NCAA hypocrites sticking it to "student-athlete" again?

[MU82]

Here's a kid who signed with Ohio State to play hoops, was given his release after Matta got canned and transferred to NC State.

He didn't take part in a single team function.

But because he started to attend summer school at Ohio State, the NCAA seems ready to make him sit out an entire year.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article164698767.html

Because yeah, the "student-athlete" you want to punish is the one trying to get a jump start on the student part.

[Jay Bee]

Don't agree to things you don't want to obey.

What BB agreed to was that if he did what he did, he'd need to sit out a year in residence.

He agreed to rules, now is upset about it.

Learn.

[Jockey]

Don't agree to things you don't want to obey.

What BB agreed to was that if he did what he did, he'd need to sit out a year in residence.

He agreed to rules, now is upset about it.

Learn.

Wow!!!

I'm guessing that every time you have gone even 1 MPH over the limit, you have turned yourself in.

Oops. That would be like expecting you to play by the rules. I think you only feel that way about others.

[Lennys Tap]

Agree with 82 on this one - when the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are in conflict, I choose the spirit.

His subject line is a bit hysterical, though, and my guess is this gets reviewed by the NCAA.

[brewcity77]

Not surprising they are taking that angle. The kid agreed to play for a given school, and as we all know, the reality is kids commit to coaches, not schools. The coach being fired is a material change to the agreement the kid made. He should be given free reign to transfer wherever he wants.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

How does this compare to the Brett Roseboro situation? Didn't he attend MU briefly before transferring in the summer and was immediately eligible for St. Bonaventure?

[Lennys Tap]

Wow!!!

I'm guessing that every time you have gone even 1 MPH over the limit, you have turned yourself in.

Oops. That would be like expecting you to play by the rules. I think you only feel that way about others.

Actually, JB wouldn't have to turn himself in but merely accept the decision of the court if it went against him after he was ticketed for going 1mph over. That's very different.

[Lennys Tap]

How does this compare to the Brett Roseboro situation? Didn't he attend MU briefly before transferring in the summer and was immediately eligible for St. Bonaventure?

Roseboro never enrolled in classes.

[jesmu84]

http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/ucf-rules-kickeryoutube-sensation-is-ineligible-because-the-ncaa-is-a-communist-organization/

Any other student on campus can earn money by working in a capacity related or unrelated to their field of study. Athletes? Nope.

[#UnleashSean]

Don't agree to things you don't want to obey.

What BB agreed to was that if he did what he did, he'd need to sit out a year in residence.

He agreed to rules, now is upset about it.

Learn.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. So many people use that as an excuse for bad rules/laws

[rocket surgeon]

http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/ucf-rules-kickeryoutube-sensation-is-ineligible-because-the-ncaa-is-a-communist-organization/

Any other student on campus can earn money by working in a capacity related or unrelated to their field of study . Athletes? Nope.

  someone correct me if i'm wrong, but if sam hauser is studying molecular biophysics, i believe he can go to work for a molecular biophysics company and earn money and not be spanked.  not basketball as that isn't his field of study and is in violation

[MU82]

Don't agree to things you don't want to obey.

What BB agreed to was that if he did what he did, he'd need to sit out a year in residence.

He agreed to rules, now is upset about it.

Learn.

Stunned that you would stick up for the institutions instead of the human being.

And I agree with what Lenny said about the spirit of the rule, though naturally I don't agree about my title being "hysterical."

[forgetful]

http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/ucf-rules-kickeryoutube-sensation-is-ineligible-because-the-ncaa-is-a-communist-organization/

Any other student on campus can earn money by working in a capacity related or unrelated to their field of study. Athletes? Nope.

This one bothers me.  There is not logical reason to explain why he can't earn money in this way. 

The Ohio State/Thad Matta issue sucks, but I can live with it. 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I love MU82 new idgaf attitude. But in all actuality, I want to hear one good reason why this kid should be punished for wanting to switch schools.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Roseboro never enrolled in classes.

Thanks. I thought he had but couldn't remember for sure.

[muwarrior69]

Did his summer school credits transfer?

[WarriorInNYC]

Thanks. I thought he had but couldn't remember for sure.

I'm all for him calling this out, because I think it is a bad rule, and bad rules don't change without things like this happening.  But we should drop the "he is being punished" narrative, because he isn't.  He's merely having the well-defined and established rules (not necessarily good rules) apply to him.

