Interesting take on changing transfer rules

[Spotcheck Billy]

I saw this elsewhere and with all the transfer discussions here thought I would share this, any comments?

So how can the NCAA be fair(er) to players who want to move?

Well here's a suggestion: let players build credits which can be cashed in later in various ways.

The heart of this should always be academics.

If a player earns a C he gets so many points. If he gets a B, he gets so many more and an A gets most of all. The points have a certain cash value, which will be available to the player when he leaves school, with interest, assuming that he doesn't transfer.

Fs and Ds would essentially be demerits, as would arrests. Violent acts against women would wipe out all existing credits (on conviction). Same for DWIs. Lesser offenses would have lesser penalties.

Credits which you earn at your original school would go into an annuity or investment fund. You can stay at your school and build that or transfer and start over.

If you opt to leave, your investment reverts to the players still at your original school, who then have a further incentive to stay.

If you leave early other than to transfer, your investment still pays off; if you stay for four years, it pays off more handsomely.

If at the end of your career you decide to continue your education, the NCAA chips in a certain amount to the fund.

Or if you'd prefer, you can funnel it into an investment plan, or just cash out.

Players under this plan would be allowed to transfer immediately but would have reasons to think twice before doing it. The more players who do transfer the more incentive the rest have not to.

The formula could have various tweaks. For instance, a kid from DeMatha or Brophy Prep probably is academically ahead of kids in public schools. You could weight it accordingly.

You could also find objective ways to build more credit. You could conceivably design a system which gives an incentive to "test the waters" as well as an incentive to return if your odds don't look good.

We don't have all the answers, but it seems like something like this could build stability as well as a chance to get a fresh start when desired - and it would also give people a reason to study.

[MU82]

Sounds extremely complicated and could be filled with apples/oranges comparisons.

Also ... how many credits would the kids who got A's in Carolina's bogus courses get?

[brewcity77]

Will this only be for revenue sport athletes? Is this in lieu of players getting paid? Where will the NCAA come up with money for the cash out payments? Will schools be on the hook for payments, and if so, how will the schools that already don't plan on paying full cost benefits, which of course are the schools most people think of when it comes to these transfers, afford to pay to keep their players?

[Badgerhater]

Keep it easy.   Get a degree within 6 years from an NCAA D-1 school, get a payout from the NCAA.

Rewards those student-athletes who are actual students and recognizes that high-level D-1 sports makes it very difficult to graduate in 4 years.

Pay for grades and behavior opens out multiple cans of worms.

[martyconlonontherun]

Keep it easy.   Get a degree within 6 years from an NCAA D-1 school, get a payout from the NCAA.

Rewards those student-athletes who are actual students and recognizes that high-level D-1 sports makes it very difficult to graduate in 4 years.

Pay for grades and behavior opens out multiple cans of worms.

Kind of a weird response to what is normally driving the "pay the players debate." 90% of the time, the student athletes point to jersey sales, marketing, mandatory PR events, etc for reasons to be getting paid. AKA revenues driven by star players. Your system rewards the non-star athletes that red-shirt and stays five years but the Johnny Manziels of the group who are selling all the jerseys still get nothing.

The star players who could actually play in the NFL/NBA if there were not rules against it should be the only ones deserving to be paid. The rest are benefiting from the system that is in place.

[Badgerhater]

Kind of a weird response to what is normally driving the "pay the players debate." 90% of the time, the student athletes point to jersey sales, marketing, mandatory PR events, etc for reasons to be getting paid. AKA revenues driven by star players. Your system rewards the non-star athletes that red-shirt and stays five years but the Johnny Manziels of the group who are selling all the jerseys still get nothing.

The star players who could actually play in the NFL/NBA if there were not rules against it should be the only ones deserving to be paid. The rest are benefiting from the system that is in place.

Why pay those who depart early for the NBA?  Those who get drafted already won.  Perhaps some payoff at the end will keep a few of the borderline players from leaving early.

The system uses the everyday players to field the hundreds of teams that make up the NCAA and put 68 of them every year on TV each March so the system can collect hundreds of millions off of their work.  Meanwhile, they do get a scholarship, but have a hoops schedule during the season that really laughs in the face of actual learning.

I have no problem rewarding the student part of student-athlete.

[MU82]

The star players who could actually play in the NFL/NBA if there were not rules against it should be the only ones deserving to be paid. The rest are benefiting from the system that is in place.

How do you determine this?

Did we know when JFB was a sophomore that he could actually play in the NBA? How 'bout Jae as a junior? Lazar as a freshman? Buycks at any juncture?

