MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Pakuni on October 04, 2017, 07:47:00 PM
-
Baby steps, I guess.
http://apne.ws/M7GF3OU
-
Baby steps, I guess.
http://apne.ws/M7GF3OU
That's a good start.
-
I am for the one year sit out period for transfers, because as we all know we would never stop these sleazy coaches from poaching players from other schools, but with the one year sit out rule, once a player decides to transfer, I have no problem with him being able to go to whatever school he wants. This would be a good rule change.
-
I am for the one year sit out period for transfers, because as we all know we would never stop these sleazy coaches from poaching players from other schools, but with the one year sit out rule, once a player decides to transfer, I have no problem with him being able to go to whatever school he wants. This would be a good rule change.
+1
-
What about conference rules that forbid a student to transfer to another school within the conference?
-
Coaches should have to sit out a year if they want to change jobs.
-
Coaches should have to sit out a year if they want to change jobs.
Makes zero sense.
Kids should because it'll help them as students.
-
Coaches should have to sit out a year if they want to change jobs.
Why, what's the parallel?
-
If coaches can change jobs with no restrictions, so should the players. What's good for gander is good for the goose.
-
Makes zero sense.
Kids should because it'll help them as students.
Yep.
Because if there's one thing we all know, colleges and the NCAA care deeply about the academic well being of their athletes.
-
The risk with this is teams that play each other often have the ability to recruit away another team's best player. Just for same of argument, take a guy like Marcus Derrickson or Jessie Govan on Gtown. Both really solid BE frontcourt men that are now stuck in a pretty crappy situation. Who's to stop Jay Wright or Chris Mack (or any BE coach) from saying hey man...come over where the grass is greener. It will create a situation where lower tiered teams in a conference may have a tough time keeping their talent for their last 2 years of eligibility.
Intra-conference transfers should not be allowed.
-
The risk with this is teams that play each other often have the ability to recruit away another team's best player. Just for same of argument, take a guy like Marcus Derrickson or Jessie Govan on Gtown. Both really solid BE frontcourt men that are now stuck in a pretty crappy situation. Who's to stop Jay Wright or Chris Mack (or any BE coach) from saying hey man...come over where the grass is greener. It will create a situation where lower tiered teams in a conference may have a tough time keeping their talent for their last 2 years of eligibility.
Intra-conference transfers should not be allowed.
The NCAA already has rules against tampering. This wouldn't change that.
Why would the hypothetical you suggest be worse with Jay Wright at Villanova than Mark Turgeon at Maryland or Mike Rhoades at VCU?
Also, why does protecting lower tier teams from the consequences of their own suckage matter more than the players' abilility to determine their own fates?
-
The NCAA already has rules against tampering. This wouldn't change that.
Why would the hypothetical you suggest be worse with Jay Wright at Villanova than Mark Turgeon at Maryland or Mike Rhoades at VCU?
Also, why does protecting lower tier teams from the consequences of their own suckage matter more than the players' abilility to determine their own fates?
Regarding the bolded, mainly just because they see eachother at minimum 2x per year.
Regarding your 2nd questions, there are 365 division 1 programs. Pick 1 that isn't in the league of the team you chose to go to. Not that hard.
-
The solution should be one of three things. First, if the coach leaves, the players have the right to leave immediately and be eligible immediately. Second, ditto if the school goes on probation from the NCAA for a rules violation.
Third, if the school recruits "over" the player, he can leave and play immediately.
These are reasonable, fair compromises, which means the NCAA will rejected them because they can't screw the student athlete to their liking.
-
The solution should be one of three things. First, if the coach leaves, the players have the right to leave immediately and be eligible immediately. Second, ditto if the school goes on probation from the NCAA for a rules violation.
Third, if the school recruits "over" the player, he can leave and play immediately.
These are reasonable, fair compromises, which means the NCAA will rejected them because they can't screw the student athlete to their liking.
How in the world would you define the third? Every player gets recruited over.
-
Regarding the bolded, mainly just because they see eachother at minimum 2x per year.
And?
I mean, that seems so utterly arbitrary.
