MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Cheeks on February 20, 2020, 07:14:18 PM
-
So we keep it clean and in one thread.
These quotes came out today....sounds familiar from someone else here on Scoop saying this....hmmm.
Jeff Goodman: "Dayton’s Anthony Grant had better be ready. Same for San Diego State’s Brian Dutcher, even Seton Hall’s Kevin Willard, and basically every non-blue blood coach with high-major players. If this goes through, and it appears as though it’s almost a formality at this point, the rich will get richer, and it’ll be more difficult for Grant, Dutcher and Willard — who are all currently coaching top-15 teams — to remain competitive with the blue bloods if the current concept is adopted by the Division I Council.
“It’s not a good rule for the health of college basketball,” Houston’s Kelvin Sampson told me on Tuesday night. “If we allow this rule, there’s going to be more bad decisions than good ones. Trust me, I’ve lived this.”
“This will be the death of college basketball,” said one head coach of a top-25 team.
"There’s a reason why this is already being supported by the Big Ten and the ACC. Now guys like Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, John Calipari, Bill Self and Tom Izzo can plug holes in their roster with ease. There’s also a reason none of those coaches have spoken out publicly. They know how much of an advantage it’ll be for them."
“I think it will adversely affect everybody except for the top programs,” Richmond’s Chris Mooney said. Mooney is in a precarious spot. After struggling the last two seasons, the Spiders are 20-6, 10-3 in A-10 play and are set up to return five junior starters off this year’s team — four of which have eclipsed 1,000 career points. However, he is well-aware that guys like Blake Francis, Jacob Gilyard, Grant Golden and Nick Sherod could all be pursued heavily by high-major programs if this rule goes into place prior to next season.
Houston’s Caleb Mills is a redshirt freshman who is leading Kelvin Sampson’s group in scoring, a team that is a lock to make the NCAA Tournament. None of the big boys came after him out of high school. Now they will. “Ultimately, it’s what some will do, if not most,” one blue blood assistant coach told me. “And even if I don’t, the others will.”
“Allowing transfers to be able to play right away at another institution is bad for college basketball, as a whole,” Jones said. “High-major schools may benefit because they would get a student-athlete who had a good year at a lower-level school and now can play right away. But the school that believed in that kid, when other schools didn’t, and invested time and effort into helping him develop will suffer. If we care about the student-athletes, and not the schools, then yes, the rule benefits the student-athletes athletically, but not necessarily academically. If we care about both the student-athletes and the schools, then there need to be parameters to transferring like we have now.”
However, the vast majority of D-I coaches do not agree with the proposal, says Todd Berry, the executive director of the American Football Coaches Association. In fact, coaches have shown “unanimous” opposition to the idea at AFCA conventions for the last three years. And there are three main reasons why, Berry outlines: (1) the freedom to transfer and play immediately could lead to quick, rash decisions players eventually regret; (2) transfers, according to NCAA data, are less likely to graduate than non-transfers; (3) and as Richt points out in his tweet, this proposal pushes college football closer to a free agency, with coaches poaching from one another’s rosters even more than they already do.
“I know, I have an idea,” said Mark Richt. “You recruit and develop players and when I think they’re good enough I will poach them from your roster! Welcome to what the new normal will look like in college football!”
You go with a one-time transfer and add NIL,” Todd Berry says, “kids are going to be going for whoever pays them the most money. It’s a real concern for our coaches. You give them the one-time transfer and give them opportunity to negotiate an (endorsement) deal across the spectrum…. it’s free agency.”
-
Only 5 players can play at a time. How many "blue bloods"? 10? The math doesn't add up. These bluebloods will be signing the Top High School players as well, as well as their current roster. I don't see many freshman phenoms at lower schools transferring up. If they are that good, they will declare for the NBA. If they are not good enough for the NBA, they are now at a blueblood for 3 years, tying up a scholarship.
Jeff Goodman as the expert on the ramifactions? OK.
-
Only 5 players can play at a time. How many "blue bloods"? 10? The math doesn't add up. These bluebloods will be signing the Top High School players as well, as well as their current roster. I don't see many freshman phenoms at lower schools transferring up. If they are that good, they will declare for the NBA. If they are not good enough for the NBA, they are now at a blueblood for 3 years, tying up a scholarship.
Jeff Goodman as the expert on the ramifactions? OK.
It’s a toss up who carries more water for college coaches, Goodman or Rothstein.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/w2YGvWXRzFM52/giphy.gif)
-
no good deed goes unpunished
-
S U P E R B A R
-
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/02/27/archives/the-freshman-rule-high-school-athletes-should-beware-of-recruiters.html
Over 90% of coaches didn’t want freshmen to be eligible back in 1972.
Let’s just say that I don’t think coaches are the wisest of people to listen to on issues like these.
Too much self interest and turf protection.
-
Hold on - You mean the coaches paid millions of dollars to coach student athletes are against a rule making their job more challenging? You don’t say !
-
Same rules for scholarship basketball, football, hockey and baseball players as every other scholarship athlete and scholarship student at every school - rather than discriminating against scholarship basketball, football, hockey and baseball players.
It's an easy choice, and the only fair one.
'Merica!
-
Who better to pontificate on ethics in college athletics than Kelvin Sampson?
Edit: And as usual, the discussion is framed around what's best for the wealthy coaches and institutions, never the players.
To be fair to Goodman, he did present that side in his story. Someone chose to leave that part out here, though.
-
Who better to pontificate on ethics in college athletics than Kelvin Sampson?
Exactly.
Also did he forget that Grimes transferred from KU and is playing for him this season? Why does everyone all of a sudden think the Duke’s and Kentucky’s will have 30 roster spots available to steal everyone’s players?
-
we'll get 'em next year just took on a whole different meaning
-
Exactly.
Also did he forget that Grimes transferred from KU and is playing for him this season? Why does everyone all of a sudden think the Duke’s and Kentucky’s will have 30 roster spots available to steal everyone’s players?
Right. And I'm pretty sure Cal and Coach K aren't eager to stack their rosters with A-10 talent.
-
Exactly.
Also did he forget that Grimes transferred from KU and is playing for him this season? Why does everyone all of a sudden think the Duke’s and Kentucky’s will have 30 roster spots available to steal everyone’s players?
It’s called cherry picking. Pick off the cream of the crop from the lesser teams. So simple with new rules. Beware.
