Coach K weighs in on Transfers.....no exceptions

[TJ]

I absolutely agree that there should be a hard, fast, no-exception rule on this issue ... as soon as there is a hard, fast, no-exception rule that a coach can't walk out on his contract at one school and start working at another immediately.

It's easy for Mr. High & Mighty to want a rule constraining 20-year-olds that he doesn't have to abide by himself.

He can leave for untold millions but if a kid leave wants to leave for an opportunity ... screw the "student/athlete."

What a hypocritical crock of you-know-what.

+1

[TJ]

Most, if not all, coaching contacts contain buyout agreements. Also, if you are going to hold coaches to the contracts than schools should not be allowed to fire them before the end of the contract.

Why not?  Coaches can cut players before 4 years are up.  It's always reported as a "transfer" but it happens plenty.

[TJ]

That is completely false. It depends on the contract and it varies substantially from contract to contract. Tom Crean has a HUGE buyout if Indiana cans him, but most coaches do not.

Also, many (i.e., Ben Howland as an example - that's why he's not working right now) termination provisions include an offset if future employment is obtained.

You're completely off on this.

How is he off?  Are you suggesting most college coaches' contracts are not guaranteed?

He's definitely not off of this statement: "But if a coach fires a student-athlete, the kid is completely on his own."

[Jay Bee]

How is he off?  Are you suggesting most college coaches' contracts are not guaranteed?

Yes. Not suggesting. It's factual - most are not guaranteed.

[bilsu]

How is he off?  Are you suggesting most college coaches' contracts are not guaranteed?

He's definitely not off of this statement: "But if a coach fires a student-athlete, the kid is completely on his own."

I also think coaches should not be allowed to replace players who lose their scholarship, transfer out or declare for draft for one year. That would end coaches dumping players and be more carefull in who they recruit and would not allow Kentucky to sign 5 one and dones every year. That would get it back to developing the student athlete instead of the transfer treadmill college basketball is currently on.

[TJ]

Yes. Not suggesting. It's factual - most are not guaranteed.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that?  That goes against everything I've ever heard in terms of coaching contracts.

For example, Mike Rice got fired for abusing players and got a $475,000 settlement. link
Fred Hill got $875,000 from Rutgers.  link
Bruce Weber got $3.9 million over 3 years. link
Tubby Smith had a $2.5 million buyout in Minnesota. link
"Georgia Tech was forced to pay former coach Paul Hewitt a $7.2 million sum when it fired him in 2011."  Also, Alford has a $10 million buyout if UCLA fires him.  link
"Virginia will pay Dave Leitao $2.1 million not to coach the Cavs. This is the same school that paid $2 million to get rid of Pete Gillen. The Cavaliers have hardly been an NCAA tournament regular, going to seven NCAA tournaments since 1990." link

[TJ]

I also think coaches should not be allowed to replace players who lose their scholarship, transfer out or declare for draft for one year. That would end coaches dumping players and be more carefull in who they recruit and would not allow Kentucky to sign 5 one and dones every year. That would get it back to developing the student athlete instead of the transfer treadmill college basketball is currently on.

It's a great idea, but it's not part of the world we currently live in.

[Jay Bee]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that?  That goes against everything I've ever heard in terms of coaching contracts.

For example, Mike Rice got fired for abusing players and got a $475,000 settlement. link
Fred Hill got $875,000 from Rutgers.  link
Bruce Weber got $3.9 million over 3 years. link
Tubby Smith had a $2.5 million buyout in Minnesota. link
"Georgia Tech was forced to pay former coach Paul Hewitt a $7.2 million sum when it fired him in 2011."  Also, Alford has a $10 million buyout if UCLA fires him.  link
"Virginia will pay Dave Leitao $2.1 million not to coach the Cavs. This is the same school that paid $2 million to get rid of Pete Gillen. The Cavaliers have hardly been an NCAA tournament regular, going to seven NCAA tournaments since 1990." link

Yes. Actual contracts. Everyone is different.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Most of these guys went to a school to play basketball or some other sport and usually leave because of lack of playing time or something like that.  A "free pass", which is almost exactly what you describe is just that, a free no consequences pass.  That's not how the real world is.....

But it is how the real world works. These kids are students first and athletes second (at least that's how the NCAA claims to see it). Other students can transfer to any school whenever they want without penalty (minus not getting deposits back). Why shouldn't athletes be given the same treatment?

I would be in favor of allowing instantaneous transfers, but only between schoolyears. If you transfer midseason, you have to sit until the next season.

