http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9680502/stop-allowing-college-basketball-transfer-waivers
And he also said this...
"Giving certain kids the right to play and others not the right to play, it should be done the same," he said. "If they want to let everybody play right away, then let everybody play right away. Everybody should be treated the same. I don't understand why there are exceptions to this rule."
I agree with K. Eliminates all kinds of shenanigans. Also, guys who transfer to be close to sick family should focus on said family for that first year....
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 16, 2013, 02:43:18 PM
And he also said this...
"Giving certain kids the right to play and others not the right to play, it should be done the same," he said. "If they want to let everybody play right away, then let everybody play right away. Everybody should be treated the same. I don't understand why there are exceptions to this rule."
Correct....I think that's what I said....no exceptions. Treat everyone the same.
Makes sense to me. If there are people who really want or need to be near family, sitting out a year shouldn't be that big of a deterrent. The guy who graduates with eligibility remaining and can then go to another school only if they have a graduate course that the original school doesn't offer is also ridiculous, since pretty much every school can come up with a graduate program not offered by the school that is being departed.
The NCAA gets ripped on by, well, everybody because of the stupid rules they have when it comes to recruiting and everything else, but this is what they have to deal with everyday.
They institute a rule to help kids out. They go to school a 1000 miles away and Mom is fighting cancer. They want to transfer to be by her and family but feel they will be hurt by having to sit out a year. The NCAA makes an exception for these kids, showing compassion and that they are truly trying to do what is best for the kids.
What happens? Everyone takes advantage of it and ultimately could wind up that this rule gets rescinded.
So the next time someone gets in trouble for giving a kid a free bagel, you can better understand why the NCAA has to have a zero tolerance policy on this kind of stuff.
I do not think players should be allowed to follow coaches. The only thing worse than Buzz going to Texas would be any of the current players or incoming signed recruits following him. Being able to bring players along is an incentive for another team to hire your coach. I suspect Buckles was denied, because he was following his coach and if that is the reason he was denied, I agree with that decision.
Quote from: CTWarrior on September 16, 2013, 03:24:20 PM
The guy who graduates with eligibility remaining and can then go to another school only if they have a graduate course that the original school doesn't offer is also ridiculous, since pretty much every school can come up with a graduate program not offered by the school that is being departed.
Agree, the "program not offered" caveat is stupid. I don't mind the immediate eligibility to those who graduated undergrad since it's an academic reward in a sense. But it also punishes schools who often give a player that extra year that gets them across the finish line at no return, either from a redshirt or taking them in as a transfer and using a scholarship when they sit out only to see them graduate and leave again.
You guys think way too much about the schools and not nearly enough about the students.
One free transfer for no reason whatsoever.
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 16, 2013, 08:21:41 PM
You guys think way too much about the schools and not nearly enough about the students.
One free transfer for no reason whatsoever.
Sounds nice, but it is a two way street. Coach K is right. Yawanta move, ya sit a year period. When ya sign that NLI, it's a contract between 2 parties. Honor that contract. Now, if the coach leaves or the school has other issues, well....
Rodney Hood sitting on that bench last year.......ooohweeee... look out for him this year.
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.
Quote from: CTWarrior on September 16, 2013, 03:24:20 PM
Makes sense to me. If there are people who really want or need to be near family, sitting out a year shouldn't be that big of a deterrent. The guy who graduates with eligibility remaining and can then go to another school only if they have a graduate course that the original school doesn't offer is also ridiculous, since pretty much every school can come up with a graduate program not offered by the school that is being departed.
But, the student must also want to work toward a graduate degree in "whatever" graduate program the school he's transferring to has "come up with", and the program must be able to be taken by someone who has heavy demands on his time already for basketball. Oh, and to graduate in grad school you need a B average.
Quote from: MU82 on September 16, 2013, 09:50:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 16, 2013, 08:21:41 PM
You guys think way too much about the schools and not nearly enough about the students.
One free transfer for no reason whatsoever.
Thinking plenty about the students...they are free to transfer where they wish in my mind. I wouldn't allow anyone to block a transfer, but yes they still have to sit out a year. Otherwise it would not only hurt the schools, but also the game and the students.
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.....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.
Quote from: Nukem2 on September 16, 2013, 09:26:30 PM
Sounds nice, but it is a two way street. Coach K is right. Yawanta move, ya sit a year period. When ya sign that NLI, it's a contract between 2 parties. Honor that contract. Now, if the coach leaves or the school has other issues, well....
The NLI is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
......
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 11:20:21 PM
Thinking plenty about the students...they are free to transfer where they wish in my mind. I wouldn't allow anyone to block a transfer, but yes they still have to sit out a year. Otherwise it would not only hurt the schools, but also the game and the students.
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.....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.
If this were the case 100% of the time, I would be a wholesale advocate of no free transfers. The message should be "if you want to play hard, you need to work hard." That's real life. And that's Marquette basketball (which is why I'm obviously biased as I continue my thought...)
High-major D-I coaches don't recruit guys to ride the bench... they recruit guys with who have the potential to get minutes for their team. Saban doesn't recruit kids whose ceiling is being a starter at Akron; every guy he recruits has the talent to tryst with the Tuscaloosa turf.
Closer to home, Buzz Williams didn't recruit Davante thinking "hey, I have a scholarship left... maybe I'll give it to a middling three-star just for the heck of it." No, Buzz took Davante knowing that if the kid works his tail off, someday he's going to be a leader on this team. Buzz has recruited several kids with more potential than Davante who never amounted to anything. He's recruited kids with less talent than most five-stars and turned them into NBA players.
In other words, if a kid signs an NLI to a school, 99% of the time, he has the
potential to be in the regular rotation; it's entirely up to the kid as to whether he develops the
ability to be a regular. Therefore, no free transfers unless there are extenuating circumstances. The problem here isn't the transfer rules, the players, the coaches or even the schools.... the problem is that the NCAA can't pull their head out of their ass to enforce the rules equitably.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 17, 2013, 08:53:06 AM
Why?
"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
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 17, 2013, 09:39:56 AM
"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
Yes. Thank you.
Quote from: bilsu on September 16, 2013, 10:44:31 PM
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.
If a school fires a coach under contract, he still gets paid every penny he has coming to him. That coach can even become a head coach or assistant at another school or in the NBA and get paid by two organizations.
But if a coach fires a student-athlete, the kid is completely on his own.
Please ... let's not even try to claim that coaches have the right to high moral ground on this issue. They own the kids. Aside from the true superstars, the kids are totally beholden to every whim by the coaches, who are free to do what they want in their careers with almost total freedom.
Quote from: MU82 on September 17, 2013, 09:56:42 AM
If a school fires a coach under contract, he still gets paid every penny he has coming to him. That coach can even become a head coach or assistant at another school or in the NBA and get paid by two organizations.
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.
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 16, 2013, 08:21:41 PM
You guys think way too much about the schools and not nearly enough about the students.
One free transfer for no reason whatsoever.
I actually agree with you. But I really think what Coach K says is right. Either everybody has to sit out a year or nobody does. I could even see a rule that specifies that you must sit out a year unless you graduated, in which case you can transfer anywhere and play immediately. But a clear rule without case by case exceptions makes the most sense.
Quote from: Nukem2 on September 16, 2013, 09:26:30 PM
Sounds nice, but it is a two way street. Coach K is right. Yawanta move, ya sit a year period. When ya sign that NLI, it's a contract between 2 parties. Honor that contract. Now, if the coach leaves or the school has other issues, well....
"well...." - what does that mean? Does the school/coach have to honor their part of the contract or not? What exactly is the school's part of the contract?
If I were a top recruit, no way in hell would I ever sign an NLI. Very one-sided contract - totally binding to the player with very little obligation on the school/coach side.
Quote from: MU82 on September 16, 2013, 09:50:50 PM
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
Quote from: bilsu on September 16, 2013, 10:44:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 17, 2013, 10:05:34 AM
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."
Quote from: TJ on September 17, 2013, 10:44:39 AM
How is he off? Are you suggesting most college coaches' contracts are not guaranteed?
Yes. Not suggesting. It's factual - most are not guaranteed.
Quote from: TJ on September 17, 2013, 10:44:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 17, 2013, 10:54:51 AM
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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/rutgers-mike-rice-settlement-coach-paid_n_3113310.html)
Fred Hill got $875,000 from Rutgers. link (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/rutgers-university-men-basketball-coach-fred-hill-resigns-agrees-six-figure-settlement-article-1.165337)
Bruce Weber got $3.9 million over 3 years. link (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-09/sports/ct-spt-0310-illinois-basketball--20120310_1_bruce-weber-illinois-athletic-director-jerrance-howard)
Tubby Smith had a $2.5 million buyout in Minnesota. link (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9096499/minnesota-gophers-dismiss-tubby-smith-day-ncaa-tourney-ouster)
"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 (http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9463127/steve-alford-deal-ucla-bruins-10m-dual-buyout-report-says)
"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 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/3989914/recession-not-stopping-coaching-buyouts)
Quote from: bilsu on September 17, 2013, 11:28:12 AM
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.