-
Simple rule:
1) College scholarships are for two years.
2) During the time of the contract, the student athlete is forbidden to transfer absent an NCAA probation/sanction or if the coach leaves unless the school releases him or her.
3) At the end of two years, the school and the athlete renew the contract. Provisions are the same as the original contract.
This would allow for one transfer if things don't work out or anytime the athlete requests and a student approves a release. It's legal and clean.
-
Yawn.
-
Simple rule:
1) College scholarships are for two years.
2) During the time of the contract, the student athlete is forbidden to transfer absent an NCAA probation/sanction or if the coach leaves unless the school releases him or her.
3) At the end of two years, the school and the athlete renew the contract. Provisions are the same as the original contract.
This would allow for one transfer if things don't work out or anytime the athlete requests and a student approves a release. It's legal and clean.
This is an interesting idea.
I could see a some negative situations. Example: kid gets homesick less than a year in. But I guess even then it wouldn’t be too much different than the current system of sitting out a year.
I think I like this idea.
-
This is an interesting idea.
I could see a some negative situations. Example: kid gets homesick less than a year in. But I guess even then it wouldn’t be too much different than the current system of sitting out a year.
I think I like this idea.
It’s a terrible idea. Why should they be bound for two years? These are unpaid students. Not employees.
-
It’s called cherry picking. Pick off the cream of the crop from the lesser teams. So simple with new rules. Beware.
Yep. And that’s fine.
-
Yep. And that’s fine.
Exactly.
-
It’s a terrible idea. Why should they be bound for two years? These are unpaid students. Not employees.
I agree. Let them transfer whenever they want and continue to be unpaid students... while sitting out a year in residence.
Already have that! Great!
-
Simple rule:
1) College scholarships are for two years.
2) During the time of the contract, the student athlete is forbidden to transfer absent an NCAA probation/sanction or if the coach leaves unless the school releases him or her.
3) At the end of two years, the school and the athlete renew the contract. Provisions are the same as the original contract.
This would allow for one transfer if things don't work out or anytime the athlete requests and a student approves a release. It's legal and clean.
it never transferred my brilliant point
-
jack mcdunkndribble wants to play at cameron indoor like his daddy and granddaddy did before him. coach doesn't have room for him this year. coach tells him to accept that offer from the richmond spiders or the UC santa clara banana slugs (i've always wanted to be a bs) then, next year he transfers after a spot opens up without having to sit a year. maybe even work out a deal pitting adidas against under armour ;)
-
“This will be the death of college basketball,” said one head coach of a top-25 team.
Wojo?
-
jack mcdunkndribble wants to play at cameron indoor like his daddy and granddaddy did before him. coach doesn't have room for him this year. coach tells him to accept that offer from the richmond spiders or the UC santa clara banana slugs (i've always wanted to be a bs) then, next year he transfers after a spot opens up without having to sit a year. maybe even work out a deal pitting adidas against under armour ;)
Sounds good to me.
-
jack mcdunkndribble wants to play at cameron indoor like his daddy and granddaddy did before him. coach doesn't have room for him this year. coach tells him to accept that offer from the richmond spiders or the UC santa clara banana slugs (i've always wanted to be a bs) then, next year he transfers after a spot opens up without having to sit a year. maybe even work out a deal pitting adidas against under armour ;)
Is your hypothetical double Legacy a top 25 player? Is he a top 50 player? Is he a top hundred player? If he's good enough after 1 year, he'll go to the NBA if he's not Duke may not want him or if he does transfer to Duke. Maybe Richmond will take one or two players that's been recruited over
-
Why should there only be a one time exemption? If we really desire free agency for people who aren’t employees they should be able to transfer as many times as they want like any other student. Why the half measures? I ask this because people are so adamant about wanting this but seem to stop a bit short of complete freedom of choice.
-
Why should there only be a one time exemption? If we really desire free agency for people who aren’t employees they should be able to transfer as many times as they want like any other student. Why the half measures? I ask this because people are so adamant about wanting this but seem to stop a bit short of complete freedom of choice.
--It's a reasonable compromise
--It gets rid of the waiver process, which seems inconsistently applied.
-
Why should there only be a one time exemption? If we really desire free agency for people who aren’t employees they should be able to transfer as many times as they want like any other student. Why the half measures? I ask this because people are so adamant about wanting this but seem to stop a bit short of complete freedom of choice.
In my opinion in might have to do with being able to graduate.
-
--It's a reasonable compromise
--It gets rid of the waiver process, which seems inconsistently applied.
Both fair points. The first also acknowledges that there is risk taken by the institutions spending incredible amounts money developing these athletes and possibly having it go for naught.
-
--It's a reasonable compromise
--It gets rid of the waiver process, which seems inconsistently applied.
Thoughts on one more "reasonable compromise": Tranfers should be on a full season basis (no mid season transfer to play 2nd semester at new school.
Discuss.
-
Thoughts on one more "reasonable compromise": Tranfers should be on a full season basis (no mid season transfer to play 2nd semester at new school.
Discuss.
That's reasonable.
-
Let the kids transfer as often as they want but they have to sit out half a season. Call it a 15 game non-compete clause. And players should get paid money in addition to their free scholarships. An across the board uniform weekly stipend during their season for all players in all sports and additional merchandise/marketing revenue so if I buy a Markus Howard jersey, he gets a percentage of that revenue as additional revenue on top of the stipend.
-
In my opinion in might have to do with being able to graduate.
You technically could pay your own way after your eligibility was over. If they are on the 5-6 year plan for graduation (like many other students) due to multiple transfers what’s the harm in that?
-
Thoughts on one more "reasonable compromise": Tranfers should be on a full season basis (no mid season transfer to play 2nd semester at new school.
Discuss.
Completely agreed with that.
-
You technically could pay your own way after your eligibility was over. If they are on the 5-6 year plan for graduation (like many other students) due to multiple transfers what’s the harm in that?
a lot of D1 athletes cannot afford College
-
a lot of D1 athletes cannot afford College
That's not as true as it once was. The percentage of D1 athletes who are not first-generation is shrinking every year. More and more D1 athletes are middle-class kids whose parents had them in good training programs from the time they could dribble.
-
That's not as true as it once was. The percentage of D1 athletes who are not first-generation is shrinking every year. More and more D1 athletes are middle-class kids whose parents had them in good training programs from the time they could dribble.