Now the other piece to this is, who pays for his summer classes at OSU?  Since he hasn't played there at all, I don't see why he should be due any scholarship at all from OSU.  And I definitely don't think NC State should have to pick that tab up.

I'm ok if the student pays for those summer courses, transfers and doesn't have to sit the year out.  I do agree that I would like to see the rule change that if a coach leaves, players are given some leeway.

[GGGG]

I love MU82 new idgaf attitude. But in all actuality, I want to hear one good reason why this kid should be punished for wanting to switch schools.

He shouldn't be punished for wanting to switch schools.

Look, I am all for transfers without waiting a year in residence.  But this is actually an intra-year transfer.  He started the academic year at Ohio State.  He should finish it.

[jsglow]

I love MU82 new idgaf attitude. But in all actuality, I want to hear one good reason why this kid should be punished for wanting to switch schools.

He's not being punished Chi.  We all can think the rule needs some work or possibly some loophole created but it is the rule.

[mu03eng]

This is a collective eh for me. Yes, the NCAA sucks as do it's rules, but this is one of those oddities where someone wanted to get a jump start on the season and the coach just happened to leave at an odd time. This is the same scenario as would happen to a football player who graduates high school in December and enrolls in college in the spring to get a jump start on their freshman year football season but the coach gets fired after spring practice (I'm looking at you Hugh Freeze).

It ain't fair, but it's not like this was a hidden rule.

[Jay Bee]

Do you a anti-rule whiners believe schools should be able to cancel financial aid to an SA on full scholarship when a coach leaves?

No?

So you want a kid to be able to commit to a coach... but a school to commit to the kid?

I like how it is today -- and what kids AGREE TO: they are committing to the school in exchange for financial aid.

[StillAWarrior]

Do you a anti-rule whiners believe schools should be able to cancel financial aid to an SA on full scholarship when a coach leaves?

No?

So you want a kid to be able to commit to a coach... but a school to commit to the kid?

I like how it is today -- and what kids AGREE TO: they are committing to the school in exchange for financial aid.

In an effort to tie this thread to another recent thread, I think that all student-athletes should drink a couple shots right before signing the NLI -- just enough to get to 0.08%.  It's always good to keep your options open.   

[jsglow]

In an effort to tie this thread to another recent thread, I think that all student-athletes should drink a couple shots right before signing the NLI -- just enough to get to 0.08%.  It's always good to keep your options open.   

Well played!

[mu03eng]

Do you a anti-rule whiners believe schools should be able to cancel financial aid to an SA on full scholarship when a coach leaves?

No?

So you want a kid to be able to commit to a coach... but a school to commit to the kid?

I like how it is today -- and what kids AGREE TO: they are committing to the school in exchange for financial aid.

I'm nonplussed by this particular students plight, but your stance is incorrect generally because the rules are stacked against the SAs. You make it sound like the school is this benevolent entity bestowing great value on an SA.....at the end of the day they are the ones exploiting those SAs for the schools financial gain so I have zero sympathy for the schools if a SA transfers

[#UnleashSean]

Do you a anti-rule whiners believe schools should be able to cancel financial aid to an SA on full scholarship when a coach leaves?

No?

So you want a kid to be able to commit to a coach... but a school to commit to the kid?

I like how it is today -- and what kids AGREE TO: they are committing to the school in exchange for financial aid.

Right... Because a school has never dropped a scholarship for someone. Ever. Nope.

[StillAWarrior]

I'm nonplussed by this particular students plight, but your stance is incorrect generally because the rules are stacked against the SAs. You make it sound like the school is this benevolent entity bestowing great value on an SA.....at the end of the day they are the ones exploiting those SAs for the schools financial gain so I have zero sympathy for the schools if a SA transfers

For the vast majority of SAs, the value equation is the other way around.  Granted, we're dealing with MBB here, so I get your point.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do get it.

[GGGG]

Right... Because a school has never dropped a scholarship for someone. Ever. Nope.

In the middle of an academic year?  I doubt that has happened often...if ever.

[mu03eng]

For the vast majority of SAs, the value equation is the other way around.  Granted, we're dealing with MBB here, so I get your point.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do get it.

Fair, the value to a wrestling SA is in their favor. However, you almost never hear the plight of the non-revenue SA who is getting "screwed" by the rules because they can't transfer or something.

