Add Jim Jackson - former college superstar, long-time NBA standout and current FS1 announcer - to the list of those who think college athletes who should be allowed to transfer without having to sit out a year.
He talked at length about it during the Marquette-Villanova game, and took a swipe at rules that bind athletes to schools but let coaches jump from school to school without penalty.
I happen to agree with Mr. Jackson.
How do you prevent tampering? That is if a player can transfer and be eligible for another team next September, what is to prevent college coaches from continuing to recruit players to transfer?
How would you like it if coaches kept calling Markus Howard telling him MU sucks and that he should transfer to their school?
I think a good compromise is if there's a material change in the program, like The Coach leaves or the school switches conferences, then players should be allowed to transfer without sitting out.
----
Thought Added later ... would you allow midseason transfers without sitting out? Another words should Sandy and Traci be allowed to play right now for another school?
Your compromise would be a start.
How do you prevent a school president from tampering with another school's coach?
I haven't thought about midseason transfers. Wouldn't bother me in the least if Sandy and Traci played for other schools right now, though. Just as it wouldn't bother me if a scholarship trombone player or MU Tribune editor left to go to another school and immediately started tromboning or editing.
Quote from: MU82 on January 08, 2017, 02:59:36 PM
Your compromise would be a start.
How do you prevent a school president from tampering with another school's coach?
I haven't thought about midseason transfers. Wouldn't bother me in the least if Sandy and Traci played for other schools right now, though. Just as it wouldn't bother me if a scholarship trombone player or MU Tribune editor left to go to another school and immediately started tromboning or editing.
I think the mid season thing would be net bad for players and small schools. I would suspect you would see a lot of kids getting cut as coaches try to recruit what they need for conf season.
Quote from: MU82 on January 08, 2017, 02:59:36 PM
I haven't thought about midseason transfers. Wouldn't bother me in the least if Sandy and Traci played for other schools right now, though. Just as it wouldn't bother me if a scholarship trombone player or MU Tribune editor left to go to another school and immediately started tromboning or editing.
Are their scholarships trombone players or editors?
Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on January 08, 2017, 04:41:49 PM
I think the mid season thing would be net bad for players and small schools. I would suspect you would see a lot of kids getting cut as coaches try to recruit what they need for conf season.
I think mid-season transfers benefits the strong.
Nova is undersized so they can troll the rest of D1 of a big man in December to have him on the roster in January with the argument that he will play in the FF or even win the NC.
Regarding coaches, buyouts are the tool to prevent them from switching.
Not true. Da trombone playa can't grease his slide for a year if he transfers, ai na?
Quote from: Yukon Cornelius on January 08, 2017, 06:12:35 PM
Are their scholarships trombone players or editors?
Yes. I was one of the latter. I was managing editor of the Tribune and received full tuition. And yes, I had "terms" I had to live up to - mainly, staying "eligible," just like an athlete.
Regarding coaches, buyouts are the tool to prevent them from switching.
Except the buyout provisions are a sham. They rarely if ever stop a coach from leaving in the middle of a contract. They are a wink-wink agreement among hypocrites.
Don't disagree with the comments about buyouts. But that is the tool. Needs to be strengthened.
An idea is what pro-contracts do, it requires a team to ask permission to talk to another coach. Maybe something like that, or a rule that no new coach can be hired between conference championships and June 1st. The idea is to stop the insane musical chairs in the weeks after the season is over. Doing it in June stops the poaching of schollies as those kids are often on campus in summer school.
Again these are just ideas. Remember a coach is an employee so their are specific rules that government his employment. As we have discussed here before, with the Northwestern football team attempt to unionize a few years ago, scholarships athletes are not employees so they have a different set of rules.
Buyouts are part of the negotiated contract. They aren't a "wink-wink" anything. It is part of an employment agreement negotiated between two parties. Complaining about coach buy outs is like complaining about giving an employee an extra week vacation time.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on January 09, 2017, 10:23:42 AM
Buyouts are part of the negotiated contract. They aren't a "wink-wink" anything. It is part of an employment agreement negotiated between two parties. Complaining about coach buy outs is like complaining about giving an employee an extra week vacation time.
What I'm saying is they don't bind any coach to any job.
The buyout was compared to the contract student-athletes must sign. One places a severe penalty on the signee, the other doesn't.