Was everybody certain that McNeal absolutely couldn't play in the NBA? How 'bout Adam Morrison - he was drafted in the top 5 but it turns out he couldn't play in the NBA.

As subjective tests go, the who-can-actually-be-a-pro test would seem far too subjective.

[MomofMUltiples]

I think the "pay the player" discussion should be less related to the revenues the player brings in and more to do with the fact that the schools give these kids room board tuition and books but most of them don't have enough money to order a pizza if they want. A stipend over and above the scholarship would go a long way toward making it easier for these kids to be student athletes. The Dept. of Education allows you to include these types of expenses for student loans, why shouldn't athletic scholarships?

[jsglow]

I think the "pay the player" discussion should be less related to the revenues the player brings in and more to do with the fact that the schools give these kids room board tuition and books but most of them don't have enough money to order a pizza if they want. A stipend over and above the scholarship would go a long way toward making it easier for these kids to be student athletes. The Dept. of Education allows you to include these types of expenses for student loans, why shouldn't athletic scholarships?

+1

[martyconlonontherun]

How do you determine this?

Did we know when JFB was a sophomore that he could actually play in the NBA? How 'bout Jae as a junior? Lazar as a freshman? Buycks at any juncture?

Was everybody certain that McNeal absolutely couldn't play in the NBA? How 'bout Adam Morrison - he was drafted in the top 5 but it turns out he couldn't play in the NBA.

As subjective tests go, the who-can-actually-be-a-pro test would seem far too subjective.

I wasn't trying to make a suggestions. All I was pointing out was that many times the argument to pay players revolve around big time players in revenue sports. The star players are the ones who are most underpaid and I would guess more than 75% of NBA players didn't graduate college. Those players wouldn't get any reimbursement for their service.

This would mostly reward guys who are 4-5 year players who honestly don't make college sports as much money as someone like a Ben Simmons. I think guys like Jajuan Johnson are fairly compensated with free tuition since I doubt think they drive revenue. They maybe sell a handful of jerseys and maybe a shot or two in a FS1 promo. I find 100k+ worth of tuition more than fair compensation cause I doubt he would've made that anywhere else the past few years.

[MU82]

I wasn't trying to make a suggestions. All I was pointing out was that many times the argument to pay players revolve around big time players in revenue sports. The star players are the ones who are most underpaid and I would guess more than 75% of NBA players didn't graduate college. Those players wouldn't get any reimbursement for their service.

This would mostly reward guys who are 4-5 year players who honestly don't make college sports as much money as someone like a Ben Simmons. I think guys like Jajuan Johnson are fairly compensated with free tuition since I doubt think they drive revenue. They maybe sell a handful of jerseys and maybe a shot or two in a FS1 promo. I find 100k+ worth of tuition more than fair compensation cause I doubt he would've made that anywhere else the past few years.

That makes more sense.

Even though I'm in the "pay 'em all" camp, I understand what you're saying here.

[Dawson Rental]

This thread is a waste of time.  It's based on an assumption that member schools of the NCAA would be willing to transfer some revenue to student athletes which is, in fact, a total nonstarter.

[MU82]

This thread is a waste of time.

And that makes it different from 95% of our other threads ... how?

It's the offseason. We've got lots of time to waste!

[Herman Cain]

I wasn't trying to make a suggestions. All I was pointing out was that many times the argument to pay players revolve around big time players in revenue sports. The star players are the ones who are most underpaid and I would guess more than 75% of NBA players didn't graduate college. Those players wouldn't get any reimbursement for their service.

This would mostly reward guys who are 4-5 year players who honestly don't make college sports as much money as someone like a Ben Simmons. I think guys like Jajuan Johnson are fairly compensated with free tuition since I doubt think they drive revenue. They maybe sell a handful of jerseys and maybe a shot or two in a FS1 promo. I find 100k+ worth of tuition more than fair compensation cause I doubt he would've made that anywhere else the past few years.

JJJ has effectively been paid 250,000 tax free. 4 Years tuition, room and board , books plus at least 3 summers of the same. That is a damn good payday.

[GGGG]

This thread is a waste of time.  It's based on an assumption that member schools of the NCAA would be willing to transfer some revenue to student athletes which is, in fact, a total nonstarter.

Dude if we eliminated the topics around here that were based on poor assumptions, Scoop would be a wasteland.

[Herman Cain]

Dude if we eliminated the topics around here that were based on poor assumptions, Scoop would be a wasteland.

I agree with this analysis.