Quote from: TJ on September 17, 2013, 11:38:43 AM
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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/rutgers-mike-rice-settlement-coach-paid_n_3113310.html)
Fred Hill got $875,000 from Rutgers. link (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/rutgers-university-men-basketball-coach-fred-hill-resigns-agrees-six-figure-settlement-article-1.165337)
Bruce Weber got $3.9 million over 3 years. link (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-09/sports/ct-spt-0310-illinois-basketball--20120310_1_bruce-weber-illinois-athletic-director-jerrance-howard)
Tubby Smith had a $2.5 million buyout in Minnesota. link (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9096499/minnesota-gophers-dismiss-tubby-smith-day-ncaa-tourney-ouster)
"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 (http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9463127/steve-alford-deal-ucla-bruins-10m-dual-buyout-report-says)
"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 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/3989914/recession-not-stopping-coaching-buyouts)
Yes. Actual contracts. Everyone is different.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 11:20:21 PM
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.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on September 17, 2013, 11:54:25 AM
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?
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 17, 2013, 09:39:56 AM
"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.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on September 17, 2013, 11:54:25 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: dgies9156 on September 17, 2013, 01:21:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 17, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
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!
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 17, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
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.
Quote from: MU82 on September 17, 2013, 02:18:45 PM
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.
Quote from: MU82 on September 17, 2013, 02:18:45 PM
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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 17, 2013, 04:25:49 PM
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.
Quote from: MU82 on September 17, 2013, 02:23:53 PM
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.
Quote from: MU82 on September 17, 2013, 09:56:42 AM
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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 16, 2013, 11:20:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 17, 2013, 08:17:18 PM
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.
Quote from: avid1010 on September 17, 2013, 09:10:56 PM
"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.
Quote from: MU82 on September 17, 2013, 10:14:33 PM
"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.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on September 17, 2013, 12:03:34 PM
"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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 17, 2013, 04:25:49 PM
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.
Personally, I don't like looking at scholarships in the same way I look at a contract. In a very basic sense they are the same thing. "If you do service X than we will pay Y amount of money" vs. "If you maintain GPA X, do community service Y, etc. then we will pay Z amount of money towards your tuition." But I have NEVER seen any other scholarship besides athletics that require a student to sit out for a year because they transfer schools. They may lose that scholarship, but they aren't prevented from acquiring another one.
If you want to look at as a contract, that is fine. But these scholarships are only one year contracts. If a player decides not to renew their scholarship after the contract is up, why should they be penalized? If I don't renew my contract as a Texas A&M employee at the end of the year, there is no penalty for me. Yes the school fed the player, housed the player, and developed the player. But they way I see it, the player already paid the school back by playing their sport for the year.
Just my humble opinion. I'm always going to value the wellbeing of the student over the wellbeing of the university
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on September 18, 2013, 01:21:30 AM
Personally, I don't like looking at scholarships in the same way I look at a contract. In a very basic sense they are the same thing. "If you do service X than we will pay Y amount of money" vs. "If you maintain GPA X, do community service Y, etc. then we will pay Z amount of money towards your tuition." But I have NEVER seen any other scholarship besides athletics that require a student to sit out for a year because they transfer schools. They may lose that scholarship, but they aren't prevented from acquiring another one.
If you want to look at as a contract, that is fine. But these scholarships are only one year contracts. If a player decides not to renew their scholarship after the contract is up, why should they be penalized? If I don't renew my contract as a Texas A&M employee at the end of the year, there is no penalty for me. Yes the school fed the player, housed the player, and developed the player. But they way I see it, the player already paid the school back by playing their sport for the year.
Just my humble opinion. I'm always going to value the wellbeing of the student over the wellbeing of the university
We have employee contracts that essentially do the same thing. If you leave, you have to "sit out a year" (or longer) based on where you go. Cannot go to a competitor, etc. Now, there are all sorts of lawyers that will say those types of restrictions aren't legal, but they're there and commonplace for many in the industry.
These scholarships MAY be one year, but 4 year scholarships available now as well. That rule was changed last year.
Maybe the player did "pay the school back" for playing that year. Suppose the player rode the pine the entire year, or suppose he was redshirting. He certainly provided some value in practice, etc, but did the university get in return what they gave? I'm merely thinking out loud, but seems a fair question.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on September 18, 2013, 01:06:41 AM
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.
Still comes down to filling a roster out, planning for a roster, etc. If the art student leaves who is on a scholarship, it doesn't prevent the art department from fielding a team. Nor is the art department spending a hundred thousand dollars on training the athlete, etc. Not sure these examples are apples to apples in my opinion.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 18, 2013, 01:26:48 AM
We have employee contracts that essentially do the same thing. If you leave, you have to "sit out a year" (or longer) based on where you go. Cannot go to a competitor, etc. Now, there are all sorts of lawyers that will say those types of restrictions aren't legal, but they're there and commonplace for many in the industry.
These scholarships MAY be one year, but 4 year scholarships available now as well. That rule was changed last year.
Maybe the player did "pay the school back" for playing that year. Suppose the player rode the pine the entire year, or suppose he was redshirting. He certainly provided some value in practice, etc, but did the university get in return what they gave? I'm merely thinking out loud, but seems a fair question.
in the real world non-compete clauses rarely hold up...and to act like a d1 athlete can negotiate a contract in the same manner as someone with a non-compete is ridiculous.
it is great that you're thinking of how kids can pay universities back if they don't make enough money of them, but you won't think about how a university should pay a kid if they make way more $$$ off them than the scholarship and facility uses are worth...the only difference is that if a school doesn't like a kid after a year he's gone...if a kid doesn't like a school after a year he's options are more limited.
I'm with Chicos on this for a number of reasons.
One problem with the many people who whine about the current setup is that they haven't thought through the various potential pitfalls of other models. Slippery slopes all around. I fear that one day a "fix" is going to hose things up for most or all of the stakeholders. A sad, "are you happy now?" situation.
Quote from: TAMUPersonally, I don't like looking at scholarships in the same way I look at a contract. In a very basic sense they are the same thing. "If you do service X than we will pay Y amount of money" vs. "If you maintain GPA X, do community service Y, etc. then we will pay Z amount of money towards your tuition."
Actually you can take out that second quote. In both the business world and college basketball the first quote applies. If you play basketball, then we will pay your tuition and certain other expenses.
The second quote is similar to saying, "if you perform work to expectations, come to work on time, make money for the company, etc. then we will you X amount of money to you".
Quote from: MU82 on September 17, 2013, 09:56:42 AM
If a school fires a coach under contract, he still gets paid every penny he has coming to him. That coach can even become a head coach or assistant at another school or in the NBA and get paid by two organizations.
Usually the school firing the coach is relieved of his salary if the coach signs a new contract at another school.
Quote from: MU82 on September 16, 2013, 09:50:50 PM
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.
This, and its not close. If coaches want the freedom to move without sitting out a year, the players should be afforded the same opportunity. Farce is the right word.
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 16, 2013, 08:21:41 PM
You guys think way too much about the schools and not nearly enough about the students.
Testify, Brother. I have been making this agprgument on this board for some time now. I get it, though most arent willing to call it what it is, people want their college ball, they want MU to be good, etc., and these types of rules help to accommodate that.
If they did change to a hard and fast rule, that eliminates the requirement that kids sit out a year, and MU's program goes belly up as a result (it wouldn't), so be it.
Quote from: MU82 on September 17, 2013, 09:56:42 AM
If a school fires a coach under contract, he still gets paid every penny he has coming to him. That coach can even become a head coach or assistant at another school or in the NBA and get paid by two organizations.
But if a coach fires a student-athlete, the kid is completely on his own.
Please ... let's not even try to claim that coaches have the right to high moral ground on this issue. They own the kids. Aside from the true superstars, the kids are totally beholden to every whim by the coaches, who are free to do what they want in their careers with almost total freedom.
This is not always accurate. Let me explain what happens. Often a coach is "reassigned", which means they aren't fired. So you reassign Bob Dukiet to the Rec Center (I'm not kidding) and of course Bob Dukiet says not a chance in hell, I want to continue to coach. So they then work out a separation agreement which is far less than what was remaining on the contract. So, in fact, they don't get every penny coming to them in those situations. This is exactly what we did to Mr. Dukiet until a settlement was reached. It is still done today.
Good paper on it right here http://www.drthompark.com/publications/N5E.pdf
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on September 18, 2013, 12:05:33 PM
Testify, Brother. I have been making this agprgument on this board for some time now. I get it, though most arent willing to call it what it is, people want their college ball, they want MU to be good, etc., and these types of rules help to accommodate that.
If they did change to a hard and fast rule, that eliminates the requirement that kids sit out a year, and MU's program goes belly up as a result (it wouldn't), so be it.
People want people to honor commitments. You sign the line which is dotted...I come play for you, you pay for my education, room, board, etc. If I leave early, I have to sit out a year.