In the revenue sports, the universities are absolutely raking the SAs over the coals IMO. That's not to say the SAs aren't getting anything but it is definitely disproportionate to what the university especially when you factor in rules that prevent SAs from working profiting from their activities while universities have near carte blanche.

[B. McBannerson]

I'm nonplussed by this particular students plight, but your stance is incorrect generally because the rules are stacked against the SAs. You make it sound like the school is this benevolent entity bestowing great value on an SA.....at the end of the day they are the ones exploiting those SAs for the schools financial gain so I have zero sympathy for the schools if a SA transfers

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?   

[mu03eng]

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?

First, almost no SAs in non-revenue sports are receiving full rides. I'm willing to bet that the Stanford track athlete is not getting a full ride.

Also, if there is really only one path to success in the pros (via college athletics) you don't really have much negotiating power to get a fair shake.

And how very socialist of you to say "well we should take from the big time athletes so we can provide for the non-revenue athletes"

[StillAWarrior]

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?

I've always been inclined to agree with this point of view (and I feel even more strongly about it these days).  The overwhelming majority of student athletes are coming out way ahead in this deal.  In my opinion, that includes virtually every athlete in sports other than FB and MBB, and even the large majority of athletes in those two sports.  Obviously, I'm talking about those with full-rides (and to a lesser extent those with partials).

The number of transcendent athletes who I think can individually "move the needle" financially is pretty small.  Most fans root for the university/team, not the athlete.  While the jersey a fan wears may be associated with a specific athlete, if that athlete would have attended another school the fan likely still would have supported the team and purchased the jersey -- perhaps with a different number, or perhaps with the same number associated with a different player.  I think the athletes as a group have tremendous value to the university.  I think that the individual athlete that has incremental value to the university is pretty rare.

In short, I'm just not very sympathetic to the exploitation argument.  All that said, this shouldn't be interpreted to mean I'm a fan of many of the NCAA's rules.  I'm not.  I think many are stupid and unfair -- particularly those that relate to the ability to earn money.  I understand the abuses that led to those rules and acknowledge the need to maintain some level of control, but I think the rules are way too restrictive.

[StillAWarrior]

And how very socialist of you to say "well we should take from the big time athletes so we can provide for the non-revenue athletes"

I thought it important to tell my daughter, "If you get annoyed by favorable treatment of the MBB team, remember that MBB is paying the bills."

[Jay Bee]

Here's a thought: if you do not like the terms of a contract, do not enter into the contract.

[mu03eng]

Here's a thought: if you do not like the terms of a contract, do not enter into the contract.

Only works if there is an alternative contract to sign or a means of extracting concessions, neither of which are available to the revenue SAs

[Jay Bee]

Only works if there is an alternative contract to sign or a means of extracting concessions, neither of which are available to the revenue SAs

False. No one is forced to play college basketball in exchange for financial aid.

[mu03eng]

False. No one is forced to play college basketball in exchange for financial aid.

Name one US based player who made an NBA roster without going to a year of college under the current CAN?

Name one player from anywhere who made an NFL roster without going to college.

[WarriorInNYC]

Name one US based player who made an NBA roster without going to a year of college under the current CAN?

Brandon Jennings

Edit:  Agree its a lot more difficult for the NFL, but there are many players who walked on at universities and then earned a scholarship, then made it to the NFL.  Then there is Antonio Gates who had a scholarship, but it wasn't to play football.

Edit2:  Jarryd Hayne played for the 49ers and did not play football in college.  There are currently at least 2 players on current (doesn't mean they will make it all the way) NFL rosters (Alex Gray and Adam Zaruba) that did not play football in college.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Eric Swann only played in community college, yet was a first round pick and had a long, stellar career.  10 years, 2 time All-Pro.

Terrance Ferguson was a first round NBA pick after playing a year in China.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Name one player from anywhere who made an NFL roster without going to college.

Ray Seals, Sav Rocca, Michael Lewis and Lawrence Okoye

[Lennys Tap]

And I agree with what Lenny said about the spirit of the rule, though naturally I don't agree about my title being "hysterical."

I didn't say your title was "hysterical", I said it was a"BIT hysterical". #Fake News

[jesmu84]

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?

How would you feel if this system was implemented in general society? Take from the upper end and give to the lower tier because it's for the benefit of everyone

[MU82]

I didn't say your title was "hysterical", I said it was a"BIT hysterical". #Fake News

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!?!

What the eff are you effen saying?!?!?!