Middle class kids can't afford college. Lol.
-
a lot of D1 athletes cannot afford College
Wouldn't that be factored in to their decision then? If they transfer 2-3 times, extending their collegiate career to 5-6 years, then there's more money to paid. If they want to come out debt free, then don't make the decision to transfer.
-
Same rules for scholarship basketball, football, hockey and baseball players as every other scholarship athlete and scholarship student at every school - rather than discriminating against scholarship basketball, football, hockey and baseball players.
It's an easy choice, and the only fair one.
'Merica!
Then wouldn't it also be fair to offer less in the way of funding to these athletes as well? Isn't some of the logic of the transfer stipulations around the level of scholarship funding for these players being higher than for other sports or for non-athletes?
-
That's not as true as it once was. The percentage of D1 athletes who are not first-generation is shrinking every year. More and more D1 athletes are middle-class kids whose parents had them in good training programs from the time they could dribble.
And the coach could adopt the kids that can't pay. It'll be perfect.
-
But if we elect one of the Socialists in November, college will be free for everybody! So this point becomes moot.
-
It’s a terrible idea. Why should they be bound for two years? These are unpaid students. Not employees.
Unpaid students my backside.
They get a scholarship to attend school. In exchange for playing basketball. That’s a barter transaction.
They sign a contract, that’s why.
-
I believe that there is already so much behind the scenes poaching going on that getting the transfer issue revised will not result in that many more players going to Bluebloods.
In addition to what I suggested earlier- allow for only full season transfers, not mid season- I would like to see the rules on profiting from one's image and other publicity/marketing revenue sources changed. This may well keep some players from transferring as they may be able to earn money where they are but may find slim pickings at their new place. I think it would be great if the NCAA packaged the 2 revisions together.
-
I believe that there is already so much behind the scenes poaching going on that getting the transfer issue revised will not result in that many more players going to Bluebloods.
In addition to what I suggested earlier- allow for only full season transfers, not mid season- I would like to see the rules on profiting from one's image and other publicity/marketing revenue sources changed. This may well keep some players from transferring as they may be able to earn money where they are but may find slim pickings at their new place. I think it would be great if the NCAA packaged the 2 revisions together.
Some of the pundits are already suggesting that’s what might happen.
-
I believe that there is already so much behind the scenes poaching going on that getting the transfer issue revised will not result in that many more players going to Bluebloods.
In addition to what I suggested earlier- allow for only full season transfers, not mid season- I would like to see the rules on profiting from one's image and other publicity/marketing revenue sources changed. This may well keep some players from transferring as they may be able to earn money where they are but may find slim pickings at their new place. I think it would be great if the NCAA packaged the 2 revisions together.
The latter could go the other way too. Player at Nike school 3a is becoming more popular. Move him to Nike Blue Blood and your ROI just goes up. Heck they could even pay him more to do it.
-
Is your hypothetical double Legacy a top 25 player? Is he a top 50 player? Is he a top hundred player? If he's good enough after 1 year, he'll go to the NBA if he's not Duke may not want him or if he does transfer to Duke. Maybe Richmond will take one or two players that's been recruited over
so duke only takes players who are good enough for the NBA after their freshman year? maybe he's one of those "weirdos" and wants to play college ball? maybe he's really good, but needs another year(right vander?) maybe coach shashefski sees something others don't? gasp!
-
a lot of D1 athletes cannot afford College
The student athlete would definitely want to take that into account before they transferred multiple times. The athletes who could afford it should be allowed.
The one time exemption really helps the bigger basketball/football schools. They are making this rule to benefit themselves. Once the big school cherry picks the athlete they are captive whether the decision benefits them or not. Perhaps the student athlete makes the wrong decision (e.g. chartouny if he transferred sophomore year and not as a graduate).
-
ok, if they open the floodgates to pay these guys and they are allowed to transfer, then no scholarship is allowed. the player pays his own way. if the player wants to void the freedom to transfer, then the school could offer some kind of tuition waiver. like for instance, as long as the head coach he got recruited by is still there if he so chooses.
so many here seem pretty eager to blow up the system that has worked for so long-careful what you're wishing for. we already have several pro leagues, here and abroad. ya'll understand that you're essentially creating another pro league? what about the "school" part? the education thingy seems like a big distraction from the guy trying to make some coin man. so, we are essentially creating colleges, each with their own pro team...cool?
-
ok, if they open the floodgates to pay these guys and they are allowed to transfer, then no scholarship is allowed. the player pays his own way. if the player wants to void the freedom to transfer, then the school could offer some kind of tuition waiver. like for instance, as long as the head coach he got recruited by is still there if he so chooses.
so many here seem pretty eager to blow up the system that has worked for so long-careful what you're wishing for. we already have several pro leagues, here and abroad. ya'll understand that you're essentially creating another pro league? what about the "school" part? the education thingy seems like a big distraction from the guy trying to make some coin man. so, we are essentially creating colleges, each with their own pro team...cool?
I've thought about this pay your own way but that's likely kill us against state schools. Would be interesting to see the amount of mid majors that get the boost from in state talent
-
ok, if they open the floodgates to pay these guys and they are allowed to transfer, then no scholarship is allowed. the player pays his own way. if the player wants to void the freedom to transfer, then the school could offer some kind of tuition waiver. like for instance, as long as the head coach he got recruited by is still there if he so chooses.
so many here seem pretty eager to blow up the system that has worked for so long-careful what you're wishing for. we already have several pro leagues, here and abroad. ya'll understand that you're essentially creating another pro league? what about the "school" part? the education thingy seems like a big distraction from the guy trying to make some coin man. so, we are essentially creating colleges, each with their own pro team...cool?
When it happens MU better be way ahead of the game as soon as it starts to maintain an advantage in recruiting. This type of change will require an entirely different department to be created. Schools will have to spend even more money to facilitate getting these athletes what they want. MU needs to be ready. Hopefully this is on the agenda of every BOD meeting.
-
Unpaid students my backside.
They get a scholarship to attend school. In exchange for playing basketball. That’s a barter transaction.
They sign a contract, that’s why.
Any contract that bounds them to a school for two years is a bad contract.
-
That could be said after the first transfer as well, unfortunately. There is no
great solution if we are truly on the athletes side of this.
