Transfer rule changes

[StillAWarrior]

Revenue generating college sports have been professionalized.  Transfer restrictions are in place to make these businesses easier to manage.  The restrictions penalize the players and benefit the majority of schools and thereby their fans.  We're fans, we don't want to see our ox get gored, so we want them, and we rationalize why restrictions are good.

Hell, the State of Kentucky waited until 1973 to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment.

In my personal opinion, the biggest beneficiaries of the proposed rule change will be the high major programs.  Not the athletes.  This change will set up the low and mid-majors as a virtual farm system, and will make it easier for the high majors to slough off their recruiting mistakes.

That's not to say that I'm against the change.  I just think that the benefits to the athletes will be secondary.  Like pretty much everything else that the NCAA does.

[wadesworld]

While I'm in favor of allowing players to play without sitting out a year if they get a release (the rule that exists in some other sports), I really don't understand all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to sit out a year.  Does it suck to have to sit out a year?  Yeah, I suppose it might.  Is it pretty nice to get another year of free college, which will allow a student-athlete to either carry a bit lighter of a load or -- even better -- get started on a masters?  Definitely.

Yup.  Is the system perfect?  Probably not.  But these student athletes aren't hurting.

[GGGG]

No, it's a lie. Congrats on believing that dimwit.

"Additionally, Harbaugh believes Michigan will be able to make this an annual event because there is not going to be any competition taking place. Basketball teams, for example, are allowed to take one foreign trip every four years. But those trips feature exhibition games.

Michigan will not be playing any football exhibitions. Therefore, as of now, they'll be able to do this every year."

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2017/02/jim_harbaugh_plans_to_take_mic.html

There is a difference b/w a trip and a tour. A football tour was essentially unavailable to Michigan this summer.

Man you know you've got a weak argument when you say something like that.

[Herman Cain]

From personal experience I see both sides of the issue here.   One of the biggest factors contributing to transferring, is when a player is recruited over.  I think the immediate transfer ability may   have some impact on coaches recruiting decisions.  Schools make a big commitment when they put a kid on scholarship for sure , but the student also is making a commitment of time that he/she can't get back.  I think immediate transfer ability evens the playing field.  However, the current rule gives a considerable benefit to a student athlete in that it allows them a year to develop their game , get healthy and condition on the schools dime. A great example of someone benefiting from that circumstance was Steven Taylor , Jr.  who ended up having a monster senior year at Toledo  (15.3/12.2/3.7).and will be playing at JDA Dijon in the French Pro A league this year.

 

[Pakuni]

While I'm in favor of allowing players to play without sitting out a year if they get a release (the rule that exists in some other sports), I really don't understand all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to sit out a year.  Does it suck to have to sit out a year?  Yeah, I suppose it might.  Is it pretty nice to get another year of free college, which will allow a student-athlete to either carry a bit lighter of a load or -- even better -- get started on a masters?  Definitely.

It's less about whether sitting out a year is some odious fate, than it is about giving athletes the same rights as any other student (or person, really) when it comes to controlling his/her destiny.
And it comes down to siding with the right of the individual vs the rulers of billion dollar industry which relies on a largely one-sided relationship with a cheap, undercompensated labor force to produce its revenues.
So, no, sitting out a year isn't a fate worse than death. But it's still an unfair restriction.

[Pakuni]

Student-athletes are allowed to switch schools and immediately be given a full ride at the new institution - what an amazing gift!

A scholarship is not a gift. It's compensation - undercompensation in many instances - for what is essentially a full-time job that helps generate millions of dollars for the employer, i.e. the university.

[GGGG]

A scholarship is not a gift. It's compensation - undercompensation in many instances - for what is essentially a full-time job that helps generate millions of dollars for the employer, i.e. the university.

And doesn't come with the usual protections of employment.

[Galway Eagle]

No, it's a lie. Congrats on believing that dimwit.

"Additionally, Harbaugh believes Michigan will be able to make this an annual event because there is not going to be any competition taking place. Basketball teams, for example, are allowed to take one foreign trip every four years. But those trips feature exhibition games.

Michigan will not be playing any football exhibitions. Therefore, as of now, they'll be able to do this every year."

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2017/02/jim_harbaugh_plans_to_take_mic.html

There is a difference b/w a trip and a tour. A football tour was essentially unavailable to Michigan this summer.