Why on earth is this a bad thing to want people to honor commitments? The kids are getting plenty out of the deal, in many cases FAR more than the university gets. Yes, in other cases the university gets far more than the athlete. It's the way it goes.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 18, 2013, 02:13:02 PM
This is not always accurate. Let me explain what happens. Often a coach is "reassigned", which means they aren't fired. So you reassign Bob Dukiet to the Rec Center (I'm not kidding) and of course Bob Dukiet says not a chance in hell, I want to continue to coach. So they then work out a separation agreement which is far less than what was remaining on the contract. So, in fact, they don't get every penny coming to them in those situations. This is exactly what we did to Mr. Dukiet until a settlement was reached. It is still done today.
Good paper on it right here http://www.drthompark.com/publications/N5E.pdf
Chicos, I think you're living in the stone ages a bit. Things have changed. That paper appears really old.
You don't see coaches being "often reassigned". They are usually out the door immediately if fired (although some of the archaic contract templates used by some schools would have you fooled -it's nutty).
Early termination provisions are generally handled on the front end and some offer HUGE payouts (though generally not as much as 'every penny coming to the coach' if he remained employed through the stated date of the contract). A example is Indiana's new deal with Tom Crean, which started off last November with a monstrous $16MM termination fee due to Crean if he's fired early "without cause".
Where settlement agrees are reached is usually when contracts have been poorly written (which is often the case). An issue seen far too often is that a memorandum of understanding is reached with a coach, but a formal contract isn't finalized for months or even years... then a separation occurs and debate ensues. By law, one party is often "in the right", but litigating is brutally awful and if it's not clear as day a settlement is often the right approach.
Schools and coaches need to get out in front of contracts... they have become increasingly complex over the past decade and of course the compensation packages have jumped significantly.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 18, 2013, 02:30:41 PM
Chicos, I think you're living in the stone ages a bit. Things have changed. That paper appears really old.
You don't see coaches being "often reassigned". They are usually out the door immediately if fired (although some of the archaic contract templates used by some schools would have you fooled -it's nutty).
Early termination provisions are generally handled on the front end and some offer HUGE payouts (though generally not as much as 'every penny coming to the coach' if he remained employed through the stated date of the contract). A example is Indiana's new deal with Tom Crean, which started off last November with a monstrous $16MM termination fee due to Crean if he's fired early "without cause".
Where settlement agrees are reached is usually when contracts have been poorly written (which is often the case). An issue seen far too often is that a memorandum of understanding is reached with a coach, but a formal contract isn't finalized for months or even years... then a separation occurs and debate ensues. By law, one party is often "in the right", but litigating is brutally awful and if it's not clear as day a settlement is often the right approach.
Schools and coaches need to get out in front of contracts... they have become increasingly complex over the past decade and of course the compensation packages have jumped significantly.
I think I was pretty clear to say this isn't always the case (a coach getting every penny), because it is not. I used Dukiet as an example. Yes, this particular paper is older, but it also explains what I was saying. Yes, it is still done today. Typically at smaller schools or non revenue sports, but it still happens today. Most recently about 8 months ago to Jacksonville State's head football coach.
DeWayne Walker's contract expired this year, 2013, head coach at New Mexico State (he was a UCLA coach) and the clause allows NMSU to reassign him. http://www.coacheshotseat.com/CHSNewMexicoState.pdf (Walker quit this January to become defensive coach for the Jax Jaguars).
But yes, a good attorney and a strong contract that tilts to the coach's side is going to prevent this. I'm merely pointing out this isn't always the case, even today, and the coach isn't getting every penny as stated. That's not even factoring in if he was fired for cause, etc, etc, which also would hinder collection of remaining wages. Don't think I'm in the stone age, provided you with a few examples from just a few months ago. Still happens today.
I've already admitted to exaggerating about "every penny" coming to the coach.
The point is that coaches who are fired are taken care of quite nicely. And, unless they have made lots of enemies, they usually can step right into a good job, even if it's only as an assistant. See: Wainwright, Jerry; Judson, Rob; etc., etc., etc.
Meanwhile, a player who is fired is set adrift. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
And a huge percentage of those set adrift are not the very good players with legitimate pro aspirations. Most are the Jake Thomas (or worse) types who simply were deemed expendable. (I know Jake had some kind of agreement coming in and I also know that it ended up working out for him to stay; I'm just using him as an example of ability level.) Some might be good enough to get a scholarship at a lesser place, but others might not.
And that's not the point, anyway. The point is that the whole system favors coaches and administrators by a gazillion miles more than the "kids" they all claim to care so deeply about.
Quote from: MU82 on September 18, 2013, 03:48:18 PM
I've already admitted to exaggerating about "every penny" coming to the coach.
The point is that coaches who are fired are taken care of quite nicely. And, unless they have made lots of enemies, they usually can step right into a good job, even if it's only as an assistant. See: Wainwright, Jerry; Judson, Rob; etc., etc., etc.
Meanwhile, a player who is fired is set adrift. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
And a huge percentage of those set adrift are not the very good players with legitimate pro aspirations. Most are the Jake Thomas (or worse) types who simply were deemed expendable. (I know Jake had some kind of agreement coming in and I also know that it ended up working out for him to stay; I'm just using him as an example of ability level.) Some might be good enough to get a scholarship at a lesser place, but others might not.
And that's not the point, anyway. The point is that the whole system favors coaches and administrators by a gazillion miles more than the "kids" they all claim to care so deeply about.
Yes, life is unfair sometimes, though I STRONGLY disagree with your gazillion times comment. Who benefits from non-revenue sports...the university or the student athletes? I would put that squarely on the side of the student athlete 9 times out of 10. Most of them have no pro league to go to, and if they did, 99.99% of them aren't going there anyway. Yet they get school paid for and what does the university get out of it? All that publicity from the women's tennis team? Come on.
Quote from: MU82 on September 18, 2013, 03:48:18 PM
I've already admitted to exaggerating about "every penny" coming to the coach.
The point is that coaches who are fired are taken care of quite nicely. And, unless they have made lots of enemies, they usually can step right into a good job, even if it's only as an assistant. See: Wainwright, Jerry; Judson, Rob; etc., etc., etc.
Meanwhile, a player who is fired is set adrift. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
And a huge percentage of those set adrift are not the very good players with legitimate pro aspirations. Most are the Jake Thomas (or worse) types who simply were deemed expendable. (I know Jake had some kind of agreement coming in and I also know that it ended up working out for him to stay; I'm just using him as an example of ability level.) Some might be good enough to get a scholarship at a lesser place, but others might not.
And that's not the point, anyway. The point is that the whole system favors coaches and administrators by a gazillion miles more than the "kids" they all claim to care so deeply about.
This is what Chicos, et. al. don't want to admit in my opinion:
The NCAA is working toward the best interests of the NCAA first, the member institutions second, and in a distant third the student-athletes.
The member institutions are working toward the best interests of themselves, and that's pretty much it.
The student-athletes have no power whatsoever. They didn't collectively sign any agreements about how the system should work and they have no influence when changes in the system are made. Their representative should be the NCAA, but that's not how the system works. That's why it's a crappy system, rigged against the players. That's why a coach can leave on a whim and get a new job the next day, or even get fired and get a new job the next day, but the student athlete has to sit out a year if he wants to, or is forced to transfer. That's why the coach gets compensation if he is fired, but if the student athlete gets cut he is out on his own and even if he finds a new opportunity he has to sit out a year. (Actually, I think I would have a lot less of a problem with all of this if players who were cut were allowed to transfer without sitting out a year.)
One of the biggest problems I have with Chicos argument is when he said that the players choose to sign the scholarship agreement and they don't have to. Seriously - what choice do they have? What negotiating power do they have to get a different agreement? It's either play by the NCAA/member institution's rules or stay home.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 18, 2013, 07:14:27 PM
Yes, life is unfair sometimes, though I STRONGLY disagree with your gazillion times comment. Who benefits from non-revenue sports...the university or the student athletes? I would put that squarely on the side of the student athlete 9 times out of 10. Most of them have no pro league to go to, and if they did, 99.99% of them aren't going there anyway. Yet they get school paid for and what does the university get out of it? All that publicity from the women's tennis team? Come on.
Who the hell is talking about non-revenue sports in this thread?
Quote from: TJ on September 18, 2013, 09:12:57 PM
Who the hell is talking about non-revenue sports in this thread?
You have to. They're married together with revenue sports.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 18, 2013, 02:14:41 PM
People want people to honor commitments. You sign the line which is dotted...I come play for you, you pay for my education, room, board, etc. If I leave early, I have to sit out a year.
Why on earth is this a bad thing to want people to honor commitments? The kids are getting plenty out of the deal, in many cases FAR more than the university gets. Yes, in other cases the university gets far more than the athlete. It's the way it goes.
If the same applied to all involved, I'd agree with you. Scholarships aren't renewed, coach leaves for a better gig, coach is fired, etc...all examples of one party or another not living up to their commitment, yet its only the player that is required to sit a year. So, in your basketball world, its seemingly only about the players living up to their commitments, further reinforcing the fact that what you really care about is pretty much the same as the NCAA...maintaining the legal monopoly status quo.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 18, 2013, 10:53:11 PM
You have to. They're married together with revenue sports.
Says who?
Quote from: TJ on September 18, 2013, 09:12:57 PM
Who the hell is talking about non-revenue sports in this thread?