I'll shove a bit hysterical right up your (bleep)!

Wow ... that was fun.

Meanwhile ...

I almost always will come down on the athlete's side in these things, just as I did with the Cameron Johnson deal between Pitt and UNC. (And JB will ALWAYS come down on the institution/NCAA's side. I guess there's something to be said about consistency for both of us.)

The easiest thing to say is "rules are rules are rules," but there are individuals involved in these things.

This STUDENT wanted to get a little ahead of things. He certainly had zero reason to believe, on the first day of summer-school class, that there was even a chance Matta would be fired. Basketball coaches are almost always fired much earlier than that, and there had been no "scuttlebutt" on the rumor mill that Matta was in trouble. Had the athlete been less of a student and had he just decided to wait until the first semester of his freshman year to start taking classes, like most basketball players do, he would have been allowed to leave without having to sit out a year. He would have been rewarded for not being academically active.

I happen to think there is room to enforce the rules while still looking at extenuating circumstances.

But won't that set precedent? I suppose. So the next time this happens 10 years from now (or longer), the NCAA can deal with it at that time.

I think there's a decent chance of him winning on appeal. At least I hope so.

[WarriorInNYC]

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!?!

What the eff are you effen saying?!?!?!

I'll shove a bit hysterical right up your (bleep)!

Wow ... that was fun.

Meanwhile ...

I almost always will come down on the athlete's side in these things, just as I did with the Cameron Johnson deal between Pitt and UNC. (And JB will ALWAYS come down on the institution/NCAA's side. I guess there's something to be said about consistency for both of us.)

The easiest thing to say is "rules are rules are rules," but there are individuals involved in these things.

This STUDENT wanted to get a little ahead of things. He certainly had zero reason to believe, on the first day of summer-school class, that there was even a chance Matta would be fired. Basketball coaches are almost always fired much earlier than that, and there had been no "scuttlebutt" on the rumor mill that Matta was in trouble. Had the athlete been less of a student and had he just decided to wait until the first semester of his freshman year to start taking classes, like most basketball players do, he would have been allowed to leave without having to sit out a year. He would have been rewarded for not being academically active.

I happen to think there is room to enforce the rules while still looking at extenuating circumstances.

But won't that set precedent? I suppose. So the next time this happens 10 years from now (or longer), the NCAA can deal with it at that time.

I think there's a decent chance of him winning on appeal. At least I hope so.

I usually come to the side that he knew the rules going in, but also think this is a bad rule, and it should be changed.

But I'll ask you this question.  Who should pay for the summer courses he took?  OSU, the school that did not benefit from him having a scholarship?  NC State, the school where he did not take these courses?  Or the SA?

[Jay Bee]

Name one US based player who made an NBA roster without going to a year of college under the current CAN?

Name one player from anywhere who made an NFL roster without going to college.

In addition to those named above, Emmanuel Mudiay came to the US as a lil boy. He decided against SMU.... went to China instead, then 2 NBA

So, there are multiple examples. Yet, if the answer was "no one", no matta. So many kids go to college on a full ride bc it's such a great deal for them.

[MU82]

But I'll ask you this question.  Who should pay for the summer courses he took?  OSU, the school that did not benefit from him having a scholarship?  NC State, the school where he did not take these courses?  Or the SA?

A very reasonable question, and an interesting one, too.

Without letting it rattle around in my skull for too long, I'd say not Ohio State. Probably the SA would be the fairest way to deal with that expense. If the NCAA would allow it, I wouldn't mind if NC State paid.

If the NCAA agrees with the SA upon appeal, I hope we get to find out the answer to your question.

[StillAWarrior]

How would you feel if this system was implemented in general society? Take from the upper end and give to the lower tier because it's for the benefit of everyone

Answering only for myself, I disagree with the premise that they're "taking from the upper end."  If they were taking something from the athletes in revenue producing sports, and giving it to the athletes in non-revenue producing sports, I'd think you have a valid point.  But in my view, that's not what's happening.  The university (or at least the athletics department) is taking its own money and giving it to the athletes in both revenue and non-revenue sports. 

[GB Warrior]

I happen to think there is room to enforce the rules while still looking at extenuating circumstances.

But won't that set precedent? I suppose. So the next time this happens 10 years from now (or longer), the NCAA can deal with it at that time.

I think there's a decent chance of him winning on appeal. At least I hope so.

