NYT: Want to Play at a Different College? O.K., but Not There or There

[Tugg Speedman]

See the highlighted part ...

Want to Play at a Different College? O.K., but Not There or There

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/sports/ncaafootball/college-coaches-use-transfer-rules-to-limit-athletes-options.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&

When a quarterback decided last month to transfer to another football program after one season at Oklahoma State, he thanked the coach, who thanked him back. Here were two parties seemingly in mutual agreement, on good terms, headed for an amicable divorce.

Then the transfer process started, producing the latest and perhaps an extreme example of what is occurring throughout the country this time of year as many college athletes try to move to different universities.

The Oklahoma State coach, Mike Gundy, ruled out nearly 40 universities as transfer options for quarterback Wes Lunt, an apparent show of gamesmanship and punishment toward a college athlete who wanted to take his skills elsewhere.

The forces at work were not new, but Gundy, like a growing number of coaches, chose to harness them to eliminate many, if not all, of Lunt’s preferred options and to keep a potential rival from gaining the services of a highly regarded quarterback entering his sophomore season. It was a powerful illustration of the big-business mind-set of college sports and the control that coaches have over players.

When an athlete chooses to transfer, three sets of rules can be involved: those of the N.C.A.A.; those of the conference in which the university competes; and those that accompany the national letter of intent, a contract that athletes sign while still in high school to announce their intention to attend a university.

“It’s entirely slanted to the coach’s side,” said Don Jackson, a lawyer who runs the Sports Group in Montgomery, Ala., and who has represented dozens of athletes attempting to transfer to a university of their choice. “Once the student-athlete signs that national letter of intent, it’s essentially a contract of adhesion. They have limited rights.”

Universities have long sought to block student-athletes from transferring to a rival program. Alabama’s football team, for example, would not be expected to let a star player go to Auburn. But the impulse to limit the student-athlete’s options has been heightened to the point that coaches are now blacklisting dozens of universities.

Proponents of transfer limits say that they are put in place to prevent coaches from continually attempting to lure athletes from other universities, which could create a never-ending recruiting cycle. Critics counter that the rules make it much too easy for coaches to act punitively, penalizing athletes for changing their minds about decisions made when they were teenagers.

Coaches cannot fully prevent athletes like Lunt from transferring to any university they want. But if a coach does not grant an athlete a release, the player must forfeit any scholarship opportunity, pay his own way to the new university and sit out the next season. Meanwhile, Gundy, whose contract pays him $30.3 million over eight years, and other coaches can routinely move from one college to another with minimal consequence, often for bigger contracts after arranging a buyout with the first college.

Lunt, who did not respond to requests for comment, is reportedly deciding whether to transfer to Louisville or Illinois, neither of which was blocked by Gundy, 45, who declined to comment and has not spoken publicly about the restrictions placed on Lunt.

The N.C.A.A. also declined to comment.

When Eugene Byrd worked for the Southeastern Conference, he oversaw the administration of the national letter of intent, essentially a one-year contract between a student and an institution with four yearly options to renew. As an assistant commissioner, he tried to simplify the often confusing process.

Byrd said the national letter of intent no longer served its original purpose, which was to stop the pursuit of high school players once they committed to a university. “It was supposed to end the recruiting once you signed,” he said. “It became a threat to limit the ability to transfer.”

In 2009, Robert Marve, who had started 11 games at quarterback for Miami before being benched, announced his intention to transfer. Randy Shannon, then the team’s coach, blocked him from transferring to any program in the Atlantic Coast Conference, which Miami belongs to; any program in the SEC; and any program in Florida, Marve’s home state.

Marve’s father, Eugene, was being treated for prostate cancer in Tampa at the time, but Miami blocked his son from transferring to the University of South Florida, in Tampa. Robert Marve ended up transferring to Purdue.

“The N.C.A.A. preaches about how it protects the student-athlete,” Eugene Marve said. “They do everything but that with these restrictions. They give schools like Miami leverage to really limit where a student-athlete can go and what they can do. Then they call them student-athletes.”