If the response is that the severe penalty to the coach is the cost of the buyout, that is almost always covered by the higher salary the coach gets at his new school. He leaves his old one high and dry, doesn't have to sit out a year, undergoes no hardship financial or otherwise. That isn't a complaint, just a fact. To compare the buyout to the current transfer rule, as some do, is a classic false equivalency.
"wink-wink" and "sham" still are fitting descriptions, IMHO.
When Luke transferred to MU midseason he lost a year of eligibility. That rule should be changed so he could play another year at MU. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 09, 2017, 12:05:22 PM
When Luke transferred to MU midseason he lost a year of eligibility. That rule should be changed so he could play another year at MU. Correct me if I'm wrong.
He did not lose a year of eligibility. He played in a portion of two years, and full time for two additional.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on January 09, 2017, 01:33:54 PM
He did not lose a year of eligibility. He played in a portion of two years, and full time for two additional.
He did in that he played three full season, not four full season.
Quote from: Yukon Cornelius on January 09, 2017, 02:43:08 PM
He did in that he played three full season, not four full season.
But he got four full years of an athletic scholarship. I don't like the rule but that's how the NCAA looks at it.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 09, 2017, 03:18:03 PM
But he got four full years of an athletic scholarship. I don't like the rule but that's how the NCAA looks at it.
Thanks for the clarification, but I thought if he had sat out his entire sophomore year he could play for us for 3 years.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 09, 2017, 04:31:58 PM
Thanks for the clarification, but I thought if he had sat out his entire sophomore year he could play for us for 3 years.
Correct, because he wouldn't have played any of the 14-15 season. I don't know why they don't make adjustments for mid-season transfers but the second you play in a season it takes up a year of your eligibility (excluding medical redshirts).
I'm fine with the current rule of transfers sitting out. There are a ton of transfers now. Think of how much that number would increase if players didn't have to sit out. It'd be insane.
However, I'd like to see scholarships basically be "4-year contracts" as opposed to being renewable after each season. I know that some schools do this already - like Northwestern, IIRC.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 10, 2017, 08:31:54 AM
I'm fine with the current rule of transfers sitting out. There are a ton of transfers now. Think of how much that number would increase if players didn't have to sit out. It'd be insane.
However, I'd like to see scholarships basically be "4-year contracts" as opposed to being renewable after each season. I know that some schools do this already - like Northwestern, IIRC.
All the power 5 conferences have made then 4 year.
Quote from: Yukon Cornelius on January 10, 2017, 09:27:10 AM
All the power 5 conferences have made then 4 year.
Since when? I must have missed that.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 10, 2017, 08:14:23 AM
Correct, because he wouldn't have played any of the 14-15 season. I don't know why they don't make adjustments for mid-season transfers but the second you play in a season it takes up a year of your eligibility (excluding medical redshirts).
That is the point I was trying to make. Sacar redshirted this year but will still be able to play 3 more years, actually having a paid scholarship for 5 years in total.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 10, 2017, 09:43:10 AM
Since when? I must have missed that.
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/news/power-5-ncaa-schools-vote-new-scholarship-concussion-proposals-autonomy/mdv2pvwbc6py1e6v16tsa0ew8
Published on Jan. 17, 2015 | Updated on Jan. 18, 2015
Student-athletes in the Power 5 conferences no longer have to worry whether their scholarship could get taken away.
Representatives from the Power 5 conferences ruled the new autonomy will give their 65 membership schools the ability to control many areas, including the implemention of full cost-of-attendance scholarships. Because tuitions vary, so will the amount paid by each school.
The proposal to implement full cost-of-attendance scholarships overwhelmingly passed by a 79-1 vote, but the proposal to report tuition variances did not pass.
DI autonomy proposal allowing financial assistance up to cost of attendance passes 79-1
My understanding is that the power 5 has the ability to give four year scholarships if they choose. But the football and basketball teams still offer one year renewable scholarships almost exclusively.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 10, 2017, 03:40:17 PM
My understanding is that the power 5 has the ability to give four year scholarships if they choose. But the football and basketball teams still offer one year renewable scholarships almost exclusively.
That's what I thought too.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 10, 2017, 03:40:17 PM
My understanding is that the power 5 has the ability to give four year scholarships if they choose. But the football and basketball teams still offer one year renewable scholarships almost exclusively.
Indeed.
Read that thing posted by Smuggles again. The P5 schools CAN do it. There's no mandate for them to do it. And, to my knowledge, most don't do it.
As usual, the athletes get the short end. But they are asked for lots of loyalty. Especially by the coaches who bolt whenever they feel like it.