-
Any contract that bounds them to a school for two years is a bad contract.
well, then don't sign and don't play. a contract is supposed to protect both sides. each is to expect a benefit and protections
-
well, then don't sign and don't play. a contract is supposed to protect both sides. each is to expect a benefit and protections
What's the benefit to the player signing two-year contract?
-
I've thought about this pay your own way but that's likely kill us against state schools. Would be interesting to see the amount of mid majors that get the boost from in state talent
good points eagle-if some kind of system is implemented to pay the players, the schools should get some kind of reassurance(s) as well. if this means the players would be on their own for tuition costs, a universal tuition needs to be worked so an "education" at harvard costs the same as UWM or something. there needs to be an incentive for the athlete to maybe want to take advantage of the education that is available to him. otherwise, the players become "students" in name only.
-
What's the benefit to the player signing two-year contract?
And furthermore, what choice do they have? It's not as though they can shop other schools for better offers.
-
What's the benefit to the player signing two-year contract?
What if they get injured, or are a bust in year 1?
-
What's the benefit to the player signing two-year contract?
i don't really know ask sultan. i really don't like any of this, but if it is inevitable, there needs to be protections for each side. and we haven't even discussed salary cap yet ?-(
-
What if they get injured, or are a bust in year 1?
They find another school?
Seriously, are teams going to cut a talented player because he got hurt? 99.9 percent of injuries are not career ending, and the vast, vast majority of injured players make full recoveries. I mean, if Dawson Garcia hurts his shoulder early next year and misses the rest of the season, Marquette isn't cutting him. And if they do, good luck with the negative recruiting that will result.
As for being a 1-year bust, if a school is willing to drop a kid after one year, they'll be willing to drop him after two. All the contract assures the player is one more year on the bench at a place he's not wanted.
What a benefit!
That kid is better off finding a home at his level ASAP than wasting away on the pines for another season (and wasting another year of eligibility).
-
It’s called cherry picking. Pick off the cream of the crop from the lesser teams. So simple with new rules. Beware.
Yep. And that’s fine.
Are you NUTS? That's like free markets, and, and, and capitalism!
Socialism for institutions of higher learning!!! Just not for people.
-
They find another school?
Seriously, are teams going to cut a talented player because he got hurt? 99.9 percent of injuries are not career ending, and the vast, vast majority of injured players make full recoveries. I mean, if Dawson Garcia hurts his shoulder early next year and misses the rest of the season, Marquette isn't cutting him. And if they do, good luck with the negative recruiting that will result.
As for being a 1-year bust, if a school is willing to drop a kid after one year, they'll be willing to drop him after two. All the contract assures the player is one more year on the bench at a place he's not wanted.
What a benefit!
That kid is better off finding a home at his level ASAP than wasting away on the pines for another season (and wasting another year of eligibility).
Great, cut an injured kid after year 1. Or hes a bust and cut him after year 1? Part of the point is to get a degree. Many sign with a school in anticipation of getting a degree. I think the scholarship should be a guaranteed 4 years, but allow 1 free transfer.
-
But if we elect one of the Socialists in November, college will be free for everybody! So this point becomes moot.
Only if we simultaneously elect 50 socialist senators...
-
Only if we simultaneously elect 50 socialist senators...
How you two haven't gotten this locked is beyond me.
-
How you two haven't gotten this locked is beyond me.
please please don'tlock er down-this has been one of the better discussions and quite informative
-
Only 5 players can play at a time. How many "blue bloods"? 10? The math doesn't add up. These bluebloods will be signing the Top High School players as well, as well as their current roster. I don't see many freshman phenoms at lower schools transferring up. If they are that good, they will declare for the NBA. If they are not good enough for the NBA, they are now at a blueblood for 3 years, tying up a scholarship.
Jeff Goodman as the expert on the ramifactions? OK.
A number of coaches were listed, they would be the experts on the ramifications....Jeff Goodman was just one of many I quoted. I left another 20 or so quotes off. As stated earlier, most of the Blue Bloods don't carry a full roster or they have 2 or 3 kids taking a scholarship that are there for GPA inflation / son of booster. As others quoted, it won't just be the blue bloods that do the poaching as it will go from one tier to the next to the next.
This kind of movement would never be tolerated in the pros. Free agency was destroying the pro sports as it were which is why Salary Caps, franchise tags, home team exceptions were put in to undo the harm that free agency created. The ultimate irony when people say free agency didn't destroy professional sports....only it was and had to be corrected. No such remedies exist in the college game. Going to be really sad to see how this all turns out.
-
A number of coaches were listed, they would be the experts on the ramifications....Jeff Goodman was just one of many I quoted. I left another 20 or so quotes off. As stated earlier, most of the Blue Bloods don't carry a full roster or they have 2 or 3 kids taking a scholarship that are there for GPA inflation / son of booster. As others quoted, it won't just be the blue bloods that do the poaching as it will go from one tier to the next to the next.
This kind of movement would never be tolerated in the pros. Free agency was destroying the pro sports as it were which is why Salary Caps, franchise tags, home team exceptions were put in to undo the harm that free agency created. The ultimate irony when people say free agency didn't destroy professional sports....only it was and had to be corrected. No such remedies exist in the college game. Going to be really sad to see how this all turns out.
completely agree here jams! so many here are trying to make it sound like it's the right thing to do without any regard for how it would(not could) play out. i believe it would make our college system, with all its "shenanigans" a real mess. not as simple as just paying the players. if you think the adidas thing was nasty, this would make that look like childs play
-
A number of coaches were listed, they would be the experts on the ramifications....Jeff Goodman was just one of many I quoted. I left another 20 or so quotes off. As stated earlier, most of the Blue Bloods don't carry a full roster or they have 2 or 3 kids taking a scholarship that are there for GPA inflation / son of booster. As others quoted, it won't just be the blue bloods that do the poaching as it will go from one tier to the next to the next.
This kind of movement would never be tolerated in the pros. Free agency was destroying the pro sports as it were which is why Salary Caps, franchise tags, home team exceptions were put in to undo the harm that free agency created. The ultimate irony when people say free agency didn't destroy professional sports....only it was and had to be corrected. No such remedies exist in the college game. Going to be really sad to see how this all turns out.
When is someone considered an "expert" on a topic?