I would love for there to be an annulment period as it pertains to the head coach (can't just do all coaches, otherwise, slippery slope, people marrying dogs, SAs transferring 'cause their girlfriend dumped them and transferred, yada yada yada) to prevent exactly this. When you enter into a contract, you do (or should) do it with all relevant facts presented to you that can inform your decision. Just like you would want to know whether your spouse-to-be contracted herpes right before the wedding before entering into a binding agreement, student athletes should have insight into whether Rick Pitino has herpes.

Of course, there's no way this EVER happens, and the NCAA views it as the student marrying the university, not the coach.This would prevent the SA from being punished for something that could not have been reasonably anticipated. Set any arbitrary window of time and let's all agree to be adults about it. Set it in stone so the receiving university compensates the old university for cost of attendance, R&B, etc.

[MU82]

I would love for there to be an annulment period as it pertains to the head coach (can't just do all coaches, otherwise, slippery slope, people marrying dogs, SAs transferring 'cause their girlfriend dumped them and transferred, yada yada yada) to prevent exactly this. When you enter into a contract, you do (or should) do it with all relevant facts presented to you that can inform your decision. Just like you would want to know whether your spouse-to-be contracted herpes right before the wedding before entering into a binding agreement, student athletes should have insight into whether Rick Pitino has herpes.

Of course, there's no way this EVER happens, and the NCAA views it as the student marrying the university, not the coach.This would prevent the SA from being punished for something that could not have been reasonably anticipated. Set any arbitrary window of time and let's all agree to be adults about it. Set it in stone so the receiving university compensates the old university for cost of attendance, R&B, etc.

Logical and reasonable.

[Lennys Tap]

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!?!

What the eff are you effen saying?!?!?!

I'll shove a bit hysterical right up your (bleep)!

Wow ... that was fun.

Meanwhile ...

I almost always will come down on the athlete's side in these things, just as I did with the Cameron Johnson deal between Pitt and UNC. (And JB will ALWAYS come down on the institution/NCAA's side. I guess there's something to be said about consistency for both of us.)

The easiest thing to say is "rules are rules are rules," but there are individuals involved in these things.

This STUDENT wanted to get a little ahead of things. He certainly had zero reason to believe, on the first day of summer-school class, that there was even a chance Matta would be fired. Basketball coaches are almost always fired much earlier than that, and there had been no "scuttlebutt" on the rumor mill that Matta was in trouble. Had the athlete been less of a student and had he just decided to wait until the first semester of his freshman year to start taking classes, like most basketball players do, he would have been allowed to leave without having to sit out a year. He would have been rewarded for not being academically active.

I happen to think there is room to enforce the rules while still looking at extenuating circumstances.

But won't that set precedent? I suppose. So the next time this happens 10 years from now (or longer), the NCAA can deal with it at that time.

I think there's a decent chance of him winning on appeal. At least I hope so.

Funny, some of your best work. This fan salutes you.

As for me, I generally believe that rules are rules and if you don't like them you should shine a bright light on their flaws in hopes that enough people will  agree and want to change them.

But sometimes the letter of the law is in conflict with the spirit of the law. IMO this is one of those times. Spirit trumps letter for me.

[MU82]

Funny, some of your best work.

Why is it funny? You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little forked up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to forkin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

[vogue65]

He shouldn't be punished for wanting to switch schools.

Look, I am all for transfers without waiting a year in residence.  But this is actually an intra-year transfer.  He started the academic year at Ohio State.  He should finish it.

Is an "academe year" started in summer school?

[vogue65]

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?

Who wright's the contract?  The student, the NCAA or the institution?  Does the student have any say in the terms?  It is a take it or leave it situation, sort of bullying.

[mu03eng]

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Maybe the NCAA should let the student-athlete play in games but make him audit all of his classes for a year.

[tower912]

Nothing beats a Chicos/Vogue 65 pummeling of a subject. 

[StillAWarrior]

Of course, there's no way this EVER happens, and the NCAA views it as the student marrying the university, not the coach.This would prevent the SA from being punished for something that could not have been reasonably anticipated. Set any arbitrary window of time and let's all agree to be adults about it. Set it in stone so the receiving university compensates the old university for cost of attendance, R&B, etc.