Exactly.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 18, 2013, 07:14:27 PM
Yes, life is unfair sometimes, though I STRONGLY disagree with your gazillion times comment. Who benefits from non-revenue sports...the university or the student athletes? I would put that squarely on the side of the student athlete 9 times out of 10. Most of them have no pro league to go to, and if they did, 99.99% of them aren't going there anyway. Yet they get school paid for and what does the university get out of it? All that publicity from the women's tennis team? Come on.
So in other words, the Football and basketball players should have to foot the bill for the players in all of those other sports, as they have for years, and that's just the way it is, huh? Again and again with your comments you demonstrate where your priorities lie...yourself as a college sports fan.
Quote from: TJ on September 18, 2013, 09:12:57 PM
Who the hell is talking about non-revenue sports in this thread?
That's the biggest problem with you guys that want to pay student athletes, YOU NEVER factor in non-revenue sports, women's sports, etc. YET YOU HAVE TO FOR TITLE IX purposes. That's one of the biggest obstacles you guys have and you NEVER address it....because you can't.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on September 18, 2013, 11:15:22 PM
So in other words, the Football and basketball players should have to foot the bill for the players in all of those other sports, as they have for years, and that's just the way it is, huh? Again and again with your comments you demonstrate where your priorities lie...yourself as a college sports fan.
It's the law
Quote from: TJ on September 18, 2013, 09:12:17 PM
This is what Chicos, et. al. don't want to admit in my opinion:
The NCAA is working toward the best interests of the NCAA first, the member institutions second, and in a distant third the student-athletes.
In your lifetime, you have dealt with the NCAA as a college athletics administrator or student athlete how often?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on September 18, 2013, 11:03:53 PM
If the same applied to all involved, I'd agree with you. Scholarships aren't renewed, coach leaves for a better gig, coach is fired, etc...all examples of one party or another not living up to their commitment, yet its only the player that is required to sit a year. So, in your basketball world, its seemingly only about the players living up to their commitments, further reinforcing the fact that what you really care about is pretty much the same as the NCAA...maintaining the legal monopoly status quo.
That's not accurate. Those coaches sign contracts also, which ALLOW THEM to leave but with penalty (payout to the school, etc). Just as student athletes can leave...WITH PENALTY (sit out a year).
You make it sound like they just leave and their are no repercussions. Yes there are. Different repercussions, but there are still repercussions.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 12:48:24 AM
You make it sound like they just leave and their are no repercussions. Yes there are. Different repercussions, but there are still repercussions.
That's fine, but it brings us right back to the fact that the system as currently constructed is so heavily loaded in favor of the NCAA and member institutions. If you want repercussions, fine. Unfortunatkey, the current repercussions are ridiculous when you compare those of the player to the coach, school, etc. not sure ow anyone could even attempt to argue differently, not to mention the original point ofis bread which is the absurdly arbitrary and random nature in which the NCAA decides who gets exceptions and who doesn't.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 12:39:48 AM
It's the law
Yes, it is. The law also used to say that Women and Blacks couldn't vote. I assume you'd agree with that too. After all, it was the law.
This discussion wasn't about what the NCAA regulations are, or what the law is, it's about what they
should be. the NCAA has the power to try to change the transfer rule today if they wanted to. Of course they won't do that, and the member institutions would squish it because they can, and it would be bad for business - which is after all what it's all about.
Per NCAA research folks, the APR for 4-4 transfers on #NCAA D1 football teams was 913 last year (41 pts lower than for non-transfers)
Similar disparity in MBB. One year in residence requirement isn't about punishing athletics, it's about academics. Cura Personalis.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 18, 2013, 10:53:11 PM
You have to. They're married together with revenue sports.
No, they aren't. In fact, student-athletes in non-revenue sports are allowed one transfer without having to sit out a year.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 12:39:08 AM
That's the biggest problem with you guys that want to pay student athletes, YOU NEVER factor in non-revenue sports, women's sports, etc. YET YOU HAVE TO FOR TITLE IX purposes. That's one of the biggest obstacles you guys have and you NEVER address it....because you can't.
Who the hell is talking about paying student-athletes in this thread?
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 19, 2013, 08:32:10 AM
Similar disparity in MBB. One year in residence requirement isn't about punishing athletics, it's about academics. Cura Personalis.
That might be the funniest thing in this thread so far.
Cura Personalis is not the motto of the NCAA.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 12:43:17 AM
In your lifetime, you have dealt with the NCAA as a college athletics administrator or student athlete how often?
Never. So what. I also have never dealt with a major TV carrier or content provider, but I know that they are only looking out for their best interests and not mine when they negotiate their contracts.
The NCAA and it's member institutions aren't going to do something that's bad for business. Even if it's bad for business, but good for student-athletes. They've proven that with their actions time and time again. I'm not saying they actively look to hurt the interests of student-athletes, but if it's one or the other they're siding with the money or the member institutions most of the time.
Quote from: TJ on September 19, 2013, 08:42:35 AM
That might be the funniest thing in this thread so far.
Cura Personalis is not the motto of the NCAA.
You don't want these young men to be educated. Shameful! ;)
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on September 19, 2013, 08:09:35 AM
Yes, it is. The law also used to say that Women and Blacks couldn't vote. I assume you'd agree with that too. After all, it was the law.
This discussion wasn't about what the NCAA regulations are, or what the law is, it's about what they should be. the NCAA has the power to try to change the transfer rule today if they wanted to. Of course they won't do that, and the member institutions would squish it because they can, and it would be bad for business - which is after all what it's all about.
The Bush administration tried to change some of Title IX 7 or 8 years ago....it went nowhere fast. The chances of it changing are slim to none. If the discussion is about what should be, don't you also have to factor in what "Should" be done for all other athletes...women, non revenue, etc?
What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else. Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue. Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also? I'm just asking.
To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently. Am I wrong in this assumption?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:07:35 AM
The Bush administration tried to change some of Title IX 7 or 8 years ago....it went nowhere fast. The chances of it changing are slim to none. If the discussion is about what should be, don't you also have to factor in what "Should" be done for all other athletes...women, non revenue, etc?
What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else. Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue. Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also? I'm just asking.
To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently. Am I wrong in this assumption?
You bring up one of the problems - the folks squawking aren't worried about using foresight to understand the challenges. Their thinking is very narrow - "oh the poor kids, we need to free them from the horrors of the current system!"
They don't know WHAT they want to create. Frankly, they don't care to think that far ahead. They just want student-athletes (they'd rather call them "players") to have "the chains removed".
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:07:35 AM
The Bush administration tried to change some of Title IX 7 or 8 years ago....it went nowhere fast. The chances of it changing are slim to none. If the discussion is about what should be, don't you also have to factor in what "Should" be done for all other athletes...women, non revenue, etc?
What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else. Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue. Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also? I'm just asking.
To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently. Am I wrong in this assumption?
Yes you are wrong. We aren't talking about compensation at all. Quit trying to change the subject.
This thread is about transfer rules, an area in which there is already a discriminatory policy based on revenue... against the student-athlete. Football and basketball players have to sit out a year if they want to transfer. Non-revenue sports athletes do not.
Quote from: TJ on September 19, 2013, 08:38:28 AM
No, they aren't. In fact, student-athletes in non-revenue sports (including baseball) are allowed one transfer without having to sit out a year.
Not according to this entity called the NCAA....from their website......
The bulk of student-athletes who transfer and do not need to sit out do so because they qualify for the
one-time transfer exception. To qualify for the one-time transfer exception, a student-athlete must meet all of the following requirements:
Play a sport other than
baseball, basketball, FBS football, or men's ice hockey;[5]
Have never previously transferred from a four-year institution;
Be academically eligible at the first institution, assuming the student-athlete had stayed; and
Get written notice from the first school that it does not object to the use of the one-time transfer exception.The final requirement is the second of the four releases that can occur during a transfer. Permission to use the one-time transfer exception is often granted on a "tracer." That is a form that compliance officers send each other when a student-athlete transfers which asks for this permission along with other information needed to determine if a student-athlete can use one of the transfer exceptions. If permission to use the one-time transfer exception is not granted, the student-athlete has a right to the same written notice and appeal process used when permission to contact is not granted.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:07:35 AM
The Bush administration tried to change some of Title IX 7 or 8 years ago....it went nowhere fast. The chances of it changing are slim to none. If the discussion is about what should be, don't you also have to factor in what "Should" be done for all other athletes...women, non revenue, etc?
What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else. Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue. Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also? I'm just asking.
To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently. Am I wrong in this assumption?
Yet again you have attempted to change this to a discussion about compensating players (Something tells me if you looked hard enough, you could probably fine a thread or two about paying players. :) ) as opposed to the transfer rule, which is what the rest of us are talking about. Your defense of the transfer rule, has gone from negative impact on the programs, living up to commitments, to the negative impact of paying players. Your good with the status quo, because it os best for you. we get it.
As I said, the NCAA could change the transfer rule today, if they so chose without any Title IX implications.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:16:49 AM
Not according to this entity called the NCAA....from their website......