-
completely agree here jams! so many here are trying to make it sound like it's the right thing to do without any regard for how it would(not could) play out. i believe it would make our college system, with all its "shenanigans" a real mess. not as simple as just paying the players. if you think the adidas thing was nasty, this would make that look like childs play
It's pretty clear by now that the Adidas thing isn't nasty. At least not to the NCAA
-
Right. And I'm pretty sure Cal and Coach K aren't eager to stack their rosters with A-10 talent.
If they could supplement them with a Myles Powell, Markus Howard, other top players on next level teams....they can and will do it in a heartbeat. That's the point.
-
Are you NUTS? That's like free markets, and, and, and capitalism!
Socialism for institutions of higher learning!!! Just not for people.
Most sports have socialism to keep things competitive because the talent pool is so small. In most industries that isn't needed because there are millions of accountants, lawyers, marketers, pharmacists, etc.
There's a reason sports have DRAFTS and SALARY CAPS and CONTRACTS, etc.....because it is unique. What these idiots want to do is create "free agency" without the safeguards that prevented free agency from destroying professional sports. It's amazing how silly this all is and the damage that will unfold over time.
-
It's pretty clear by now that the Adidas thing isn't nasty. At least not to the NCAA
ok, then how about naughty? it sure in the heck wasn't above the board.
-
Yawn
-
When is someone considered an "expert" on a topic?
Fair question. I believe a number of coaches have correctly stated what will happen with transfers and poaching....they've admitted it happens now at a minor level and it will happen to unbelievable extremes in the future. I would characterize them as experts in the sense of recruiting, transfers, and roster management. Do you disagree?
-
Why should there only be a one time exemption? If we really desire free agency for people who aren’t employees they should be able to transfer as many times as they want like any other student. Why the half measures? I ask this because people are so adamant about wanting this but seem to stop a bit short of complete freedom of choice.
Not only that, should be able to transfer each semester....I mean regular students get to do that. First semester player for Marquette...second semester for Michigan. I mean...come on....Johnny gets to do it.
Moreover....Johnny can go to school for 10 straight years if he wishes and keep on adding majors, never graduate. Since Johnny can do that, why can't Devon the football player....why is he limited to 4 years of playing?
The arguments these people are making are so easily destroyed. Terrible what this is all going to turn into...the rich get richer, the haves DOMINATE, fewer opportunities for other kids eventually schools will drop sports or levels as fan bases are so put off by the roster raiding.
-
A number of coaches were listed, they would be the experts on the ramifications....Jeff Goodman was just one of many I quoted. I left another 20 or so quotes off. As stated earlier, most of the Blue Bloods don't carry a full roster or they have 2 or 3 kids taking a scholarship that are there for GPA inflation / son of booster. As others quoted, it won't just be the blue bloods that do the poaching as it will go from one tier to the next to the next.
This kind of movement would never be tolerated in the pros. Free agency was destroying the pro sports as it were which is why Salary Caps, franchise tags, home team exceptions were put in to undo the harm that free agency created. The ultimate irony when people say free agency didn't destroy professional sports....only it was and had to be corrected. No such remedies exist in the college game. Going to be really sad to see how this all turns out.
Coaches are not experts on the ramifications. Cmon...
-
Coaches are not experts on the ramifications. Cmon...
why not? they're the ones trying to game the system. they all have a front row seat. they know how all this works. any honest person can see this would not end very well. this is all about a big power grab
-
why not? they're the ones trying to game the system. they all have a front row seat. they know how all this works. any honest person can see this would not end very well. this is all about a big power grab
Coaches are against anything that challenges their authority. And every coach at a low major or mid-major would abandon the kids they want to keep at the first opportunity they got that was better.
Don’t let the Chicken Littles scare you. Just as many kids will transfer down as up.
-
With this rule in effect, would we have continuous recruiting? If someone liked Marcus after his soph year, could they recruit him then. Could they go on campus or to his home during the summer? During Xmas break?
-
With this rule in effect, would we have continuous recruiting? If someone liked Marcus after his soph year, could they recruit him then. Could they go on campus or to his home during the summer? During Xmas break?
No
-
why not? they're the ones trying to game the system. they all have a front row seat. they know how all this works. any honest person can see this would not end very well. this is all about a big power grab
It will be fine. Don’t let Chico Little scare you.
-
If they could supplement them with a Myles Powell, Markus Howard, other top players on next level teams....they can and will do it in a heartbeat. That's the point.
If K or Cal can convince a player like Markus or Powell to leave their ideal situations to go play a lesser role, in a new system, at a new school, then more power to them.
But I fail to see how that's going to "destroy the mid majors" and lead schools to drop their programs.
Marquette and Seton Hall would have played on had Markus and Powell gone pro last year. Why would them transferring somehow lead to a different result?
-
They sign a contract, that’s why.
As do coaches, dg, and for a helluva lot more benefits. Let's hold them all to the contracts they sign.
this is all about a big power grab
The current system is a big power grab. The schools and coaches have been grabbing all the power for decades.
-
A number of coaches were listed, they would be the experts on the ramifications....Jeff Goodman was just one of many I quoted. I left another 20 or so quotes off. As stated earlier, most of the Blue Bloods don't carry a full roster or they have 2 or 3 kids taking a scholarship that are there for GPA inflation / son of booster. As others quoted, it won't just be the blue bloods that do the poaching as it will go from one tier to the next to the next.
This kind of movement would never be tolerated in the pros. Free agency was destroying the pro sports as it were which is why Salary Caps, franchise tags, home team exceptions were put in to undo the harm that free agency created. The ultimate irony when people say free agency didn't destroy professional sports....only it was and had to be corrected. No such remedies exist in the college game. Going to be really sad to see how this all turns out.
Is that true? I’ve heard that for walk-ons but did not think that was the case for scholarships.
-
Fair question. I believe a number of coaches have correctly stated what will happen with transfers and poaching....they've admitted it happens now at a minor level and it will happen to unbelievable extremes in the future. I would characterize them as experts in the sense of recruiting, transfers, and roster management. Do you disagree?
So, you classify them as experts because they state what you already believe?
What if there are other coaches, ADs, etc who state the opposite of these coaches? Are those opposing also considered experts?
What about current or former players?
I'm just trying to figure out what makes someone an expert
-
It will be fine. Don’t let Chico Little scare you.
i can think for myself thank you, but we both see the fire on the mountain here...something about great minds and fools coming to mind though
-
Old fogies don't like change, eh?