[Lennys Tap]

But it is how the real world works. These kids are students first and athletes second (at least that's how the NCAA claims to see it). Other students can transfer to any school whenever they want without penalty (minus not getting deposits back). Why shouldn't athletes be given the same treatment?

I would be in favor of allowing instantaneous transfers, but only between schoolyears. If you transfer midseason, you have to sit until the next season.

"Other students" aren't getting free tuition, room, board, books, tutoring and a per diem. How many students do you know of on academic scholarship who transfer and keep that scholarship?

[ChicosBailBonds]

"Completely irrelevant" might be pushing it, but it's not of any real significance. Voluntary contract that is entered in by only some players prior to initial enrollment. y a w n

I guess I need to understand if you and Terror are talking about bailing out of NLI (which I don't think is a transfer), or someone bailing out after they started school...thus a transfer.  This is why I ask the question, why.  Looking for some clarity more than anything.

If I recruit you to come to my school, my goal is to have you there for our 4 years and be a contributor. If you commit to me and come play for me, that is my goal.  Heck, nowadays I can even give you a 4 year scholarship (not a 1 year renewable).  If you come to play for me, I'm giving you a scholarship, etc, but I also expect you to be here.  I can't have my roster turnover all the time and the easier it is to make that roster turnover (i.e. no sit out penalty), the more it will happen.  That letter of intent and the subsequent stepping on to campus is your part of the bargain.  That is a roster spot locked in, stability (albeit short term), locked in for a season and the goal is for longer.  Doesn't always happen, to your point.

People think transfers are high now, imagine what it will be with no penalty to transfer....a freebie.  It will be totally off the hook.  There has to be a consequence to the actions taken, enough to at least give a pause for thought, especially when 18 or 19 year old males, who are not exactly grounded in great decision making to begin with, are the ones doing the transferring. This is ultimately an agreement between two parties and any agreement out there has some give and get.  The freebie takes out the give for one party and leaves the institution holding the bag.

[ChicosBailBonds]

But it is how the real world works. These kids are students first and athletes second (at least that's how the NCAA claims to see it). Other students can transfer to any school whenever they want without penalty (minus not getting deposits back). Why shouldn't athletes be given the same treatment?

I would be in favor of allowing instantaneous transfers, but only between schoolyears. If you transfer midseason, you have to sit until the next season.

Because rosters are set based on a team of committed players.  That was the agreement....you come to MU, you play at MU and you get a scholarship.  Stability.  If you leave MU, you have to sit out a year because we need 12 bodies to make a team.   If the History major leaves MU to attend Notre Dame instead, the History team \ class, is not impacted.  That is also how the real world works (or should work)...there are rules and there are agreements.  You abide by what is in the agreement for which the line that is dotted you signed.  That agreement says if you choose to leave the school, you have to sit out a year.  Real world.  Rules.

[dgies9156]

Simple rule -- you sign a commitment, you keep it. You want a player for four years, then sign a four-year scholarship commitment. Otherwise, you let the player transfer at the end of the contract, oops scholarship, without a tail, or restriction.

Tails are contract provisions that limit a party's actions following the end of the contract.

If the NCAA member institution wants a one-year contract, then no tail unless there is an incentive for the student-athlete during the tail. Tails in the form of noncompetes, which the NCAA institution is asking for, are generally granted because a counterparty (oops, student athlete) has valuable trade information that generally must be protected. How many student athletes have that level of knowledge?

Tails (oops, one-year, sit-outs) also are granted because someone has a compensation package and you don't want to pay a person to compete against you. The noncompete, in this case, would have value and would terminate any benefits an athlete receives if he plays for another institution. Again, not the case here!

The whole system is rigged toward the NCAA member institution. This is another example of plantation politics. At some point, someone is going to wonder about the NCAA's anti-trust status.

[MU82]

Simple rule -- you sign a commitment, you keep it. You want a player for four years, then sign a four-year scholarship commitment. Otherwise, you let the player transfer at the end of the contract, oops scholarship, without a tail, or restriction.

Tails are contract provisions that limit a party's actions following the end of the contract.

If the NCAA member institution wants a one-year contract, then no tail unless there is an incentive for the student-athlete during the tail. Tails in the form of noncompetes, which the NCAA institution is asking for, are generally granted because a counterparty (oops, student athlete) has valuable trade information that generally must be protected. How many student athletes have that level of knowledge?

Tails (oops, one-year, sit-outs) also are granted because someone has a compensation package and you don't want to pay a person to compete against you. The noncompete, in this case, would have value and would terminate any benefits an athlete receives if he plays for another institution. Again, not the case here!

