatever college he wants to attend.

All of those things made it highly problematic for Duke to enforce its contract against Mensah - problems they would not have in enforcing Jon Scheyer's contract against him. They would not have those problems if they just treated the players as employees. However, doing so creates a whole host of other obligations (such as workers comp, tax issues, etc) that the schools are so desperate to avoid that they fought the legality of their amateurism scheme for two decades, have allowed this NIL wild west to form, and now are begging Congress for an antitrust exemption to fix it.

 

[Enigma94]

Transfer portal thread people.

 

[CarolinaFever]

Transfer portal thread people.

 

[Calheel]

The difference between an employment contract and the contract Mensah signed was a big reason that Mensah had leverage to settle the case with Duke, and that Duke had a weak enforcement position. Mike Malone's contract with UNC is a contract that pays him to work for UNC. Mensah's contract with Duke, as I understand it, was a contract for Mensah's NIL rights. The contract said that Duke was paying him in exchange for those rights, not to play football at Duke. But apparently the contract also stated that Mensah could not transfer to another school. That (plus the simple fact of Duke suing Mensah for transferring to another school) created the obvious argument that the contract was, in fact, a thinly disguised pay-for-play contract, which (1) is against NCAA rules, (2) is arguably a disguised employment contract, making Mensah an employee, and (3) arguably violates Mensah's legal rights by purporting to prevent him from attending whatever college he wants to attend.

All of those things made it highly problematic for Duke to enforce its contract against Mensah - problems they would not have in enforcing Jon Scheyer's contract against him. They would not have those problems if they just treated the players as employees. However, doing so creates a whole host of other obligations (such as workers comp, tax issues, etc) that the schools are so desperate to avoid that they fought the legality of their amateurism scheme for two decades, have allowed this NIL wild west to form, and now are begging Congress for an antitrust exemption to fix it.

If you are just dealing with this at the contract level (whether employee or not) you will run up against the irreparable injury rule. Players can pay buy-outs to get out of the contracts.

If you actually want to stop player movement every year, then you need enforceable CBA's and a commissioner. That is why professional leagues don't have players unilaterally leaving one team and joining another. The CBA prevents that from happening in the absence of an approved trade.

 

[SnoopRob]

 

[CarolinaFever]

 

[heelinhell]

1. It can't work the way it works for coaches because coaches are employees. Players aren't, because schools don't want them to be.

2. Even assuming we could afford to pay Caleb $8 million per year, why would Caleb take less up-front money to stay at UNC and delay, by one year, the time within which he can get to a lucrative NBA extension? That would be an entirely illogical decision.

1 ) At this point players are also employees

2 ) Given your assumption that Caleb will get a 10 million contract and get a lucrative NBA extension then I agree that it would be illogical to accept a two year contract for 8 million/year as long as you are sure you will not be have a season ending injury, get 10 million/yr and get a lucrative NBA extension after your 2nd year.

I'm a conservative investor and financial advisor so my inclination is to lock in the 16 million contract with a free out after the 1st year and if you recover from your injury and have an even better next year and you could be the college POY and the #1 pick in the NBA draft and collect millions upon millions upon millions in endorsements on top of the millions upon millions for salary and bennies from the NBA