The bulk of student-athletes who transfer and do not need to sit out do so because they qualify for the one-time transfer exception. To qualify for the one-time transfer exception, a student-athlete must meet all of the following requirements:
Play a sport other than baseball, basketball, FBS football, or men's ice hockey;[5]
Have never previously transferred from a four-year institution;
Be academically eligible at the first institution, assuming the student-athlete had stayed; and
Get written notice from the first school that it does not object to the use of the one-time transfer exception.
The final requirement is the second of the four releases that can occur during a transfer. Permission to use the one-time transfer exception is often granted on a "tracer." That is a form that compliance officers send each other when a student-athlete transfers which asks for this permission along with other information needed to determine if a student-athlete can use one of the transfer exceptions. If permission to use the one-time transfer exception is not granted, the student-athlete has a right to the same written notice and appeal process used when permission to contact is not granted.
Semantics. I was wrong about baseball. I will go and edit my post and then yours can stand as proof of my statement that non-revenue sports athletes are able to get a one-time transfer exception. Thanks!
Quote from: TJ on September 19, 2013, 08:46:02 AM
Never. So what. I also have never dealt with a major TV carrier or content provider, but I know that they are only looking out for their best interests and not mine when they negotiate their contracts.
The NCAA and it's member institutions aren't going to do something that's bad for business. Even if it's bad for business, but good for student-athletes. They've proven that with their actions time and time again. I'm not saying they actively look to hurt the interests of student-athletes, but if it's one or the other they're siding with the money or the member institutions most of the time.
I ask because usually when people say this stuff they don't totally know what they are talking about or have a herd mentality and go with it. Or, as is the case here, they lock into the Manziel cases and the like, but ignore everything else...the 450,000 student athletes that are helped through college, etc, etc, by the NCAA. The attempted leveling of the playing field, etc, etc.
They are far from perfect....they are far from the devil as well. They do more good than harm, but that would require people to look outside of they hyper cases.
Quote from: TJ on September 19, 2013, 09:18:47 AM
Semantics. I was wrong about baseball. I will go and edit my post and then yours can stand as proof of my statement that non-revenue sports athletes are able to get a one-time transfer exception. Thanks!
I'd re-read the entire post by the NCAA, not just about baseball, they still need to get written permission, which is not always granted.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:16:49 AM
Not according to this entity called the NCAA....from their website......
The bulk of student-athletes who transfer and do not need to sit out do so because they qualify for the one-time transfer exception. To qualify for the one-time transfer exception, a student-athlete must meet all of the following requirements:
Play a sport other than baseball, basketball, FBS football, or men's ice hockey;[5]
Have never previously transferred from a four-year institution;
Be academically eligible at the first institution, assuming the student-athlete had stayed; and
Get written notice from the first school that it does not object to the use of the one-time transfer exception.
The final requirement is the second of the four releases that can occur during a transfer. Permission to use the one-time transfer exception is often granted on a "tracer." That is a form that compliance officers send each other when a student-athlete transfers which asks for this permission along with other information needed to determine if a student-athlete can use one of the transfer exceptions. If permission to use the one-time transfer exception is not granted, the student-athlete has a right to the same written notice and appeal process used when permission to contact is not granted.
Wow, he missed baseball and hockey. Wonder why they're included but volleyball and gymnastics aren't. That's a good job making his argument for him though.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on September 19, 2013, 09:17:15 AM
Yet again you have attempted to change this to a discussion about compensating players (Something tells me if you looked hard enough, you could probably fine a thread or two about paying players. :) ) as opposed to the transfer rule, which is what the rest of us are talking about. Your defense of the transfer rule, has gone from negative impact on the programs, living up to commitments, to the negative impact of paying players. Your good with the status quo, because it os best for you. we get it.
As I said, the NCAA could change the transfer rule today, if they so chose without any Title IX implications.
There are transfer restrictions in place for non revenue sports as well. I just directly copied them to this thread. Feel free to opine.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:19:53 AM
I ask because usually when people say this stuff they don't totally know what they are talking about or have a herd mentality and go with it. Or, as is the case here, they lock into the Manziel cases and the like, but ignore everything else...the 450,000 student athletes that are helped through college, etc, etc, by the NCAA. The attempted leveling of the playing field, etc, etc.
They are far from perfect....they are far from the devil as well. They do more good than harm, but that would require people to look outside of they hyper cases.
I generally agree with this. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't voice my opinion in areas where I think they should be better.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:24:15 AM
There are transfer restrictions in place for non revenue sports as well. I just directly copied them to this thread. Feel free to opine.
Why are they different than those in place for revenue sports?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:22:26 AM
I'd re-read the entire post by the NCAA, not just about baseball, they still need to get written permission, which is not always granted.
That's a thin argument - that it's ok to have different rules because some jerk coaches will deny permission for some athletes to use the rule.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:24:15 AM
There are transfer restrictions in place for non revenue sports as well. I just directly copied them to this thread. Feel free to opine.
They're just as stupid, but also not as prohibitive as those for the revenue sports. Not sure why this is hard for you to comprehend. Maybe they aren't always granted, as you stated as fact. so how often are they? I assume you know. the point is, at least they have the option. A revenue player does not, without an act of God, which in this case is the monopolistic NCAA.
Quote from: TJ on September 19, 2013, 09:27:58 AM
Why are they different than those in place for revenue sports?
The answer seems pretty obvious, doesn't?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:19:53 AM
I ask because usually when people say this stuff they don't totally know what they are talking about or have a herd mentality and go with it. Or, as is the case here, they lock into the Manziel cases and the like, but ignore everything else...the 450,000 student athletes that are helped through college, etc, etc, by the NCAA. The attempted leveling of the playing field, etc, etc.
Speaking as someone with a child who has a reasonable opportunity to get an athletic scholarship in a non-revenue sport in a couple years, this may well be true, but it still doesn't provide any justification for football, BBall players to have to sit out a year, when they want to change schools. That's what this discussion is about, not Manziel.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:32:11 AM
The answer seems pretty obvious, doesn't?
It is to most of us here. My guess is he is looking for you to try to justify it, since you clearly support the rule.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:32:11 AM
The answer seems pretty obvious, doesn't?
Your quote...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 19, 2013, 09:07:35 AM
What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else. Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue. Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also? I'm just asking.
To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently. Am I wrong in this assumption?
If it's not ok to have a different set of rules for football, basketball, baseball, and hockey players then why is it ok that they currently have a different set of transfer rules for them?
Appalachian state be clowning themselves, and showing in crystal clear form how one sided and ridiculous the NLI/transfer rules are.
Translation: "we hold all the cards, and are not going to allow this selfish little brat to do what he believes to be in his best interest, as it conflicts with our interests."
The line I like most..."As our coaching staff fully expected, Devonte had a terrific senior season last winter and, accordingly, drew the interest of programs from what are widely recognized as "power conferences."
So they fully expected it, but went ahead and signed him to the NLI anyway, and now they're bitching about it and are unwilling to take any responsibility. Instead, they are indignant when the kid wants to take advantage of what he perceives to be a better opportunity, and he's the selfish one. Good grief!
http://www.appstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=21500&ATCLID=209269294 (http://www.appstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=21500&ATCLID=209269294)
They should have never written that press release. They only made it worse.
And they should release the kid from his NLI. This won't end well for them.
You guys are nuts.
Go cry about people who agreed to pay a car loan back and now "don't have the money". "Oooh, poor person.. yeah, they agreed to something, but ... ummm, oooh, big mean bank"
Word is bond, son.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 27, 2013, 03:27:24 PM
You guys are nuts.
Go cry about people who agreed to pay a car loan back and now "don't have the money". "Oooh, poor person.. yeah, they agreed to something, but ... ummm, oooh, big mean bank"
Word is bond, son.
Right.
In the long run, Appy State isn't going to benefit from this. Just like MU wouldn't have benefited requiring Tayshawn Taylor stick to his. You don't want a player on your team that doesn't want to be there.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on September 27, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
In the long run, Appy State isn't going to benefit from this. Just like MU wouldn't have benefited requiring Tayshawn Taylor stick to his. You don't want a player on your team that doesn't want to be there.
Completely agree on that. What I don't like is the "outrage" over a school playing by the rules.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on September 27, 2013, 02:39:47 PM
They should have never written that press release. They only made it worse.
And they should release the kid from his NLI. This won't end well for them.
I support App State 100% on this. The kid signed a letter of intent. App State turned away other kids they could have signed. Abide by what you signed.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on September 27, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
Right.
In the long run, Appy State isn't going to benefit from this. Just like MU wouldn't have benefited requiring Tayshawn Taylor stick to his. You don't want a player on your team that doesn't want to be there.
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it will hurt App State either. I don't get why it is so devastating that these kids learn a lesson that signing a contract or a NLI or other obligation is something that is not only enforceable, it should be at its core a follow through on your word. He signed a letter of intent. When he hadn't blown up, App State was his best option and we was all good to go there. Then, all of a sudden he gets better and the school that went after him and committed to him and vice versa is no longer good enough. Then sit out a year young man. Next time wait to sign the NLI or don't sign it at all.
There has to be consequences for actions.