The N.C.A.A. has said that the transfer issue affects a small fraction of its athletes. Last year, according to data provided by the organization, 627 member institutions participated in the letter of intent program, 38,663 athletes signed letters, and less than 1 percent requested a release after their first year. Those figures, however, do not take into account athletes who will seek a transfer later in their college careers.

The issue is most pronounced in men’s basketball. Jim Haney, the executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, said nearly 500 men’s basketball players transferred last year, with a similar number expected to transfer before next season.

That volume, Haney said, has created a situation in which coaches often believe that they need to spend time each off-season persuading players to remain instead of transferring.

Haney said the N.C.A.A. had started to change the recruiting structure to cut down on transfers in men’s basketball. The organization allowed for more interaction between coaches and high school prospects so they could make more informed decisions. Additionally, the N.C.A.A. commissioned a task force to examine transfer rules across all sports. Recommendations are expected in August. New rules could go into effect in 2014.

“The reality is, we still have kids transferring,” Haney said. “With 500 kids, this whole free-agency thing going on, I don’t think that’s where we want to be. It’s rare to see somebody who transfers for a better business school.”

Those involved with and affected by transfer rules proposed a variety of solutions. Jackson, the lawyer, said few teenagers really understood what they were signing and thus proposed that athletes be allowed to transfer without restrictions, the same as a regular student.

John Infante, an N.C.A.A. analyst for athleticscholarships.net who has a background in compliance, suggested a one-time exemption for athletes who have completed their first year to transfer without penalty. Ed Cunningham, a former football player, an ESPN analyst and a documentary filmmaker, said athletes should be able to transfer anywhere without penalty after two or three seasons.

“I don’t believe in pure free agency,” he said. “But you have to have common-sense conversations about this stuff. It’s going to change. It just is. It’s just so antiquated. Look at Oklahoma State. That’s an awful lot of power for a football coach to have over a young man’s life. He’s a kid. I wish we would remember that.”

[Jay Bee]

Some bad information in this article (bad=incorrect).

Anyway, I tend to agree with Infante's take on a lot of things, but not his one-time transfer suggestion. Yuck.

I would like to see the graduate transfer exception & waivers changed (eliminated). I'd be fine with a one year add-on to a grad transfer's 5 yr clock.

[GGGG]

Actually I really like Infante's suggestion.  One free transfer without sitting a year...but no additional waivers after that for any reason.

[Jay Bee]

Actually I really like Infante's suggestion.  One free transfer without sitting a year...but no additional waivers after that for any reason.

I HATE that idea. Especially with APR rules as they currently stand.

[Pakuni]

Actually I really like Infante's suggestion.  One free transfer without sitting a year...but no additional waivers after that for any reason.

Just what college athletics needs .... outright free agency.
No chance that would further corrupt the system.

[GGGG]

Just what college athletics needs .... outright free agency.
No chance that would further corrupt the system.

The system sucks and is stacked against the players as it is.  This can only help them.

I HATE that idea. Especially with APR rules as they currently stand.

Right.  We need to get rid of the APR rules too.

[Pakuni]

The system sucks and is stacked against the players as it is.  This can only help them.

Even if true (and I would argue it's not nearly as bad as some like to claim) .... so what? Are we really supposed to be surprised/bothered/outraged/clutch pearls over the fact that the institutions that make up the NCAA set rules in their favor? In what association ever is it different?

Playing college basketball ultimately is a voluntary activity. Don't like the rules .... rules you agreed to when you agreed to play college basketball? Don't play college basketball. Nobody is required to play college basketball, or play in the NCAA. In fact, with the NBDL and European options, there's never been a time when it's been less necessary for an aspiring pro (sans the very few who could make the jump straight from high school) to play in the NCAA.

[GGGG]

Even if true (and I would argue it's not nearly as bad as some like to claim) .... so what? Are we really supposed to be surprised/bothered/outraged/clutch pearls over the fact that the institutions that make up the NCAA set rules in their favor? In what association ever is it different?

Playing college basketball ultimately is a voluntary activity. Don't like the rules .... rules you agreed to when you agreed to play college basketball? Don't play college basketball. Nobody is required to play college basketball, or play in the NCAA. In fact, with the NBDL and European options, there's never been a time when it's been less necessary for an aspiring pro (sans the very few who could make the jump straight from high school) to play in the NCAA.