The whole system is rigged toward the NCAA member institution. This is another example of plantation politics. At some point, someone is going to wonder about the NCAA's anti-trust status.

This is it entirely! The school/coach gets to "sign" a player for only one year with absolutely no penalty to the school/coach if the player gets sent packing. But the player has to make a long-term commitment or pay a penalty.

It's an amazing inequity.

[MU82]

Yes. Actual contracts. Everyone is different.

Semantics.

Maybe a six-year, $18 million contract won't result in a coach actually getting all $18 million, but very, very, VERY few coaches in the BCS conferences (as well as the Big East, A-10 and other good leagues) can be just told to take a hike for zero dollars in return.

And I don't think most coaches have clauses in their contracts forbidding them from taking -- and getting paid for -- other jobs if the school cans them.

Meanwhile, EVERY player is under a one-year contract and EVERY player is beholden to the school/coach. Any coach can dump any player without cause.

And Coach K (and other coaches, as well as some Scoopers) have the temerity to suggest the very few athletes who get to transfer without sitting out a year are gaming the system and somehow hurting college sports? Oy!

[TJ]

Yes. Actual contracts. Everyone is different.

Please enlighten us with more than just an "I said so".  I would be thrilled to see proof of a single case of a coach getting fired and not getting any compensation for the remaining years on the contract.  And not someone fired for violations or something like that; someone fired for poor performance on the court.

[TJ]

This is it entirely! The school/coach gets to "sign" a player for only one year with absolutely no penalty to the school/coach if the player gets sent packing. But the player has to make a long-term commitment or pay a penalty.

It's an amazing inequity.

+1000000

It amazes me that people are so completely blind to this.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is it entirely! The school/coach gets to "sign" a player for only one year with absolutely no penalty to the school/coach if the player gets sent packing. But the player has to make a long-term commitment or pay a penalty.

It's an amazing inequity.

The player gets something for that one year...no inequity at all.  Most get far more than they give, but either way it is a Give and Get relationship. How many guys are studs for 4 years?  Very few.  So while they are learning the system, etc, etc, they are GETTING a lot more than they are GIVING.

If they want to leave, they can leave...and STILL have their remaining years of eligibility left.  They just have to sit out a year.  It's part of the deal, don't like it...don't sign the paper and don't play ball at a school that gives a one year scholarship.  Demand a 4 year scholarship, which are permissible.

Finally, how is there no penalty?  If a kid transfers, they are down a player.  That hurts the team.  Especially if it is a transfer that the school doesn't want.  There are transfers and there are TRANSFERS.  If DG transferred last year, that would be a big loss for MU.  The school is penalized as such.  If it was a below average player, the impact is much less, but how can you say there are no impacts to the school?  Did they not fork out a ton of money to coach that kid?  Feed that kid?  Shelter that kid?  Clothe that kid?  Did they not invest the coaching into the kid?   It's like hiring someone at work, training them for several months and they leave....that doesn't penalize the company?  Of course it does, just like a kid transferring penalizes a school.

It amazes me that people are so completely blind to THIS.

[dgies9156]

Finally, how is there no penalty?  If a kid transfers, they are down a player.  That hurts the team.  Especially if it is a transfer that the school doesn't want.  There are transfers and there are TRANSFERS.  If DG transferred last year, that would be a big loss for MU.  The school is penalized as such.  If it was a below average player, the impact is much less, but how can you say there are no impacts to the school?  Did they not fork out a ton of money to coach that kid?  Feed that kid?  Shelter that kid?  Clothe that kid?  Did they not invest the coaching into the kid?   It's like hiring someone at work, training them for several months and they leave....that doesn't penalize the company?  Of course it does, just like a kid transferring penalizes a school.

I'd feel a lot better about your position Chicos if it was a negotiated agreement and the NCAA member institution and the student athlete could negotiate as equals. The two would theoretically agree that the student athlete would not leave for the NCAA, make every reasonable effort to complete a degree, not transfer etc., and the school would provide a full four year scholarship.

In turn, so long as the student made adequate progress toward a degree, behaved himself and was a participating member of the basketball team, the school could not terminate the player from the team or his scholarship without mutual agreement. If the player prematurely left early for the NBA, he would owe the school a buyout payment.

Do that and you have a fair fight! Until then, the NCAA is a legal monopoly.

[Jay Bee]

Semantics.

Maybe a six-year, $18 million contract won't result in a coach actually getting all $18 million, but very, very, VERY few coaches in the BCS conferences (as well as the Big East, A-10 and other good leagues) can be just told to take a hike for zero dollars in return.