Again, argument is primarily about the NLI/transfer rule, which is so ridiculously one-sided. But as usual, you guys demonstrate plain and simple who you are concerned about in defending outdated rules - yourselves, the college basketball fan, and your viewing plaesure. Rather than justify the rule, you rationalize this crap under the guise of 'living up to your commitments.' I'm all for living up to commitments, but circumstances change, times change, etc., and 'rules are rules' ceases to be an adequate defense, particularly when the rules in question are in place to protect and professional sports league posing as an amateur organization.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on September 28, 2013, 08:39:10 AM
Again, argument is primarily about the NLI/transfer rule, which is so ridiculously one-sided. But as usual, you guys demonstrate plain and simple who you are concerned about in defending outdated rules - yourselves, the college basketball fan, and your viewing plaesure. Rather than justify the rule, you rationalize this crap under the guise of 'living up to your commitments.' I'm all for living up to commitments, but circumstances change, times change, etc., and 'rules are rules' ceases to be an adequate defense, particularly when the rules in question are in place to protect and professional sports league posing as an amateur organization.
Sorry, I've yet to hear you explain why it is bad to have someone live up to what they signed? You say circumstances change, times change, etc.....we live in a world where agreements are supposed to mean something. Let's see, this month has been a little tought, guess what Wells Fargo, I don't think I'm going to pay my full mortgage cuz times have changed.
Exactly what would you like to see done? A kid can say he's going to a school, the school holds a slot for him and then has to turn away other kids only to let the kid at the end change his mind leaving the school high and dry? Doesn't the coach, school, team to which the person committed suffer injury in that case? That's before we even get into the reality of what total chaos would be created without a NLI system.
I'm for it because it stabilizes the system, and it requries two sides to enter into an agreement.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 27, 2013, 09:34:03 PM
I support App State 100% on this. The kid signed a letter of intent. App State turned away other kids they could have signed. Abide by what you signed.
I agree completely. At the end of the year he can transfer. A University like App State is going to have a difficult time finding a good replacement. Getting one year of the commitment to allow them to find a replacement is fair. I also agree with it being a good life lesson.
As far as it being one-sided (Navin). I disagree. There are far more athletes that seek a release and get it than there are athletes that are forced to abide by the NLI. Those are mutual decisions, the athlete wants to leave and the University agrees. The flip side happens from time to time, when a player is in over their head. They have the option to stay and force the NLI...most do not, they also agree that it is the wrong place for them and move on. Not one-sided at all. Navin does have more of a point on the transfers rather than the NLI.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 28, 2013, 09:43:48 AM
Exactly what would you like to see done? A kid can say he's going to a school, the school holds a slot for him and then has to turn away other kids only to let the kid at the end change his mind leaving the school high and dry? Doesn't the coach, school, team to which the person committed suffer injury in that case? That's before we even get into the reality of what total chaos would be created without a NLI system.
Consistency across the board. That's it. Similar movement rules that apply to coaches and players alike. Coach is fired or moves on, you are allowed to transfer, no questions. All scholarships are for four years, not one, so the school/coach can't decide that you aren't good enough anymore and cut you loose, when you aren't allowed to improve our situation without having to sit a year,when you exceed expectations? Think the players don't suffer injury in such cases? Think these things don't cause a little chaos in their lives? Of course it does. You just don't care about them. You want your March Madness damnit.
This is about the NCaA and members protecting their revenue streams, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, only some are willing to admit it.
As I said earlier, your provide rationalization, not justifications because you are fan of college basketball/football, and changes would be bad for business.
Quote from: forgetful on September 28, 2013, 10:31:42 AM
I agree completely. At the end of the year he can transfer. A University like App State is going to have a difficult time finding a good replacement. Getting one year of the commitment to allow them to find a replacement is fair. I also agree with it being a good life lesson.
As far as it being one-sided (Navin). I disagree. There are far more athletes that seek a release and get it than there are athletes that are forced to abide by the NLI. Those are mutual decisions, the athlete wants to leave and the University agrees. The flip side happens from time to time, when a player is in over their head. They have the option to stay and force the NLI...most do not, they also agree that it is the wrong place for them and move on. Not one-sided at all. Navin does have more of a point on the transfers rather than the NLI.
He won't play for App State. He will sit, or go Juco. App State is in a no win situation here and is going to look the loser no matter what.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on September 28, 2013, 08:55:15 PM
He won't play for App State. He will sit, or go Juco. App State is in a no win situation here and is going to look the loser no matter what.
That's his right to do. Regardless this is a good life lesson for the young man.
Quote from: forgetful on September 28, 2013, 09:49:00 PM
That's his right to do. Regardless this is a good life lesson for the young man.
Agree. Kid signed a contract. Honor it.
Quote from: keefe on September 28, 2013, 10:02:13 PM
Agree. Kid signed a contract. Honor it.
And Coach K signed a contract, too. So he shouldn't even have been talking to the Lakers.
In fact, not only do all the coaches sign these contracts, many (if not all) of them tell their players they will be there for the entirety of their time at the university. That "verbal contract," of course, is non-binding.
I think these are separate issues. If one wants to say a kid should stand by his word, okey dokey, I won't argue with that.
But when one of these sanctimonious coaches -- guys who seem to view loyalty as a one-way street -- lecture the rest of us about living up to contracts, I can only laugh.
And yes, I am well aware that most high-level coaches have out clauses and buyouts. IMHO, when they bolt, they still are breaking the spirit of their contract -- and lying to the very kids they want to be loyal to them.
Quote from: MU82 on September 28, 2013, 10:21:23 PM
And Coach K signed a contract, too. So he shouldn't even have been talking to the Lakers.
In fact, not only do all the coaches sign these contracts, many (if not all) of them tell their players they will be there for the entirety of their time at the university. That "verbal contract," of course, is non-binding.
I think these are separate issues. If one wants to say a kid should stand by his word, okey dokey, I won't argue with that.
But when one of these sanctimonious coaches -- guys who seem to view loyalty as a one-way street -- lecture the rest of us about living up to contracts, I can only laugh.
And yes, I am well aware that most high-level coaches have out clauses and buyouts. IMHO, when they bolt, they still are breaking the spirit of their contract -- and lying to the very kids they want to be loyal to them.
You will get no argument from me on this. Two words: Tom Crean.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on September 28, 2013, 04:08:39 PM
Consistency across the board. That's it. Similar movement rules that apply to coaches and players alike. Coach is fired or moves on, you are allowed to transfer, no questions. All scholarships are for four years, not one, so the school/coach can't decide that you aren't good enough anymore and cut you loose, when you aren't allowed to improve our situation without having to sit a year,when you exceed expectations? Think the players don't suffer injury in such cases? Think these things don't cause a little chaos in their lives? Of course it does. You just don't care about them. You want your March Madness damnit.
This is about the NCaA and members protecting their revenue streams, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, only some are willing to admit it.
As I said earlier, your provide rationalization, not justifications because you are fan of college basketball/football, and changes would be bad for business.
Yes, stability is always good for business, it's also good for the programs, the universities and the athletes. Everyone knows where they stand. To say I don't care about them is just wrong. I'm betting I'm one of only 2 or 3 people on this board that has actually worked in DI athletics, with the student athletes and did so for a number of years. I care quite a lot about them. If my son continues to progress the way he is, he may be one of those DI athletes in a few years...we'll see.
Players and coaches aren't the same, nevertheless when a coach leaves he\she usually has to pay a penalty of some kind...or a consequence (just like transferring has a consequence). 4 year scholarships already exist today.
Quote from: keefe on September 28, 2013, 10:23:35 PM
You will get no argument from me on this. Two words: Tom Crean.
6 words
Rick Majerus...broke contract
Kevin O'Neill....broke contract
Buzz Williams....broke contract
However, there should be an argument. They broke their contract, but also had to pay a penalty to do so. Thus, a consequence. Just like transferring brings a....Consequence. I don't know why people that keep bringing up the coaches leave argument as if there aren't consequences there as well. There are.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 29, 2013, 12:27:15 AM
Buzz Williams....broke contract
However, there should be an argument. They broke their contract, but also had to pay a penalty to do so. Thus, a consequence. Just like transferring brings a....Consequence. I don't know why people that keep bringing up the coaches leave argument as if there aren't consequences there as well. There are.
Debatable. Crean of course was praising Marquette and his contract which ran through 2017... then players found out from the media he was jumping ship.
Williams on the other hand.. filed suit against UNO.. both disputing that he owed a termination fee, but also seeking damages.
When he became head coach, the case settled. The terms of the settlement? We don't know.
Often in legal disputes you settle because it becomes such a long, drawn out headache. In fact, even in criminal trials many innocent people plead guilty to get the trial process over with. Despite some reports to the contrary but the often-wrong media, the settlement details weren't released.
So.. why did Buzz leave UNO and did he break his contract? Reasonable arguments from multiple perspectives can be made with the limited knowledge we have.
Crean on the other hand was a different story. Why players had to find out from the media? Well, that's still one that I don't think there is a good answer to. Why did he leave? We all know that. I4.