Also, not every conference has conference opponents playing each other twice. And in some football conferences, teams don't necessarily play each other every year.
Regarding your 2nd questions, there are 365 division 1 programs. Pick 1 that isn't in the league of the team you chose to go to. Not that hard.
That's not an answer.
Again, please explain to me why we need to protect the DePauls and Rutgers of the world from their own mismanagement. If they fail to create an environment that makes their best players want to stay, why should they be protected from the consequences?
-
The solution should be one of three things. First, if the coach leaves, the players have the right to leave immediately and be eligible immediately. Second, ditto if the school goes on probation from the NCAA for a rules violation.
Third, if the school recruits "over" the player, he can leave and play immediately.
These are reasonable, fair compromises, which means the NCAA will rejected them because they can't screw the student athlete to their liking.
Regarding the first scenario, I think that a restriction that the players who are allowed to transfer to the same school that hired their old coach shouldn't be immediately eligible - just to prevent some ultra sleezy combo packages where the coach is using his connections to players to increase his income.
-
And?
I mean, that seems so utterly arbitrary.
Also, not every conference has conference opponents playing each other twice. And in some football conferences, teams don't necessarily play each other every year.
That's not an answer.
Again, please explain to me why we need to protect the DePauls and Rutgers of the world from their own mismanagement. If they fail to create an environment that makes their best players want to stay, why should they be protected from the consequences?
Its not that arbitrary. Its much easier to recruit a player you're running into multiple times a season than it is to recruit someone you have no in-person interaction with.
These kids make a commitment to a school. If they want to leave that school sometime in the future, they should find a school that isn't in direct competition with the school they are leaving. Its really not that complicated, or unfair in the slightest in my opinion.
That's really all I have to say about it. We can agree to disagree.
-
The solution should be one of three things. First, if the coach leaves, the players have the right to leave immediately and be eligible immediately. Second, ditto if the school goes on probation from the NCAA for a rules violation.
Third, if the school recruits "over" the player, he can leave and play immediately.
These are reasonable, fair compromises, which means the NCAA will rejected them because they can't screw the student athlete to their liking.
I agree with 1 and 2 absolutely, but have a hard time figuring out how one would qualify your 3rd reason. Maybe there's a way and I just am not thinking of it.
I'm split on the intra-conference transferring but I think I lean toward coaches/schools being able to block transfers to another school within the conference. There are literally hundreds of other D1 programs to play ball at. And if it's a true academic reason why you want to attend a school within your conference maybe you decide to pursue that instead of basketball. Playing D1 ball is a privilege.
-
If coaches can change jobs with no restrictions, so should the players. What's good for gander is good for the goose.
Many coaches have buyouts in their contracts, so there is a cost to change jobs. However, this is most likely paid by new employer.
Players do not have a buyout. They got there education and training from the old school and the school gets nothing in return when they leave.
To be equal the new school would need to reimburse the old school for some of the school's cost to have the player immediately eligible.
-
Many coaches have buyouts in their contracts, so there is a cost to change jobs. However, this is most likely paid by new employer.
Players do not have a buyout. They got there education and training from the old school and the school gets nothing in return when they leave.
To be equal the new school would need to reimburse the old school for some of the school's cost to have the player immediately eligible.
What about a player's time on the game and practice court? That's now nothing?
-
This situation is similar to companies requiring and enforcing a non-compete agreement against a small set of direct competitors.
You have to start with the acceptance that player has significant intellectual property about his team--everything from individual player strengths & weaknesses to coaching playbooks, etc. And that information could tilt the competitive balance in favor of the team receiving the player transfer if he goes to a known opponent on the following year's schedule.
Its not unreasonable to think that a player leaving Villanova for, say, Xavier could significantly help Xavier up to 3 times in the following season--not just because of the player's individual skills, but also because Xavier will have deeper insights into the Villanova roster and playbook. And since 3 more wins (or losses) could easily make or break a team's NCAA chances, an additional edge has significant value.
You could extend this to situations where even one win could make or break a team, so its not unreasonable to include regular non-conference opponents (e.g. Marquette/Wisconsin), schools with multi-year home/home agreements, or already scheduled multi-team tournaments (e.g. other teams in the 2018 Maui tournament).