-
Old fogies don't like change, eh?
grasshopper advice to master po? ;)
-
As do coaches, dg, and for a helluva lot more benefits. Let's hold them all to the contracts they sign.
I totally agree.
If you recall your Warrior History, back in 1970 Al wanted to become the first head coach of the Milwaukee Bucks. He went to Father John Raynor, SJ, figuring the release from his contract would be a formality. Upon meeting, Father Raynor reminded Al that a contract was a contract that Father looked forward to Al being head coach at Marquette for a number of wonderful years to come.
Al went nowhere.
The crux of my point is this: the one year is arbitrary and a rule, not a contractual agreement. It goes back to the reserve clause in baseball and basketball. At the time, player contracts said a player would have to play out his contract and could be renewed automatically for another year (which MLB took to mean forever). A judge in 1967 ruled on NBA contracts that a year was a year.
The reason I propose a two-year scholarship is to give player and school time to evaluate. The player would get two years contractually and then would be free to do as he/she wishes at the end of two years. The school could then either do a second two-year scholarship or the player could go to another school and play immediately.
In the case of the Baby Hauser, he'd be playing for Michigan State this semester because his two years were up in December.
I also believe the NCAA could structure this so that the contract counts against total scholarships, whether the student-athlete stays or not. So if you have a Henry Ellenson, you have a second year with one less scholarship because you blew it on Henry. Cuts down on the one-and-done cases.
-
Old fogies don't like change, eh?
No, I think they are thinking about what the potential pitfalls are going to be, something that many are not and don’t seem to care about. Many questions about negative possibilities are answered like you have answered and not really helpful to the dialogue. Many in fact want half measures instead of true free agency and capitalism and are therefore “chicken littles” themselves.
I believe this all will happen whether we like it or not. It would be better if people on both sides of the argument could actually see both sides of it and could discuss the best way to solve it without being condescending. Because it’s apparent the majority of people have not fully thought this through to its conclusion.
-
I totally agree.
If you recall your Warrior History, back in 1970 Al wanted to become the first head coach of the Milwaukee Bucks. He went to Father John Raynor, SJ, figuring the release from his contract would be a formality. Upon meeting, Father Raynor reminded Al that a contract was a contract that Father looked forward to Al being head coach at Marquette for a number of wonderful years to come.
Al went nowhere.
The crux of my point is this: the one year is arbitrary and a rule, not a contractual agreement. It goes back to the reserve clause in baseball and basketball. At the time, player contracts said a player would have to play out his contract and could be renewed automatically for another year (which MLB took to mean forever). A judge in 1967 ruled on NBA contracts that a year was a year.
The reason I propose a two-year scholarship is to give player and school time to evaluate. The player would get two years contractually and then would be free to do as he/she wishes at the end of two years. The school could then either do a second two-year scholarship or the player could go to another school and play immediately.
In the case of the Baby Hauser, he'd be playing for Michigan State this semester because his two years were up in December.
I also believe the NCAA could structure this so that the contract counts against total scholarships, whether the student-athlete stays or not. So if you have a Henry Ellenson, you have a second year with one less scholarship because you blew it on Henry. Cuts down on the one-and-done cases.
Yep, I know the Al story. That system doesn't exist today. For coaches, it's just about total free agency. It doesn't matter if they are only 9 months into a 5-year contract.
As for your solution, we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
-
No, I think they are thinking about what the potential pitfalls are going to be, something that many are not and don’t seem to care about. Many questions about negative possibilities are answered like you have answered and not really helpful to the dialogue. Many in fact want half measures instead of true free agency and capitalism and are therefore “chicken littles” themselves.
I believe this all will happen whether we like it or not. It would be better if people on both sides of the argument could actually see both sides of it and could discuss the best way to solve it without being condescending. Because it’s apparent the majority of people have not fully thought this through to its conclusion.
A student-athlete is allowed to transfer once without sitting out a year. That’s the proposal being discussed. You can’t transfer without penalty after that.
Will the transfer rate increase? Yes. Will some players leaving hurt programs? Absolutely. Will some go to blue bloods? Absolutely. Will some transfer down? Absolutely.
This will not kill college basketball. Coaches love to talk family and team and creating a culture. If they accomplish these things, their program will be successful and retain players. For too many, these things are just lip service.
I’m all for guidelines establishing a timeframe for these one time transfers. Kids leaving in season or say after a certain date after the season have to sit a year. This is fair. There are options.
-
It is in some part still should be about giving kids the opportunity to graduate from the school of their choice, so I do not like giving the school the opportunity to "cut" kids. A scholarship should be a 4 year guarantee, with 1 free transfer, eliminate the grad transfer rule. If an athlete has already transferred once, no grad transfer.
-
Coaches are not experts on the ramifications. Cmon...
How are they not experts on this...they know what coaches will do to poach and what impacts to their teams if players are gone. No one knows their teams better than the coach...that is literally part of their job.
-
No
LOL. Of course they would. The tampering and pandering would be nonstop. You can pretend it is not official recruiting, but it would be off the charts....the coaches even said so in the quotes I gave you and they are the honest ones admitting it. The dishonest ones, hell yes they are going to do “recruit” kids all the time.
-
It will be fine. Don’t let Chico Little scare you.
Or these coaches or other experts....they are all wrong...the snowflakes that have never worked in athletics and have no idea what they are talking about have it right....LOL.
-
So, you classify them as experts because they state what you already believe?
What if there are other coaches, ADs, etc who state the opposite of these coaches? Are those opposing also considered experts?
What about current or former players?
I'm just trying to figure out what makes someone an expert
There can be experts on both sides with differing opinions. 5 justices rule one way, 4 rule another...all are experts. 10,000 economists say one things, 10,000 say another.
-
Old fogies don't like change, eh?
Old fogies have wisdom and experience....younger people usually do not....what’s the famous Winston Churchill saying......
-
A student-athlete is allowed to transfer once without sitting out a year. That’s the proposal being discussed. You can’t transfer without penalty after that.
Will the transfer rate increase? Yes. Will some players leaving hurt programs? Absolutely. Will some go to blue bloods? Absolutely. Will some transfer down? Absolutely.
This will not kill college basketball. Coaches love to talk family and team and creating a culture. If they accomplish these things, their program will be successful and retain players. For too many, these things are just lip service.
I’m all for guidelines establishing a timeframe for these one time transfers. Kids leaving in season or say after a certain date after the season have to sit a year. This is fair. There are options.