Completely different situations.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 29, 2013, 12:27:15 AM
6 words
Rick Majerus...broke contract
Kevin O'Neill....broke contract
Buzz Williams....broke contract
However, there should be an argument. They broke their contract, but also had to pay a penalty to do so. Thus, a consequence. Just like transferring brings a....Consequence. I don't know why people that keep bringing up the coaches leave argument as if there aren't consequences there as well. There are.
Consequence:
When a player breaks his contract to go to another school, he has to sit out a year. He spends that year in limbo. He is part of the team, but not really.
Consequence:
When a coach breaks his contract to go to another school, he starts coaching at his new place on Day 1. He is worshiped as a savior. Oh, and he almost always walks right into a situation in which he immediately starts receiving larger paychecks.
The system, as usual, screws the player while making the coach ever richer.
Quote from: MU82 on September 29, 2013, 06:48:11 AM
Consequence:
When a player breaks his contract to go to another school, he has to sit out a year. He spends that year in limbo. He is part of the team, but not really.
No - a kid spending a year in residence enjoys a year practicing with his team while he benefits academically by being able to focus on easing into a new surrounding via free education w/o competing. (Free) Academics first. Great situation - thanks, 5-year clock!
Many schools would love to have stud transfers play immediately. NCAA says let's really care for these kids - and put their academic well being at the forefront.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 29, 2013, 09:20:08 AM
No - a kid spending a year in residence enjoys a year practicing with his team while he benefits academically by being able to focus on easing into a new surrounding via free education w/o competing. (Free) Academics first. Great situation - thanks, 5-year clock!
Many schools would love to have stud transfers play immediately. NCAA says let's really care for these kids - and put their academic well being at the forefront.
very well put, JB
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 29, 2013, 09:20:08 AM
No - a kid spending a year in residence enjoys a year practicing with his team while he benefits academically by being able to focus on easing into a new surrounding via free education w/o competing. (Free) Academics first. Great situation - thanks, 5-year clock!
Many schools would love to have stud transfers play immediately. NCAA says let's really care for these kids - and put their academic well being at the forefront.
Where does one find the NCAA kool aid to drink? Sitting out a year to get the academics straight is straight up horse hockey. If that was the case why would the NCAA waive that requirement when they punished Penn State by allowing players to transfer without the year sit out penalty? The NCAA made it part of the punishment showing it is intended as a disincentive for players to transfer. In fact the conferences often have rules about in conference transfers sitting out for 2 years, it is punitive in nature.
Coaches occasionally have to suffer consequences but more often than not their buy out is paid by their new school, they can leave immediately, potentially bring their recruits with them, and have a larger paycheck.
Oh and the recruits usually don't have a ton of money for legal representation and to be able to fully understand all of their options. You are asking a 16/17 year kid to understand all the ins and outs of college recruiting and all the permutations consequences and then hold him to a contract he signed. I'm pretty sure he's learned a lesson already, forcing a stand off doesn't help anyone.
Quote from: mu03eng on September 29, 2013, 05:53:37 PM
Where does one find the NCAA kool aid to drink? Sitting out a year to get the academics straight is straight up horse hockey. If that was the case why would the NCAA waive that requirement when they punished Penn State by allowing players to transfer without the year sit out penalty? The NCAA made it part of the punishment showing it is intended as a disincentive for players to transfer. In fact the conferences often have rules about in conference transfers sitting out for 2 years, it is punitive in nature.
Universities made it a penalty for their coach to leave by putting a buyout in the contract. It was intended to be punitive in nature. On the otherhand, when an athlete leaves a University the University gets nothing in return. Seems to favor the athlete (see how we can flip these things if we want to.)
Coaches occasionally have to suffer consequences but more often than not their buy out is paid by their new school, they can leave immediately, potentially bring their recruits with them, and have a larger paycheck.
So the new school is punished by having to pay a substantial buyout. Similar to the new school of a transfer to have to provide up to $250,000 in scholarships and related benefits for an athlete that cannot compete. Meanwhile, they get free training and education that can help them get a Masters degree all on the Universities dime. Seems like the only ones getting a benefit are the new coach (better job) and the athlete (possibly better school and a chance at a free masters degree). In both cases the University loses out.
Oh and the recruits usually don't have a ton of money for legal representation and to be able to fully understand all of their options. You are asking a 16/17 year kid to understand all the ins and outs of college recruiting and all the permutations consequences and then hold him to a contract he signed. I'm pretty sure he's learned a lesson already, forcing a stand off doesn't help anyone.
By most accounts the kid in question here is unlikely to ever be a professional athlete. Instead of complaining about how unfair his contract is. Maybe he should be thinking about the fact that he now has 5-years of free education to pursue a Masters degree and set him up for life.
It is easy to pick one side or the other. In reality there are consequences and benefits for all parties involved. One is not being treated more or less fairly than the other. It all just depends on an individuals perspective of the situation. I think more often than not, if you think the NCAA is the big bad wolf, everything they do is wrong and unfair to the athlete. The reality is these kids are getting a really good deal. They can make the best of it if they chose.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 29, 2013, 09:20:08 AM
NCAA says let's really care for these kids - and put their academic well being at the forefront.
Dude, seriously, I just wet my pants. Please tell me that was in the same vein as your 'Vikings consensus' posts. If not, that one belongs in the MUScoop Hall of Fame of ridiculous posts.
Quote from: forgetful on September 29, 2013, 06:57:50 PM
Universities made it a penalty for their coach to leave by putting a buyout in the contract. It was intended to be punitive in nature. On the otherhand, when an athlete leaves a University the University gets nothing in return. Seems to favor the athlete (see how we can flip these things if we want to.)
Really? The University who encourages a weak player to transfer (often in the players best interest, but mostly in the schools best interest to avoid clogging a scholarship with a kid who cant play) to a lower tier school doesn't immediately get that scholarship back? Meanwhile they player who is shown the writing on the wall has to sit out a year.
So the new school is punished by having to pay a substantial buyout.
I'm sorry, who is forcing them to pay that buyout, exactly? Sure seems like a punishment of their own choosing, by hiring that coach. Stupid argument.
By most accounts the kid in question here is unlikely to ever be a professional athlete. Instead of complaining about how unfair his contract is. Maybe he should be thinking about the fact that he now has 5-years of free education to pursue a Masters degree and set him up for life.
That's great, but maybe that's not what he wants to do. Very easy for some dude sitting in front of a keyboard the suburbs to say. Everyone here has been around college sports long enough to know that very few of these guys are going to college to be students, they're going to play ball. They know it, their coaches know it, schools know it. Doesn't mean they can't benefit from the education they receive, but I just wish people would start calling it what it is, and quit trying to prop up and rationalize this whole amateurism, student athlete sham, because it makes them feel a little less guilty.
Quote from: forgetful on September 29, 2013, 06:57:50 PM
It is easy to pick one side or the other. In reality there are consequences and benefits for all parties involved. One is not being treated more or less fairly than the other. It all just depends on an individuals perspective of the situation. I think more often than not, if you think the NCAA is the big bad wolf, everything they do is wrong and unfair to the athlete. The reality is these kids are getting a really good deal. They can make the best of it if they chose.
I'd like to know what profession you can spend 5 years in college getting an undergrad and masters without any practical knowledge and be set for life. Do you realize how hard it is to get an undergrad and master in 5 years just doing school let alone a high caliber athlete? (this is one of many reasons why Lockett is an amazing dude)
Everyone says the players are compensated for via free education, have you ever played at a collegiant level, do you have any idea how tough it is to be at the top of your game and still be successful in the classroom? Yes these players get a lot of support, but they need it just to keep their heads above water. How does one go out and get an internship or do other career enhancing activities while playing D1 ball? Yes the players are getting a decent deal, but lets not act like we're doing them any favors or we have their best interests at heart...we don't.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 27, 2013, 09:37:56 PM
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it will hurt App State either. I don't get why it is so devastating that these kids learn a lesson that signing a contract or a NLI or other obligation is something that is not only enforceable, it should be at its core a follow through on your word. He signed a letter of intent. When he hadn't blown up, App State was his best option and we was all good to go there. Then, all of a sudden he gets better and the school that went after him and committed to him and vice versa is no longer good enough. Then sit out a year young man. Next time wait to sign the NLI or don't sign it at all.
There has to be consequences for actions.
Sounds great... if you can stop the practice of over-signing. Ask DJ Newbill how enforceable the NLI is. We should tackle the problem of making the adults and institutions of higher learning "follow through on their word" before we get all high and mighty about the 18 year old kids.
Quote from: forgetful on September 28, 2013, 10:31:42 AM
I agree completely. At the end of the year he can transfer. A University like App State is going to have a difficult time finding a good replacement. Getting one year of the commitment to allow them to find a replacement is fair. I also agree with it being a good life lesson.
That sounds great... but at the end of the year the player has to ask to be allowed to transfer and will have restrictions put on his ability to do so by a vindictive coach. If it were as simple as you have to play here for a year and then you can transfer without issue then it wouldn't be as big of an issue.
Quote from: TJ on September 30, 2013, 08:08:40 AM
Sounds great... if you can stop the practice of over-signing. Ask DJ Newbill how enforceable the NLI is. We should tackle the problem of making the adults and institutions of higher learning "follow through on their word" before we get all high and mighty about the 18 year old kids.
