Richard S. Tuthill wrote:
 
>         Something about the NCAA rule requiring a SA to sit out a year doesn't
> pass the eyeball test.   If a scholarship is not renewed,  and there are no
> disciplinary causes formally given or established,  a player should be able
> to transfer and play immediately.   It is simply unfair to the SA not to
> allow it.   And,  I suspect,  if an enterprising SA wanted to challenge
> that rule in court with a good lawyer (a contradiction in terms?:-):-),  he
> or she might win.   This is similar to large companies requiring rank and
> file salaried workers to sign one year non-compete agreements.   It is an
> unfair restraint of trade and the ability to earn a livelihood.
 
I don't know for sure, but I bet that it's part of the contract the SA signs when he
gets his scholarship.  This still leaves me to question why athletes aren't
considered employees of the university, but the courts seem to have made it clear
that they are not going find that an employer/employee relationship exists, despite
every component of one being in place.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.