A school believes in a kid and gives them a 4 year scholarship and develops the kid....now the kid ups and leaves. Companies have policies / contracts if they develop someone (pay for their MBA) and the employee leaves early the employee must pay back the company. If the kid has to reimburse the school, I’m open to this.
There are going to be so many roster changes that some schools instead of losing 3 or 4 kids could lose 7+ with no fault of their own....all because they had the audacity to take chances on kids that then blew up. If you don’t think that isn’t going to destroy programs and set fan bases in revolt you are kidding yourself.
-
A school believes in a kid and gives them a 4 year scholarship and develops the kid....now the kid ups and leaves. Companies have policies / contracts if they develop someone (pay for their MBA) and the employee leaves early the employee must pay back the company. If the kid has to reimburse the school, I’m open to this.
There are going to be so many roster changes that some schools instead of losing 3 or 4 kids could lose 7+ with no fault of their own....all because they had the audacity to take chances on kids that then blew up. If you don’t think that isn’t going to destroy programs and set fan bases in revolt you are kidding yourself.
I believe a scholarship is a one year contract, so technically, the school is not giving a 4 year scholarship. It would just be a terrible decision to actually enforce it.
-
Is that a record for whoever cheeks is.
-
A school believes in a kid and gives them a 4 year scholarship and develops the kid....now the kid ups and leaves. Companies have policies / contracts if they develop someone (pay for their MBA) and the employee leaves early the employee must pay back the company. If the kid has to reimburse the school, I’m open to this.
There are going to be so many roster changes that some schools instead of losing 3 or 4 kids could lose 7+ with no fault of their own....all because they had the audacity to take chances on kids that then blew up. If you don’t think that isn’t going to destroy programs and set fan bases in revolt you are kidding yourself.
Brother Cheeks:
I'm afraid you've mis-stated. Athletic scholarships are one-year terms that are annually renewed by the college.
If the student was given a guaranteed four-year scholarship, then OK, you're right. But they don't.
This is why I like the idea of a two-year agreement with an ability to move after the second year. Fair for the student -- particularly if he has been over-recruited -- and fair for the school because you know you have him for two years. You give a release if the coach leaves or the school gets NCAA probation.
-
Brother Cheeks:
I'm afraid you've mis-stated. Athletic scholarships are one-year terms that are annually renewed by the college.
If the student was given a guaranteed four-year scholarship, then OK, you're right. But they don't.
This is why I like the idea of a two-year agreement with an ability to move after the second year. Fair for the student -- particularly if he has been over-recruited -- and fair for the school because you know you have him for two years. You give a release if the coach leaves or the school gets NCAA probation.
Wrong. A lot of conferences now give 4 year scholies.
-
Is that a record for whoever cheeks is.
Some people believe volume is greater than being correct
-
I think he was trying to fill a whole page with just his posts ! ! ! 8-)
-
Brother Cheeks:
I'm afraid you've mis-stated. Athletic scholarships are one-year terms that are annually renewed by the college.
If the student was given a guaranteed four-year scholarship, then OK, you're right. But they don't.
This is why I like the idea of a two-year agreement with an ability to move after the second year. Fair for the student -- particularly if he has been over-recruited -- and fair for the school because you know you have him for two years. You give a release if the coach leaves or the school gets NCAA probation.
The P6 schools changed to 4 year scholarships a few years ago.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11666316/big-ten-guarantees-four-year-scholarships-student-athletes
Yes, there is wiggle room for things like fraud, etc.
-
I think he was trying to fill a whole page with just his posts ! ! ! 8-)
I take the time to answer each post, it’s the service and respect I deliver to each person. My humility is your gain to not be treated as just a number with one post covering all.
-
It is in some part still should be about giving kids the opportunity to graduate from the school of their choice, so I do not like giving the school the opportunity to "cut" kids. A scholarship should be a 4 year guarantee, with 1 free transfer, eliminate the grad transfer rule. If an athlete has already transferred once, no grad transfer.
And what are the protections for the school, counselor?
Scholarships are already 4 years by the way. Sure looks like all the protections are one sided in your proposal. Kid sucks or dogs it....he keeps scholarship. Kid wants to leave, no renumeration for the school. Etc, etc.
-
A school believes in a kid and gives them a 4 year scholarship and develops the kid....now the kid ups and leaves. Companies have policies / contracts if they develop someone (pay for their MBA) and the employee leaves early the employee must pay back the company. If the kid has to reimburse the school, I’m open to this.
There are going to be so many roster changes that some schools instead of losing 3 or 4 kids could lose 7+ with no fault of their own....all because they had the audacity to take chances on kids that then blew up. If you don’t think that isn’t going to destroy programs and set fan bases in revolt you are kidding yourself.
This is where the hypocrisy is glaring
When it suits your needs, you want athletes treated like employees - restricting their movement, binding them to contractual obligations, imposing non-compete constraints, demanding reimbursement, etc.
But when it comes to issues of compensation and labor rights? They're students!
It's like the late great John Matuszak's character in North Dallas Forty said of his team's management, "Every time I call it a game, you call it a business. And every time I call it a business, you call it a game."
-
This is where the hypocrisy is glaring
When it suits your needs, you want athletes treated like employees - restricting their movement, binding them to contractual obligations, imposing non-compete constraints, demanding reimbursement, etc.
But when it comes to issues of compensation and labor rights? They're students!
It's like the late great John Matuszak's character in North Dallas Forty said of his team's management, "Every time I call it a game, you call it a business. And every time I call it a business, you call it a game."
And you hypocrisy doesn’t show....LOL.
I am not restricting their movement....but you have to sit out. I am not saying you should be denied where you go. School is making an investment in student and guaranteeing a four year ride.....where is protection for school? Seriously, where is it? There is NONE in your proposal. No contract, nothing. School is screwed and from there comes the domino effect of program destruction, etc.
Tell me where the protection of any kind exists for the school.
-
Soccer players, wrestlers, lacrosse players, concert violinists are free to transfer without having to sit out a year.
Basketball players? Tough shyte ... you gotta sit!
Unless, of course, the NCAA feels like granting a waiver.
Quite a fair system for one and all!
-
And what are the protections for the school, counselor?
Scholarships are already 4 years by the way. Sure looks like all the protections are one sided in your proposal. Kid sucks or dogs it....he keeps scholarship. Kid wants to leave, no renumeration for the school. Etc, etc.