Is the lie that I don't claim to be a rules expert? I don't. Or is the lie the source that I used? That wouldn't be a lie since I qualified it with "it would seem" so that'd be misinformation, you should use proper terminology and correct accordingly.

Is the lie that you can't respond without being condescending? I'd say 80% of your posts show otherwise and that's being generous.

Just curious what my lie was so I can be sure not to do so moving forward.

[wadesworld]

Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?"  Isn't that simply how business works?  Very few people are compensated the total amount of what they are worth/what they bring in to their company, because very few people are irreplaceable.  If all employees were compensated what they were "worth" to the company then businesses wouldn't be profitable and businesses wouldn't survive.  That's just how the system works.

[GGGG]

Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?" 

No.  Someone didn't take Economics as an undergrad I see.

[muwarrior69]

Ultimately, this, like all similar debates, boils down to whether or not you think adult SAs in revenue-generating sports should be grateful to be given a full ride, e.g., paid in kind, by the institutions that profit greatly off not having to pay them in cash. Also - claiming that its just a coincidence that the toughest transfer restrictions are in the revenue-positive sports is offensive and transparently self-serving.

One caveat that I worry about here though - we all talked about Buzz cutting, etc., and when that happens, the NCAA apologists are quick to remind us that scholarships are one year renewable pacts. Under this rule, what's to stop coaches from cutting the second half of their bench every season to bring in the top guys from the mid-major conferences? Right now, its at least somewhat difficult to tell kids to take a hike.

My sentiments exactly. For those who favor the rule change it is a double edged sword. I wonder how many will like the new rule, when MU star players start jumping ship for the Power 5 schools because they are "pissed" at the coach or a less talented player they like gets "Buzzed" because a more talented player is coming in.

[GGGG]

My sentiments exactly. For those who favor the rule change it is a double edged sword. I wonder how many will like the new rule, when MU star players start jumping ship for the Power 5 schools because they are "pissed" at the coach or a less talented player they like gets "Buzzed" because a more talented player is coming in.

I'd still be fine with it. 

[StillAWarrior]

It's less about whether sitting out a year is some odious fate, than it is about giving athletes the same rights as any other student (or person, really) when it comes to controlling his/her destiny.
And it comes down to siding with the right of the individual vs the rulers of billion dollar industry which relies on a largely one-sided relationship with a cheap, undercompensated labor force to produce its revenues.
So, no, sitting out a year isn't a fate worse than death. But it's still an unfair restriction.

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm still not convinced.  The student can control his own fate.  He can transfer to another school, go for free, take classes (they're students first, right?), work out with the team and enjoy all the other benefits and special rights that come with being a student athlete.  They just are not allowed to play in games.  I honestly don't have that much trouble with the restriction.  However, as I said, I'd be perfectly happy to see the restriction removed.

Although the specifics vary from school to school, student athletes have an amazing number of rights/benefits that other students don't have -- even if they can't play due to transfers.  I strongly suspect if you went to most athletes and said, "we're going to treat you like 'other students' in all respects -- good news, you don't have to sit out a year."  They'd tell you, "No, I'm good.  I'll wait."

[StillAWarrior]

Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?"  Isn't that simply how business works?  Very few people are compensated the total amount of what they are worth/what they bring in to their company, because very few people are irreplaceable.  If all employees were compensated what they were "worth" to the company then businesses wouldn't be profitable and businesses wouldn't survive.  That's just how the system works.

I say this very respectfully with a full understanding of how hard college athletes work:  the large majority of scholarship athletes are vastly overcompensated when one compares the value they bring to their university versus what they receive.

And for that, I am extremely grateful.   

[jsglow]

Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?"  Isn't that simply how business works?  Very few people are compensated the total amount of what they are worth/what they bring in to their company, because very few people are irreplaceable.  If all employees were compensated what they were "worth" to the company then businesses wouldn't be profitable and businesses wouldn't survive.  That's just how the system works.

 

[forgetful]

No.  Someone didn't take Economics as an undergrad I see.

He's actually right.  I'm thinking you and him are using different concepts of "undercompensated."

The argument of athletes being "undercompensated," largely stems from people thinking athletes bring in more revenue than they get back in benefits. 

