Schools to lose ability to block/restrict transfers?

[Jay Bee]

recruit over is the wrong term.......you mean if a coach runs a guy off.

Any player could say he was recruited over and would if that was the criteria to not have to sit out.

That's why she put quotes on it. She didn't mean what she said. It was a false claim. Sad.

[dgies9156]

Third, if the school recruits "over" the player, he can leave and play immediately.

Recruiting over means in this context a player who loses his scholarship because a coach needs it for someone else. Assume, for example, someone loses a scholarship because Quentin Grimes comes to Marquette. They should not be penalized.

[brewcity77]

Recruiting over means in this context a player who loses his scholarship because a coach needs it for someone else. Assume, for example, someone loses a scholarship because Quentin Grimes comes to Marquette. They should not be penalized.

But how do you really determine that? If Grimes comes and (just for example) Cheatham leaves, does that mean Haani was recruited over? So now the NCAA has to make the determination on the value discrepancy between a senior with starting experience and an unproven freshman? Or is it any time a school that is full on scholarships has a transfer out? Seems like it would be tough to really determine who was recruited over without lending even more credence to recruiting ranking sites.

[Galway Eagle]

But how do you really determine that? If Grimes comes and (just for example) Cheatham leaves, does that mean Haani was recruited over? So now the NCAA has to make the determination on the value discrepancy between a senior with starting experience and an unproven freshman? Or is it any time a school that is full on scholarships has a transfer out? Seems like it would be tough to really determine who was recruited over without lending even more credence to recruiting ranking sites.

You'd have to have a coach sign some type of document stating that the university would not be renewing the player's scholarship in favor of the new recruit. Of course that would require coaches not being shady shady people

[brewcity77]

You'd have to have a coach sign some type of document stating that the university would not be renewing the player's scholarship in favor of the new recruit. Of course that would require coaches not being shady shady people

Which also opens up the potential for abuse. A coach could just write such a letter any time they want to move a player along.

[Galway Eagle]

Which also opens up the potential for abuse. A coach could just write such a letter any time they want to move a player along.

I imagine the only solution for that would be that the player must contact the NCAA for said waiver? I'm just trying to get creative

[The Equalizer]

Except the NCAA and its members insist players are students, not employees.

That's why I said similar, not identical.

What we're really saying here is that sometimes - like when it comes to paying athletes and providing them with protections such as workers comp - they're students. And other times - like when enforcing "non-compete agreements" and other restrictions -  it's OK to treat them like employees.
Whichever is most beneficial to the institution.

No, that's not what we're saying here at all.

First, I think I've adequately shown that the need for some reasonable restriction is not "arbitrary" as you called it. 

Second, the definition of "most beneficial" to the institution would be to give the institution 100% control over which teams (if any) a player can transfer.  So, no, this is not a situation of "whichever is most beneficial to the institution."

The compromise I suggested seems completely reasonable and accommodates the competing interests of both the school and the player.

[Marqevans]

Coaches should have to sit out a year if they want to change jobs.

Not sure I like the idea of a coach transferring and taking his best players with him at the same time.