I disagree with the premise that a coaching change is "something that could not have been reasonably anticipated."  If you're signing an NLI and you think that a coaching change can't be reasonably anticipated, you haven't been paying attention.  Hell, the NLI specifically says, "Coaching Changes.  I understand that I have signed the NLI with the institution and nor for a particular sport or coach.  If a coach leaves the institution or the sports program (e.g., not retained, resigns), I remain bound by the provisions of this NLI.  I understand that it is not uncommon for a coach to leave his or her coaching position."  Coaches leave all the time.  It's a stretch to say it's unanticipated.

In the case mentioned in the article at the start of this thread, I think the NCAA should make an exception.  But I don't think that exception should be based on whether or not the coaching change could have been anticipated.  A waiver should be given based upon the fact that it's absolutely absurd to make the determining factor in this case the fact that the kid sought to get a jump on the "student" part of being a student-athlete.

[GGGG]

Is an "academe year" started in summer school?

According to the NCAA, yes.

[mu03eng]

I disagree with the premise that a coaching change is "something that could not have been reasonably anticipated."  If you're signing an NLI and you think that a coaching change can't be reasonably anticipated, you haven't been paying attention.  Hell, the NLI specifically says, "Coaching Changes.  I understand that I have signed the NLI with the institution and nor for a particular sport or coach.  If a coach leaves the institution or the sports program (e.g., not retained, resigns), I remain bound by the provisions of this NLI.  I understand that it is not uncommon for a coach to leave his or her coaching position."  Coaches leave all the time.  It's a stretch to say it's unanticipated.

In the case mentioned in the article at the start of this thread, I think the NCAA should make an exception.  But I don't think that exception should be based on whether or not the coaching change could have been anticipated.  A waiver should be given based upon the fact that it's absolutely absurd to make the determining factor in this case the fact that the kid sought to get a jump on the "student" part of being a student-athlete.

I'm not sure they should make an exception. How would this be different than a football player enrolling in spring semester to be involved in spring practice and then the coach getting fired/leave during that spring semester?

[GGGG]

I disagree with the premise that a coaching change is "something that could not have been reasonably anticipated."  If you're signing an NLI and you think that a coaching change can't be reasonably anticipated, you haven't been paying attention.  Hell, the NLI specifically says, "Coaching Changes.  I understand that I have signed the NLI with the institution and nor for a particular sport or coach.  If a coach leaves the institution or the sports program (e.g., not retained, resigns), I remain bound by the provisions of this NLI.  I understand that it is not uncommon for a coach to leave his or her coaching position."  Coaches leave all the time.  It's a stretch to say it's unanticipated.

In the case mentioned in the article at the start of this thread, I think the NCAA should make an exception.  But I don't think that exception should be based on whether or not the coaching change could have been anticipated.  A waiver should be given based upon the fact that it's absolutely absurd to make the determining factor in this case the fact that the kid sought to get a jump on the "student" part of being a student-athlete.

I have said earlier that every player should be granted one transfer without sitting a year in residence per college career.  Now you can get rid of all exceptions, including the grad transfer one.

But I would not allow this to be an exception.  When you show up and campus and use a scholarship, you are committing for the year. 

That being said, wasn't Brett Roseboro granted a half year when he transferred during the summer?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Why is it funny? You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little forked up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to forkin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

82, go home and get your fing shine box!

[MU82]

82, go home and get your fing shine box!

Dis kid was great. Day used ta call him Spitshine Tommy.

[MU82]

I have said earlier that every player should be granted one transfer without sitting a year in residence per college career.  Now you can get rid of all exceptions, including the grad transfer one.

But I would not allow this to be an exception.  When you show up and campus and use a scholarship, you are committing for the year. 

That being said, wasn't Brett Roseboro granted a half year when he transferred during the summer?

As I think I've told you before, I really like your first proposal. Unfortunately, I believe it has as much chance of passing as the Pope agreeing to become Jewish. NCAA institutions like keeping their thumbs on the "students" just the way they do now. I'd guess it's more likely that they find a way to close the grad transfer "loophole" than to open things up more in this way.

Obviously, we respectfully disagree on this case. And that's OK.

[vogue65]

Let's go back to talking about "smokers".  Let the kids play, let the coaches coach, and get the lawyers and contracts out of the picture.   Oh I  forgot, $$$$$$$.