The protection is all of the $$$ that individual brought to the school while he was playing. If a key member of a team decides to transfer, that will free up playing time for others (including potential transfers in).
-
And you hypocrisy doesn’t show....LOL.
I am not restricting their movement....but you have to sit out. I am not saying you should be denied where you go. School is making an investment in student and guaranteeing a four year ride.....where is protection for school? Seriously, where is it? There is NONE in your proposal. No contract, nothing. School is screwed and from there comes the domino effect of program destruction, etc.
Tell me where the protection of any kind exists for the school.
1. What hypocrisy? My position is consistent and always has been. Your position is not. You want athletes treated as students when it suits the schools' best interests. You want them treated as employees when it suits the schools' best interests.
2. Why are the schools owed protection? They deserve none. They benefit greatly from the players' labors while the player is there. Now you want them to benefit from the player not being there?
-
The protection is all of the $$$ that individual brought to the school while he was playing. If a key member of a team decides to transfer, that will free up playing time for others (including potential transfers in).
LOL....do you know how many schools lose money on their programs....but of course you don’t want to talk about those schools..
The top kids will get poached up, so when you lose a kid, you replace them with someone of lesser quality.
-
1. What hypocrisy? My position is consistent and always has been. Your position is not. You want athletes treated as students when it suits the schools' best interests. You want them treated as employees when it suits the schools' best interests.
2. Why are the schools owed protection? They deserve none. They benefit greatly from the players' labors while the player is there. Now you want them to benefit from the player not being there?
Thank you for admitting this is a one way street and schools are given the short end of the deal despite them being the ones that are cultivating, training, etc the talent of the kids.
“They didn’t build that....”. What a shocking disclosure by Pakuni....so shocked. ::)
Your hypocrisy is not acknowledging what the school invests and provides to the student. Without the school and the platform, these kids would be doing what?
-
Thank you for admitting this is a one way street and schools are given the short end of the deal despite them being the ones that are cultivating, training, etc the talent of the kids.
Your hypocrisy is not acknowledging what the school invests and provides to the student. Without the school and the platform, these kids would be doing what?
Oh, stop. You cannot possibly be this naive.
College athletic departments are not charity organizations. They aren't "cultivating, training, etc." athletes out of the kindness of their hearts or because it makes the world a better place.
They're doing it for one reason and only one reason: because it benefits the institution. And it does that in many ways, from financial to public exposure to student recruitment to alumni relations and more.
A one-way street? Good God.
As for complaint about schools that lose money ... well, if they're losing money, maybe they should get out of major college athletics. Of course, they won't do that, because they've decided the other benefits (see above) outweigh whatever financial losses they may claim.
And before you whine about "lost opportunities" schools could solve that by giving out scholarship money previously awarded to athletes to deserving low-income students. They'd still save a fortune by not funding a major athletic department staff, coaches, facility costs, travel costs, etc.
Problem solved. No lost opportunities.
-
Oh, stop. You cannot possibly be this naive.
College athletic departments are not charity organizations. They aren't "cultivating, training, etc." athletes out of the kindness of their hearts or because it makes the world a better place.
They're doing it for one reason and only one reason: because it benefits the institution. And it does that in many ways, from financial to public exposure to student recruitment to alumni relations and more.
A one-way street? Good God.
As for complaint about schools that lose money ... well, if they're losing money, maybe they should get out of major college athletics. Of course, they won't do that, because they've decided the other benefits (see above) outweigh whatever financial losses they may claim.
And before you whine about "lost opportunities" schools could solve that by giving out scholarship money previously awarded to athletes to deserving low-income students. They'd still save a fortune by not funding a major athletic department staff, coaches, facility costs, travel costs, etc.
Problem solved. No lost opportunities.
And you can’t possibly be so naive to say “free labor” either. MU spends a crap ton of money on student athletes to train them, make them better....who benefits from that....only the school? Give me a break. How many players who had very little prospects to make the pros did so after that cultivation and training....plenty.
And free labor is an interesting statement by you...with a college degree you make more than $2million over your life because of that piece of paper. Hardly free labor
You just want to make this as if the school should have no protections....your words!!! I thought a partnership was a two way street and when you have a one sided approach like you are proposing, it doesn’t end well.
-
And you can’t possibly be so naive to say “free labor” either. MU spends a crap ton of money on student athletes to train them, make them better....who benefits from that....only the school? Give me a break. How many players who had very little prospects to make the pros did so after that cultivation and training....plenty.
And free labor is an interesting statement by you...with a college degree you make more than $2million over your life because of that piece of paper. Hardly free labor
You just want to make this as if the school should have no protections....your words!!! I thought a partnership was a two way street and when you have a one sided approach like you are proposing, it doesn’t end well.
You're arguing here against a bunch of straw men and things I didn't write. Cool. Guess that's what happens when you have no argument.
-
You're arguing here against a bunch of straw men and things I didn't write. Cool. Guess that's what happens when you have no argument.
You wrote free labor in this very thread....good Lord
-
You wrote free labor in this very thread....good Lord
Nope.
-
Nope.
Free labor. https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=59187.msg1165612#msg1165612
-
Free labor. https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=59187.msg1165612#msg1165612
That's a post from October in which I didn't write free labor.
Your willingness to lie to avoid admitting you're wrong knows no bounds.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/7lmB0czZhmCoo/giphy.gif)
-
That's a post from October in which I didn't write free labor.
Your willingness to lie to avoid admitting you're wrong knows no bounds.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/7lmB0czZhmCoo/giphy.gif)
It also wasn't in this thread
-
As do coaches, dg, and for a helluva lot more benefits. Let's hold them all to the contracts they sign
They are held to the contracts they sign. Buyouts get paid, buddy. Maybe schools need to not be such wusses and demand larger buyouts that actually serve as a deterrent.
nvm, not sure why I’m trying to explain contracts to a guy that’s been out of work for decades
-
Could I get another couple of pages of Cheeks talking to himself
-
That's a post from October in which I didn't write free labor.
Your willingness to lie to avoid admitting you're wrong knows no bounds.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/7lmB0czZhmCoo/giphy.gif)
Lol, you supported free labor notion of student athletes and have done so in several posts here, You spoke about labor again yesterday and now want to pretend your belief in free labor has changed...lol.