That PSA didn't follow through on the requirements under the NLI.
And just when you think the NCAA couldn't get any more ridiculous with the arbitrary manner in which they enforce their archaic rules, they give us Josh Smith. While I like the ruling, there are players all over the country who were not afforded the same consideration. Arbitrary and unfair is the only way to describe it. The NCAA and its member organizations, is as heavy handed an organization as exists.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9869585/ncaa-clears-josh-smith-play-georgetown-hoyas (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9869585/ncaa-clears-josh-smith-play-georgetown-hoyas)
To go back to the original point, just get rid of the stupid red shirt requirement, and eliminate all of this picking and choosing.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on October 24, 2013, 08:35:11 AM
And just when you think the NCAA couldn't get any more ridiculous with the arbitrary manner in which they enforce their archaic rules, they give us Josh Smith. While I like the ruling, there are players all over the country who were not afforded the same consideration. Arbitrary and unfair is the only way to describe it. The NCAA and its member organizations, is as heavy handed an organization as exists.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9869585/ncaa-clears-josh-smith-play-georgetown-hoyas (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9869585/ncaa-clears-josh-smith-play-georgetown-hoyas)
To go back to the original point, just get rid of the stupid red shirt requirement, and eliminate all of this picking and choosing.
I'm confused why he was given the waiver, but I'm not complaining. We need the Big East to be as strong in the non-conference season as possible.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on October 24, 2013, 08:35:11 AM
And just when you think the NCAA couldn't get any more ridiculous with the arbitrary manner in which they enforce their archaic rules, they give us Josh Smith. While I like the ruling, there are players all over the country who were not afforded the same consideration. Arbitrary and unfair is the only way to describe it. The NCAA and its member organizations, is as heavy handed an organization as exists.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9869585/ncaa-clears-josh-smith-play-georgetown-hoyas (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9869585/ncaa-clears-josh-smith-play-georgetown-hoyas)
To go back to the original point, just get rid of the stupid red shirt requirement, and eliminate all of this picking and choosing.
Because all cases are different. I don't understand your comment that they are not afforded the same consideration. Each player can apply for a ruling from the NCAA and they do give consideration. The outcomes are certainly different, but none of us know the background of each case to understand what goes into each consideration.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 24, 2013, 07:32:47 PM
Because all cases are different. I don't understand your comment that they are not afforded the same consideration. Each player can apply for a ruling from the NCAA and they do give consideration. The outcomes are certainly different, but none of us know the background of each case to understand what goes into each consideration.
This is important to understand. Most ignore it when they spew outrage. Folks are so quick to cry about how awful the NCAA is, but they forget the NCAA is a representation of the member conferences... and most important is they don't know the conversations and arguments made in individual cases.
I would suggest that in many cases if the truth was fully revealed it would be the student-athletes and their current institutions people would take issue with. Many arguments made might seem quite ridiculous, but may be enough to put the NCAA into a position where they feel a waiver is the right thing to do.
There are several waiver cases that I guarantee would provide entertainment (puking) if the arguments were revealed to the public.
Apparently more consideration given.....
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9878078/kentan-facey-uconn-huskies-cleared-ncaa
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 25, 2013, 01:17:25 PM
Apparently more consideration given.....
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9878078/kentan-facey-uconn-huskies-cleared-ncaa
How is this anywhere near a similar situation? Oh that's right, it isn't, and thus, completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on October 25, 2013, 02:40:45 PM
How is this anywhere near a similar situation? Oh that's right, it isn't, and thus, completely irrelevant to the discussion.
The NCAA considers all cases. Each case is unique. Each outcome, thus, unique. Contrary to your comments yesterday about what is or isn't considered.
All I know is that really smart student-athletes -- who actually are students -- who get their degrees in three years and then go to graduate school at another university while not having to sit out a year to play basketball or football ... yes, those millions upon millions of young men are sure to bring down the entire system!
Close that loophole and save college sports before it's too late!!!!
Quote from: MU82 on October 25, 2013, 03:19:46 PM
All I know is that really smart student-athletes -- who actually are students -- who get their degrees in three years and then go to graduate school at another university while not having to sit out a year to play basketball or football ... yes, those millions upon millions of young men are sure to bring down the entire system!
Close that loophole and save college sports before it's too late!!!!
That isn't the norm. Lockett was quite unusual in that regard. Most who utilize the graduate student exception or are granted a waiver using a graduate student (who aren't eligible for the exception) have been at school for more than three years.
BTW, "getting a degree" is not a requirement of the graduate student exception.
Another granted a waiver
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9877415/oregon-ducks-transfer-joseph-young-play-immediately
Another not...
http://m.ourmidland.com/mobile/sports/ncaa-jones-can-t-play-this-season-at-nu/article_dc6d0067-ae4d-543f-96f4-2f3352506378.html (http://m.ourmidland.com/mobile/sports/ncaa-jones-can-t-play-this-season-at-nu/article_dc6d0067-ae4d-543f-96f4-2f3352506378.html)
Again, if anyone would like to defend the NCAA's 'logic' based on this story, and/or try to paint a picture of any kind of consistency in these rulings, I would enjoy watching the mental contortions you will need through to do so.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on October 26, 2013, 02:18:49 PM
Another not...
http://m.ourmidland.com/mobile/sports/ncaa-jones-can-t-play-this-season-at-nu/article_dc6d0067-ae4d-543f-96f4-2f3352506378.html (http://m.ourmidland.com/mobile/sports/ncaa-jones-can-t-play-this-season-at-nu/article_dc6d0067-ae4d-543f-96f4-2f3352506378.html)
Again, if anyone would like to defend the NCAA's 'logic' based on this story, and/or try to paint a picture of any kind of consistency in these rulings, I would enjoy watching the mental contortions you will need through to do so.
I'm not going to defend their inconsistencies, because they do exist. However this case is a very bad example. I see no indication that their was a driving need for him to transfer a 2nd time (first from USC to Iowa State and then to NU). Also, it appears as if the reason to transfer was being academically ineligible for cheating on two different occassions at USC...again hardly a reason for a waiver.
Admittedly, both USC and ISU screwed up in handling the appeals. He should be given the semester of eligibility back (left with 4) and I think he will. But needing to transfer because you were caught cheating and want to play right away, should never be a reason for a waiver.
Quote from: Jay Bee on October 25, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
That isn't the norm. Lockett was quite unusual in that regard. Most who utilize the graduate student exception or are granted a waiver using a graduate student (who aren't eligible for the exception) have been at school for more than three years.
BTW, "getting a degree" is not a requirement of the graduate student exception.
Guess I should have used teal.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on October 26, 2013, 02:18:49 PM
Another not...
http://m.ourmidland.com/mobile/sports/ncaa-jones-can-t-play-this-season-at-nu/article_dc6d0067-ae4d-543f-96f4-2f3352506378.html (http://m.ourmidland.com/mobile/sports/ncaa-jones-can-t-play-this-season-at-nu/article_dc6d0067-ae4d-543f-96f4-2f3352506378.html)
Again, if anyone would like to defend the NCAA's 'logic' based on this story, and/or try to paint a picture of any kind of consistency in these rulings, I would enjoy watching the mental contortions you will need through to do so.
You couldn't have found a worse example. Different divisions, multiple issues caused by the player's decisions (enrollment at schools, practicing with schools, multiple transfers, etc.) no matter whose "bad advice" he listened to.
Adding this example to the conversation is beyond ridiculous.
LOL. Ok Navin. Again, what particulars do you know about the case that the NCAA doesn't that leads you to believe in inconsistency? Each case is heard, each case is given consideration. None of us here know the details behind each case, but on the surface alone your example shows just how different they are already without even getting into the details of which we know none of them.
If EVERYONE is really going to be treated equally, shouldn't a coach who leaves before his contract is up have to sit out a year?
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on October 26, 2013, 06:56:08 PM
If EVERYONE is really going to be treated equally, shouldn't a coach who leaves before his contract is up have to sit out a year?
Some Americans claim to want equality for all. Do you? Should we let 12 year olds drive cars if they pass a test? Should you and I pay the same dollar amount of taxes? How about 11 year olds boozing it up? Sound good?
A coach leaving a contract prior to the stated end date should be "punished" according to the terms of the contract he entered into, whatever they may be. If he doesn't want to deal with them, then don't agree to it.
Same with kids. If they don't want the arrangement offered, don't do it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 26, 2013, 06:54:38 PM
LOL. Ok Navin. Again, what particulars do you know about the case that the NCAA doesn't that leads you to believe in inconsistency? Each case is heard, each case is given consideration. None of us here know the details behind each case, but on the surface alone your example shows just how different they are already without even getting into the details of which we know none of them.
Thanks for making my point (and that of Coach K, which started this thread). They make case by case decisions, based on little or any defined criteria. Some have to sit, others do not. Eliminate the stupid 'redshirt year' requirement, and stop with this student athlete/amateurism sham. Of course we all know they won't because it might be bad for business. But hey, keep trying to pretend they do all this in the interest of the players as students, maybe eventually you will actually convince yourselves that's true.