[rocket surgeon]

Why is it funny? You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little forked up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to forkin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

not to digress even though i am, but isn't this a little joe pesci/tommy devito from goodfellas?

http://www.monologuedb.com/quotes-and-one-liners/goodfellas-tommy-devito/

   

[StillAWarrior]

not to digress even though i am, but isn't this a little joe pesci/tommy devito from goodfellas?

http://www.monologuedb.com/quotes-and-one-liners/goodfellas-tommy-devito/

   

Now that you mention it...it is kind of similar.  Probably just a coincidence; he probably didn't even notice.  I don't think TAMU did either.

[MU82]

not to digress even though i am, but isn't this a little joe pesci/tommy devito from goodfellas?

http://www.monologuedb.com/quotes-and-one-liners/goodfellas-tommy-devito/

   

You'll have to ask my agent.

[B. McBannerson]

How would you feel if this system was implemented in general society? Take from the upper end and give to the lower tier because it's for the benefit of everyone

Isn't already the case to some extent?  The military that defends us all, do we all pay for it equally? How about the schools your kids go to? The roads you drive on?  Some of us pay less, others pay much more. Some pay nothing at all.  This happens today in society at varying degrees.

As it applies to this use case, it is hard for me to understand the going in assumption.  If I go to a Texas game, it is because I want to see Texas play.  As a season ticket holder at Marquette, whether they win or lose, I'm still buying the tickets. Not for one star kid one year, or a bunch of average kids the next year. It is because I want to see MU play and win.  The upside for these kids, including revenue sports, is often because of this alleged exploitive system.  99.9% benefit, .1% you can make an argument are undervalued. Even for that .1%, they often maximize their value in the current system.  Would you disagree with that?  How many high school kids can go to the pros? How many pro teams want to take a chance on a high school kid, where instead even for that .1% the system allows them to showcase talent on their way to earning a lot of money.

[B. McBannerson]

Who wright's the contract?  The student, the NCAA or the institution?  Does the student have any say in the terms?  It is a take it or leave it situation, sort of bullying.

OK, but that is normal every day societal living.  When you buy a plane ticket, you are subject to rules and conditions. Did you get to write those terms or contract?  How about going to the movies, ever look at those terms and conditions?  Your insurance contract for life, home, auto, ever read those? Did you get a chance to write them? 

Or better example, the young person receiving an academic scholarship to a university?  So often this comparison is used that the art major can transfer schools.  Did that art major have a chance to write the rules of the scholarship?

It isn't a right to go to the movies, or buy a plane ticket, or play the harp for a school music program. You either agree to the terms, or take the bus, stay home.  There is no right to play college athletics.  You are not forced to sign a grant in aid. If you don't like the terms or rules, do something else.

[B. McBannerson]

First, almost no SAs in non-revenue sports are receiving full rides. I'm willing to bet that the Stanford track athlete is not getting a full ride.

Also, if there is really only one path to success in the pros (via college athletics) you don't really have much negotiating power to get a fair shake.

And how very socialist of you to say "well we should take from the big time athletes so we can provide for the non-revenue athletes"

Yes and no on the scholarships.  Depends on the division and the sport.  NCAA DI volleyball for women has 12 scholarships.  Those are head count and cannot be split up.  Same goes for women's basketball.  Soccer is different, as it is an equivalency sport where scholarships can be split. Track and field fits the latter definition. So it depends.

But we aren't taking from big time athletes.  The NCAA contract was put into effect with television not knowing who the players will be, only that teams will play.  As we all know, people are just as interested in watching the #14 seed with absolutely no one going to the pros beat a top seeded team.  Each year this proves out. They are watching for the competition, the upsets, the sport of it, not because some future kid is going pro. 

People go to watch teams play, most of those teams have zero players that will make the pros.  ZERO. In other cases it may be 1 kid.  Rare exceptions occur like a Kentucky.  Tickets are bought anyway. Season tickets especially, win or lose. 

There isn't only one path to success to the pros for all sports.  Minor league baseball, minor league hockey, basketball and other leagues exist.  Yes, it is true for football and other sports, but that's the way it goes.  There is no right to play sports in this world. 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

It would be one thing if the NCAA is consistent, but there nowhere close to that. This also fails to mention the crickets after the North Carolina faux classes scandal, and to be honest, I dont think Smart should have been suspended at all.

https://twitter.com/FauxPelini/status/893521522161274882

[#UnleashSean]

Name one US based player who made an NBA roster without going to a year of college under the current CAN?

Name one player from anywhere who made an NFL roster without going to college.

Brandon Jennings.

