Oso planning to go pro
Baby steps, I guess.http://apne.ws/M7GF3OU
No...and after reading many many psosts from people on this board that do...I have to say I'm MUCH better off, if this is the type of "intelligence" a degree from MU gets you. It sure is on full display I will say that.
I am for the one year sit out period for transfers, because as we all know we would never stop these sleazy coaches from poaching players from other schools, but with the one year sit out rule, once a player decides to transfer, I have no problem with him being able to go to whatever school he wants. This would be a good rule change.
Coaches should have to sit out a year if they want to change jobs.
Makes zero sense. Kids should because it'll help them as students.
I would take the Rick SLU program right now.
The risk with this is teams that play each other often have the ability to recruit away another team's best player. Just for same of argument, take a guy like Marcus Derrickson or Jessie Govan on Gtown. Both really solid BE frontcourt men that are now stuck in a pretty crappy situation. Who's to stop Jay Wright or Chris Mack (or any BE coach) from saying hey man...come over where the grass is greener. It will create a situation where lower tiered teams in a conference may have a tough time keeping their talent for their last 2 years of eligibility.Intra-conference transfers should not be allowed.
The NCAA already has rules against tampering. This wouldn't change that.Why would the hypothetical you suggest be worse with Jay Wright at Villanova than Mark Turgeon at Maryland or Mike Rhoades at VCU?Also, why does protecting lower tier teams from the consequences of their own suckage matter more than the players' abilility to determine their own fates?
The solution should be one of three things. First, if the coach leaves, the players have the right to leave immediately and be eligible immediately. Second, ditto if the school goes on probation from the NCAA for a rules violation.Third, if the school recruits "over" the player, he can leave and play immediately. These are reasonable, fair compromises, which means the NCAA will rejected them because they can't screw the student athlete to their liking.
Regarding the bolded, mainly just because they see eachother at minimum 2x per year.
Regarding your 2nd questions, there are 365 division 1 programs. Pick 1 that isn't in the league of the team you chose to go to. Not that hard.
And?I mean, that seems so utterly arbitrary. Also, not every conference has conference opponents playing each other twice. And in some football conferences, teams don't necessarily play each other every year.That's not an answer.Again, please explain to me why we need to protect the DePauls and Rutgers of the world from their own mismanagement. If they fail to create an environment that makes their best players want to stay, why should they be protected from the consequences?
If coaches can change jobs with no restrictions, so should the players. What's good for gander is good for the goose.
Many coaches have buyouts in their contracts, so there is a cost to change jobs. However, this is most likely paid by new employer.Players do not have a buyout. They got there education and training from the old school and the school gets nothing in return when they leave.To be equal the new school would need to reimburse the old school for some of the school's cost to have the player immediately eligible.
This situation is similar to companies requiring and enforcing a non-compete agreement against a small set of direct competitors.