And I don't think most coaches have clauses in their contracts forbidding them from taking -- and getting paid for -- other jobs if the school cans them.

No - we're not talking semantics. What I categorically dismissed was your claim that if a coach is fired he still receives "every penny". (See your post below.) Now you're changing your story to say, "well a lot of them get more than "zero dollars". You changed your story because you were wrong. Thanks.

If a school fires a coach under contract, he still gets paid every penny he has coming to him.

As for coaches being "forbidden" from other jobs - this may be semantics, but I'm not talking about being "forbidden" - I am talking about that "new" income (either full or incremental) being used to offset what is due from the school who terminated the coach. Many contracts have such a clause is what I said. Not most. Unless you're one really strange cookie, I'd happily bet I have scoured many more contracts than you.

[avid1010]

A "free pass", which is almost exactly what you describe is just that, a free no consequences pass.  That's not how the real world is.....before someone says any kid can transfer to another school, that's true but they aren't in a full ride scholarship either to play a sport so it's not an apples to apples comparison.

"in the real world"...you crack me up.  why don't you go lecture a few d1 scholarship players about the real world chicos. maybe you could teach jimmy butler something, or explain it all to d. wade.  i'm just happy i didn't have to experience the "real world," and i don't have any understanding why these kids wouldn't be granted one transfer.  you're too much. 

while i don't totally disagree with coach k on this...the cat puts himself before his players, and his actions pertaining to players leaving early show that.  so, i would take that into consideration when reading his thoughts.  he wants what's best for him (or duke basketball in his rationalization) more so than what's best for his players.  most of the time that jives together, but when it doesn't...look out.

[MU82]

No - we're not talking semantics. What I categorically dismissed was your claim that if a coach is fired he still receives "every penny". (See your post below.) Now you're changing your story to say, "well a lot of them get more than "zero dollars". You changed your story because you were wrong. Thanks.

As for coaches being "forbidden" from other jobs - this may be semantics, but I'm not talking about being "forbidden" - I am talking about that "new" income (either full or incremental) being used to offset what is due from the school who terminated the coach. Many contracts have such a clause is what I said. Not most. Unless you're one really strange cookie, I'd happily bet I have scoured many more contracts than you.

I'm wrong about lots of things. There. I said it.

What I'm not wrong about is that college athletics are tilted exceedingly strong to the benefit of the NCAA, the institutions and the coaches, with the players getting the short end by 100 miles.

And, to me anyway, that's the really big part of this issue.

I've yet to see or hear an argument that refutes this, including Chico's pretty lame claim that the athletes who aren't cut loose after one or two years - aren't getting hosed.

"They signed a contract." What choice does the athlete have? Go to Europe like Jennings did? Please.

[ChicosBailBonds]

"in the real world"...you crack me up.  why don't you go lecture a few d1 scholarship players about the real world chicos. maybe you could teach jimmy butler something, or explain it all to d. wade.  i'm just happy i didn't have to experience the "real world," and i don't have any understanding why these kids wouldn't be granted one transfer.  you're too much. 

while i don't totally disagree with coach k on this...the cat puts himself before his players, and his actions pertaining to players leaving early show that.  so, i would take that into consideration when reading his thoughts.  he wants what's best for him (or duke basketball in his rationalization) more so than what's best for his players.  most of the time that jives together, but when it doesn't...look out.

Thank you e.e.

[ChicosBailBonds]

"They signed a contract." What choice does the athlete have? Go to Europe like Jennings did? Please.

NBDL, etc.

Last I checked, the college is the vehicle the kids are using to get to the NBA or NFL.  You make it sound like it is a one way street.  Should the kids that make it the bigs have to pay the schools for all the training they got, the coaching they got, the exposure they got so they would get noticed?

It works both ways, not sure why none of you ever mention this.  Would Jimmy Butler be in the NBA right now without playing college ball?  Crowder?  Wade?  College gave them that opportunity for which they maximized it.  They BENEFITTED FROM COLLEGE to get the opportunity to play in the professional ranks.   I'm amazed this is never mentioned by your side.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

"Other students" aren't getting free tuition, room, board, books, tutoring and a per diem. How many students do you know of on academic scholarship who transfer and keep that scholarship?

Very few. But those students can apply for similar scholarships at their new school. So why can't athletes leave, lose their scholarship at school A and get a new one at school B?

I realize that I am dumbing it down a lot. But I really think that if student athletes are truly students first, then they should be able to transfer without penalty.