Doesn't mean the rules can't be improved.  And I think this would be a huge improvement.

[GGGG]

Specifically, this is what I would like the rule to be:

Any player is allowed one "free" transfer without sitting.  The only qualification is that you must transfer with enough credits accepted by the school you are transferring to in order to earn the same class standing corresponding to the years you have remaining.

So if a player wants to transfer from Tennessee Tech to Missouri after using three years of eligibility, they must earn enough transfer credit to be of senior status at Missouri.

[Jay Bee]

The "system is stacked against them" crap is nonsense. There are rules and standards that might not seem fair, but they are not hidden.

For example, kids are told they are committing to an institution and NOT a coach. Yet, people cry when a coach leaves and a kid decides to go elsewhere. You knew the rules.

Credit card interest rates are outrageous - but you know the rules (or at least should know, idiot).

The reality is that kids leave schools with ease in most cases. And the many kids that just quit during the school year and hurt their school's APR are rarely (ever?) pointed at by anyone. Not many editorials from sportswriters pointing this out. No, it's always "the kids are victims".

----------
With respect to transfers... Sultan I ax you this: why is it so important to you that kids get a one time transfer exception that allows them to play immediately? If one, why not two? What is so awful about having them sit for a year while they get acclimated to their new school?

[GGGG]

With respect to transfers... Sultan I ax you this: why is it so important to you that kids get a one time transfer exception that allows them to play immediately? If one, why not two? What is so awful about having them sit for a year while they get acclimated to their new school?

Because I think it is an unnecessary restriction.

[Lennys Tap]

My problem with this is it would give yet another advantage to the "haves". Kid blows up at Murray State, he's gone to Louisville or Kentucky after a year or two. Much less likely if he has to sit out a year.

[Jay Bee]

Because I think it is an unnecessary restriction.

Why do you wish to restrict the rules such that there are no waivers for any reason after the first transfer?

We could get into college basketball and the concerns of tampering and unscrupulous third parties... which would become a bigger issue if we went with your rule.

But, let's focus on academics. There is a reason why there isn't a one-time transfer exception for basketball, football and a couple of other sports. Student-athletes in those sports have historically underperformed in the classroom.

The idea behind requiring a year of sitting out is to help kids adjust to the new school and to help ensure the transfer was not motivated solely by athletics (i.e., academics were a significant motivating factor).

One-time transfer exceptions in college basketball would turn things into a total circus. The grad student exception is bad enough (and should be done away with).

[GGGG]

Jaybee...you are under the assumption I give a sh*t about academics in college basketball.

Hint:  I don't.

And a "total circus" could benefit MU as well.

[GGGG]

My problem with this is it would give yet another advantage to the "haves". Kid blows up at Murray State, he's gone to Louisville or Kentucky after a year or two. Much less likely if he has to sit out a year.

Yeah...that would be a shame for the kid wouldn't it?

[JakeBarnes]

My problem with this is it would give yet another advantage to the "haves". Kid blows up at Murray State, he's gone to Louisville or Kentucky after a year or two. Much less likely if he has to sit out a year.

Kid goes to Wisconsin, now wants to transfer...where's he going? NOWHERE (suck it Ulthoff)

[sarcastro]

It's like these kids don't realize that they're GETTING A FREE EDUCATION and that what made America great was not standing up for yourself and doing what you're told to do.  Why should they have the right to change schools like any other student.  They already can't get a job off campus like any other student.  You think they'd sense the pattern.

Its like, this kid goes to a crappy school and works hard and improves his play, suddenly he's going to want to go to a better school to help his draft stock.  I'm not sure what country these guys are from where you work hard, get better and get rewarded, but it ain't America.

Instead of coddling these kids we should make them poop their pants, John Wayne, WWII.

I think I've covered all the arguments against these ungrateful, basetball playing communists.

[Lennys Tap]

Yeah...that would be a shame for the kid wouldn't it?