The typical person working for any company will generate over 10x more revenue than they receive in compensation. 

So they are no less "undercompensated" than a typical employee. 

I believe you are looking at the idea that compensation is determined by the free market, so the typical employee is adequately compensated or he would go elsewhere.  Many then argue that college athletics is not free-market. 

But, athletes have the opportunity to go work overseas if they deem college compensation inadequate.  They don't, because they are better off in college. 

[wadesworld]

He's actually right.  I'm thinking you and him are using different concepts of "undercompensated."

The argument of athletes being "undercompensated," largely stems from people thinking athletes bring in more revenue than they get back in benefits. 

The typical person working for any company will generate over 10x more revenue than they receive in compensation. 

So they are no less "undercompensated" than a typical employee. 

I believe you are looking at the idea that compensation is determined by the free market, so the typical employee is adequately compensated or he would go elsewhere.  Many then argue that college athletics is not free-market. 

But, athletes have the opportunity to go work overseas if they deem college compensation inadequate.  They don't, because they are better off in college.

Exactly.

[GGGG]

He's actually right.  I'm thinking you and him are using different concepts of "undercompensated."

The argument of athletes being "undercompensated," largely stems from people thinking athletes bring in more revenue than they get back in benefits. 

The typical person working for any company will generate over 10x more revenue than they receive in compensation. 

So they are no less "undercompensated" than a typical employee. 

I believe you are looking at the idea that compensation is determined by the free market, so the typical employee is adequately compensated or he would go elsewhere.  Many then argue that college athletics is not free-market. 

But, athletes have the opportunity to go work overseas if they deem college compensation inadequate.  They don't, because they are better off in college. 

Well of course I am using it in a free market sense.  That's how it should be judged.

To assume that someone should be compensated at the same level they generate revenue is nonsensical. 

[Bocephys]

Well of course I am using it in a free market sense.  That's how it should be judged.

To assume that someone should be compensated at the same level they generate revenue is nonsensical.

Doesn't that prove college athletes are appropriately compensated since the market wouldn't/couldn't compensate them further?

[Nukem2]

A scholarship is not a gift. It's compensation - undercompensation in many instances - for what is essentially a full-time job that helps generate millions of dollars for the employer, i.e. the university.

May be true for 60 teams or so in NCAA Div 1 basketball, but the other 300.....?

[Pakuni]

I say this very respectfully with a full understanding of how hard college athletes work:  the large majority of scholarship athletes are vastly overcompensated when one compares the value they bring to their university versus what they receive.

And for that, I am extremely grateful.   

This might be true in non-revenue sports, but certainly not football and basketball.
According to the latest data I can find, the average FBS scholarship is worth about $36K. Each of the 128 FBS schools can award 85 scholarships, or 10,880 scholarships. Valued at $36K each, that's a little less than $392 million in FBS scholarships.
Now, FBS programs generated $3.4 billion in revenues last year ... almost nine times more than the cost of their scholarships.

I realize this oversimplifies things, and there are other non-direct benefits (training, access to facilities, etc.) to the players, and costs of running a program go beyond just scholarships. And we're dealing with averages here. The top players at Alabama and Texas generate more value than the backup longsnapper at Florida Atlantic.

All that said, the numbers show that it's an easy case to make that college athletes - at least in the sports that generate revenue - are undercompensated.

[GGGG]

Doesn't that prove college athletes are appropriately compensated since the market wouldn't/couldn't compensate them further?

No because there is a cap on their earnings and every player earns the same compensation.

A free market would allow certain players to earn more than the cost of a scholarship and others would earn less.

[Charlotte Warrior]

Imagine the NBA if all contracts were only for a max of one year...... and no incentive / penalty to changing teams.   Yikes, you would have very elite teams and very bad teams.

[Pakuni]

Imagine the NBA if all contracts were only for a max of one year...... and no incentive / penalty to changing teams.   Yikes, you would have very elite teams and very bad teams.

So, exactly like it is now.

[GGGG]

Imagine the NBA if all contracts were only for a max of one year...... and no incentive / penalty to changing teams.   Yikes, you would have very elite teams and very bad teams.

That's not really applicable to the NCAA because...

1. Players would only be allowed one transfer without sitting so not everyone is a free agent every year.
2. Players are limited to four years of eligibility.