Scott Monarch joins Tony Benford at UNT

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Imagine the fun it would be to spend 12 months to 18 months recruiting some kids to play at your school for 2 spots.  You are concentrating on 4 kids for two spots and you are able to get that done.  Then, in May (or late June for some schools on quarter system), you find out that 6 guys are transferring...or make it 3...whatever you wish.  Because there is no penalty or guardrail, your roster can be completely destroyed in a moment's notice.  Now let's throw in the 800lb gorilla and the monetary under the table BS that would be going on (even more so than today) to get kids to transfer to their schools...no penalty, come on over and make a quick $XXX and you don't have to sit out.

Imagine the fun it is to spend years honing your basketball skills, go through the entire recruiting process, commit to a school, sign a letter of intent, and then have the coach you committed to walk for 500k extra a year at another university.

I'm not necessarily saying the world would be a better place if we allowed free transfers, I don't know that for a fact (although I'm dubious of your catastrophe scenarios). What I am saying is that it is blatantly hypocritical for the NCAA to allow anyone and everyone to swap schools except for the student athletes they are so adamant about protecting.  

[GooooMarquette]

Lots of criticism for Monarch for bolting.

How about Benford?  He knew Monarch was under contract, yet seemed to have no qualms about trying to entice him to UNT.  Seems like if Monarch did something wrong, Benford was complicit.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Imagine the fun it is to spend years honing your basketball skills, go through the entire recruiting process, commit to a school, sign a letter of intent, and then have the coach you committed to walk for 500k extra a year at another university.

I'm not necessarily saying the world would be a better place if we allowed free transfers, I don't know that for a fact (although I'm dubious of your catastrophe scenarios). What I am saying is that it is blatantly hypocritical for the NCAA to allow anyone and everyone to swap schools except for the student athletes they are so adamant about protecting.  

I think this is a far different scenario...in this case you are talking about a coach leaves maybe the players leave.  I'm open to that one.  It's when a coach doesn't leave and a kid just isn't willing to gut it out beyond one year that I have the problem.  We're teaching kids to bailout early, not toughen up.  I think the Izzo commentary hits that on point.

[keefe]

Lots of criticism for Monarch for bolting.

How about Benford?  He knew Monarch was under contract, yet seemed to have no qualms about trying to entice him to UNT.  Seems like if Monarch did something wrong, Benford was complicit.

If you read through that thread there is a lot of discontent with Benford. Not at all sure how representative or warranted that is however

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I think this is a far different scenario...in this case you are talking about a coach leaves maybe the players leave.  I'm open to that one.  It's when a coach doesn't leave and a kid just isn't willing to gut it out beyond one year that I have the problem.  We're teaching kids to bailout early, not toughen up.  I think the Izzo commentary hits that on point.

Its not a far different scenario because that is the status of the rule. I guess you are just supporting a portion of the rule. It would go a long way to quieting my objections if players were free to transfer if their coach left (but not all the way).

Izzo's probably coming from good intentions, but it is quite hypocritical for coaches to bemoan the modern day athlete's tendency to transfer in search for a better opportunity when they themselves bolt the door for the bigger program/money.

It may be in players' best long term interest to be forced to stick it out at their current school: they may learn valuable life lessons/be precluded from making misguided choices. But it also may be in a coaches' best long term interests to be forced to do the same: they may end up having success at their school/have a better work-life balance/maintain family roots. The paternalism just comes off as self-serving when it is applied unequally by parties in a position of power in the NCAA.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Maybe, but I think there is a lot of truth to what Izzo is saying.  We tend to mold those behaviors as youngsters and if we keep permitting them to leave when the going gets tough, they will do so throughout their lives. 

I understand the hypocrisy argument, but I don't think they are an apples to apples comparison when looking at coaches vs players.  Whether it is from the perspective of adult vs young adult, employee vs non employee, coach vs pupil, etc.    Plus there is enough tampering going on today, allowing full free agency will make that nonsense get totally out of hand.