No, it would be a shame for what little competitive balance is left in college basketball. 300+ schools would be farm teams for the few, and if they did a good enough job developing a player their investment would be for naught when the kid got "called up" to the big leagues. Do you really like the idea that Kentucky could keep recruiting our players throughout their college careers?

[forgetful]

No, it would be a shame for what little competitive balance is left in college basketball. 300+ schools would be farm teams for the few, and if they did a good enough job developing a player their investment would be for naught when the kid got "called up" to the big leagues. Do you really like the idea that Kentucky could keep recruiting our players throughout their college careers?

I agree, would be a horrible idea.  If they want to fix the system a bit simply make transferring always open to any University, no placing bans on specific teams/leagues. 

As a secondary level, allow players to transfer if their coaches leave, with immediate eligibility.  That would maintain the competitive balance and solve some of the problems with the transfer system. 

I actually would also not counter transfer red-shirt years as counting towards their 4 years of eligibility in 5 years total.

[Jay Bee]

As a secondary level, allow players to transfer if their coaches leave, with immediate eligibility.  That would maintain the competitive balance and solve some of the problems with the transfer system. 

One of several problems I have with this idea is that it goes against the reasons for the year-in-residency requirement. ESPECIALLY in situations where a coach "leaves", a very quick decision is often made by kids as to what school they are going to transfer to. A year of sitting out to get their crap in order is consistent with the idea that academics are a big part of being a student-athlete.

Maybe it is a charade, but if you're going to play the game (of stressing academics), then be consistent.

[forgetful]

One of several problems I have with this idea is that it goes against the reasons for the year-in-residency requirement. ESPECIALLY in situations where a coach "leaves", a very quick decision is often made by kids as to what school they are going to transfer to. A year of sitting out to get their crap in order is consistent with the idea that academics are a big part of being a student-athlete.

Maybe it is a charade, but if you're going to play the game (of stressing academics), then be consistent.

I'm not going to pretend this is about academics.  Its about both, they spend more time practicing and playing ball than they do focusing on their classes so they should be happy with the people they are around.  If the coach leaves, could disrupt the atmosphere.  Let the kid go in those cases. 

[MUSF]

No, it would be a shame for what little competitive balance is left in college basketball. 300+ schools would be farm teams for the few, and if they did a good enough job developing a player their investment would be for naught when the kid got "called up" to the big leagues. Do you really like the idea that Kentucky could keep recruiting our players throughout their college careers?

I don't buy the competitive balance argument.

Allowing players to transfer without sitting out wouldn't just cause more good players at small schools to move "up" to a better program. It would also cause more good players sitting on the bench at the top programs to move "down" to smaller schools to get some PT. Furthermore, if a Kentucky is cherry picking the best players from smaller schools every year, then they will have to have, or make a scholarship available for said player. That means either cutting a guy already on scholarship or bringing in less recruits. Either way, that's one more very good player for the rest of the teams.

[GGGG]

No, it would be a shame for what little competitive balance is left in college basketball. 300+ schools would be farm teams for the few, and if they did a good enough job developing a player their investment would be for naught when the kid got "called up" to the big leagues. Do you really like the idea that Kentucky could keep recruiting our players throughout their college careers?

Even if I buy your argument, it is not the responsibility of the players who be responsible for keeping the competitive balance in basketball.  You've got programs with different levels of resources, different quality of coaching...and you are going to keep players restricted to keep competitive balance? 

Doesn't sound real fair to me.

[GGGG]

Maybe it is a charade, but if you're going to play the game (of stressing academics), then be consistent.

This is great!!!  "Hey, it may be a bunch of smoke and mirrors...but let's shine up the mirrors a bit."

My system actually would reward those making progress toward a degree.

[Lennys Tap]

Even if I buy your argument, it is not the responsibility of the players who be responsible for keeping the competitive balance in basketball.  You've got programs with different levels of resources, different quality of coaching...and you are going to keep players restricted to keep competitive balance? 

Doesn't sound real fair to me.

There are severe restrictions on free agency even when one signs a pro contract. It protects the investment of the original team, ensures a competitive balance and prevents chaos. Even the pro sport's unions recognize this. Anything short of total free agency may not seem fair to you, but I'd argue that some restrictions are necessary.