[Herman Cain]

Don't agree to things you don't want to obey.

What BB agreed to was that if he did what he did, he'd need to sit out a year in residence.

He agreed to rules, now is upset about it.

Learn.

OK, but that is normal every day societal living.  When you buy a plane ticket, you are subject to rules and conditions. Did you get to write those terms or contract?  How about going to the movies, ever look at those terms and conditions?  Your insurance contract for life, home, auto, ever read those? Did you get a chance to write them? 

Or better example, the young person receiving an academic scholarship to a university?  So often this comparison is used that the art major can transfer schools.  Did that art major have a chance to write the rules of the scholarship?

It isn't a right to go to the movies, or buy a plane ticket, or play the harp for a school music program. You either agree to the terms, or take the bus, stay home.  There is no right to play college athletics.  You are not forced to sign a grant in aid. If you don't like the terms or rules, do something else.

The young man agree to accept an athletic scholarship from The Ohio State University. He elected to start in the summer session which is standard practice for most big time programs. He is transferring mid year in the eyes of the NCAA.

If the kid wanted to truly get a start and yet not be subject to a scholarship,
He could have gone to the local community college and taken a few summer classes there .Until the rules are changed the young man has to live with them.

NCAA is a typical industry self regulatory organization , they are inflexible and full of mediocre people who can't think on their own. It is the same group who would not grant John Dawson an extra year of eligibility after he played 4 minutes.

[vogue65]

Isn't already the case to some extent?  The military that defends us all, do we all pay for it equally? How about the schools your kids go to? The roads you drive on?  Some of us pay less, others pay much more. Some pay nothing at all.  This happens today in society at varying degrees.

As it applies to this use case, it is hard for me to understand the going in assumption.  If I go to a Texas game, it is because I want to see Texas play.  As a season ticket holder at Marquette, whether they win or lose, I'm still buying the tickets. Not for one star kid one year, or a bunch of average kids the next year. It is because I want to see MU play and win.  The upside for these kids, including revenue sports, is often because of this alleged exploitive system.  99.9% benefit, .1% you can make an argument are undervalued. Even for that .1%, they often maximize their value in the current system.  Would you disagree with that?  How many high school kids can go to the pros? How many pro teams want to take a chance on a high school kid, where instead even for that .1% the system allows them to showcase talent on their way to earning a lot of money.

The bogus right wing "rights" argument.   Been there, heard that.   I'll just sit home here tonight with my limited right to life, liberty and try to peruse happiness.  Other than that I'm just at the mercy of the system, got it, thanks.

[vogue65]

The young man agree to accept an athletic scholarship from The Ohio State University. He elected to start in the summer session which is standard practice for most big time programs. He is transferring mid year in the eyes of the NCAA.

If the kid wanted to truly get a start and yet not be subject to a scholarship,
He could have gone to the local community college and taken a few summer classes there .Until the rules are changed the young man has to live with them.

NCAA is a typical industry self regulatory organization , they are inflexible and full of mediocre people who can't think on their own. It is the same group who would not grant John Dawson an extra year of eligibility after he played 4 minutes.

Hay Jackie, we are dealing with absolutist, fundamentalist, cultists.  You can't win playing their game, the deck is stacked, just try your best to navigate a system without love or compassion, but with lots of rules. You have to follow the rules, get it?

[Jay Bee]

Hay Jackie, we are dealing with absolutist, fundamentalist, cultists.  You can't win playing their game, the deck is stacked, just try your best to navigate a system without love or compassion, but with lots of rules. You have to follow the rules, get it?

#BanHammer #Begging #NutJob

[reinko]

#BanHammer #Begging #NutJob

[MU82]

It would be one thing if the NCAA is consistent, but there nowhere close to that. This also fails to mention the crickets after the North Carolina faux classes scandal, and to be honest, I dont think Smart should have been suspended at all.

https://twitter.com/FauxPelini/status/893521522161274882

Great post, Chitown.

[rocket surgeon]

Hay Jackie, we are dealing with absolutist, fundamentalist, cultists.  You can't win playing their game, the deck is stacked, just try your best to navigate a system without love or compassion, but with lots of rules. You have to follow the rules, get it?

    "...and the sign sad, long haired freaky people need not apply" ohhhmph!   enn'a?

[Herman Cain]

    "...and the sign sad, long haired freaky people need not apply" ohhhmph!   enn'a?

I had that 45 back in the day .