So there is a reasonable basis for schools to put some limits on where players transfer, limiting restrictions to conference opponents and any non-conference opponent under contract for the following year on the day the transfer is initiated.
And, of course, the coach of the player transferring would have the ability to waive the restrictions on a player by player basis.
-
This situation is similar to companies requiring and enforcing a non-compete agreement against a small set of direct competitors.
Except the NCAA and its members insist players are students, not employees.
What we're really saying here is that sometimes - like when it comes to paying athletes and providing them with protections such as workers comp - they're students. And other times - like when enforcing "non-compete agreements" and other restrictions - it's OK to treat them like employees.
Whichever is most beneficial to the institution.
-
The solution should be one of three things. First, if the coach leaves, the players have the right to leave immediately and be eligible immediately. Second, ditto if the school goes on probation from the NCAA for a rules violation.
Third, if the school recruits "over" the player, he can leave and play immediately.
These are reasonable, fair compromises, which means the NCAA will rejected them because they can't screw the student athlete to their liking.
Two of those three already are allowed.
-
recruit over is the wrong term.......you mean if a coach runs a guy off.
Any player could say he was recruited over and would if that was the criteria to not have to sit out.
-
recruit over is the wrong term.......you mean if a coach runs a guy off.
Any player could say he was recruited over and would if that was the criteria to not have to sit out.
That's why she put quotes on it. She didn't mean what she said. It was a false claim. Sad.
-
Third, if the school recruits "over" the player, he can leave and play immediately.
Recruiting over means in this context a player who loses his scholarship because a coach needs it for someone else. Assume, for example, someone loses a scholarship because Quentin Grimes comes to Marquette. They should not be penalized.
-
Recruiting over means in this context a player who loses his scholarship because a coach needs it for someone else. Assume, for example, someone loses a scholarship because Quentin Grimes comes to Marquette. They should not be penalized.
But how do you really determine that? If Grimes comes and (just for example) Cheatham leaves, does that mean Haani was recruited over? So now the NCAA has to make the determination on the value discrepancy between a senior with starting experience and an unproven freshman? Or is it any time a school that is full on scholarships has a transfer out? Seems like it would be tough to really determine who was recruited over without lending even more credence to recruiting ranking sites.
-
But how do you really determine that? If Grimes comes and (just for example) Cheatham leaves, does that mean Haani was recruited over? So now the NCAA has to make the determination on the value discrepancy between a senior with starting experience and an unproven freshman? Or is it any time a school that is full on scholarships has a transfer out? Seems like it would be tough to really determine who was recruited over without lending even more credence to recruiting ranking sites.
You’d have to have a coach sign some type of document stating that the university would not be renewing the player’s scholarship in favor of the new recruit. Of course that would require coaches not being shady shady people
-
You’d have to have a coach sign some type of document stating that the university would not be renewing the player’s scholarship in favor of the new recruit. Of course that would require coaches not being shady shady people
Which also opens up the potential for abuse. A coach could just write such a letter any time they want to move a player along.
-
Which also opens up the potential for abuse. A coach could just write such a letter any time they want to move a player along.
I imagine the only solution for that would be that the player must contact the NCAA for said waiver? I’m just trying to get creative
-
Except the NCAA and its members insist players are students, not employees.
That's why I said similar, not identical.
What we're really saying here is that sometimes - like when it comes to paying athletes and providing them with protections such as workers comp - they're students. And other times - like when enforcing "non-compete agreements" and other restrictions - it's OK to treat them like employees.
Whichever is most beneficial to the institution.
No, that's not what we're saying here at all.
First, I think I've adequately shown that the need for some reasonable restriction is not "arbitrary" as you called it.
Second, the definition of "most beneficial" to the institution would be to give the institution 100% control over which teams (if any) a player can transfer. So, no, this is not a situation of "whichever is most beneficial to the institution."
The compromise I suggested seems completely reasonable and accommodates the competing interests of both the school and the player.
-
Coaches should have to sit out a year if they want to change jobs.
Not sure I like the idea of a coach transferring and taking his best players with him at the same time.