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

[GGGG]

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.

This would be a quality argument....if college basketball players could form a union...or get paid a wage...or get health coverage, etc. etc. etc.

[dgies9156]

The whole scholarship issue sounds like baseball's old reserve clause. "Gee, I'm only signing you to a one-year contract, but you can't go anywhere I don't want you to!"

To that end, there is a simple solution to the transfer problem.

First, you can't transfer to any school in your conference without the signing school's consent. Period.

Second, you can't transfer to an in-state rival. For Marquette, that would mean Wisconsin. Period.

Thirdly, offer guaranteed four-year scholarships. That would change everything tomorrow and create a four-year contractual bond.

These rules would even out the playing field immediately and guarantee a kid a chance at a four-year degree, which is what he or she is there for anyway.

[Lennys Tap]

This would be a quality argument....if college basketball players could form a union...or get paid a wage...or get health coverage, etc. etc. etc.

They can't form a union, but they do get paid and get health coverage. I'm not opposed to changes that would benefit the players (a modest stipend, for example) but I don't think unrestricted free agency should be one of them.

[GGGG]

They can't form a union, but they do get paid and get health coverage. I'm not opposed to changes that would benefit the players (a modest stipend, for example) but I don't think unrestricted free agency should be one of them.

You keep using the phrase "unrestricted free agency" as if the label is somehow bad.  All I am suggesting is that players get to transfer once without sitting out a year...and you make it sound like it would be the the end of college basketball as we know it. 

(And it wouldn't be "unrestricted" because the player would have to meet certain academic targets...and would only get one "free" transfer...so there are restrictions.)

[GGGG]

The whole scholarship issue sounds like baseball's old reserve clause. "Gee, I'm only signing you to a one-year contract, but you can't go anywhere I don't want you to!"

To that end, there is a simple solution to the transfer problem.

First, you can't transfer to any school in your conference without the signing school's consent. Period.

Second, you can't transfer to an in-state rival. For Marquette, that would mean Wisconsin. Period.

Thirdly, offer guaranteed four-year scholarships. That would change everything tomorrow and create a four-year contractual bond.

These rules would even out the playing field immediately and guarantee a kid a chance at a four-year degree, which is what he or she is there for anyway.

Why shouldn't they be able to transfer to an "in state rival?"  So a player from St. Mary's can't transfer to San Diego State?  How do you determine if they are a "rival?"

And I am very much against four year scholarships.  The motivation needs to be there to earn your spot.

[Pakuni]

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.

Again, you're missing the point

You ignore that the NCAA was created and continues to exist for the benefit of its member institutions, not the players (though the players certainly can and do benefit from the existence of the NCAA). This is hardly unusual ... it's why any association of this nature is created.
What you seem to be arguing is that NCAA should alter their system to make it more "fair" for players, even to their members' detriment ... I'd argue significant detriment. You think the recruiting system - with its street agents, handlers, shoe salesmen, handout-seekers, etc. - is corrupt now? Just wait until a freshman All-American declares himself a free agent and goes seeking offers.

So, why on earth would the NCAA want to do such a thing? Can you name a single association or business entity that intentionally subverts its own best interests?

[forgetful]

You keep using the phrase "unrestricted free agency" as if the label is somehow bad.  All I am suggesting is that players get to transfer once without sitting out a year...and you make it sound like it would be the the end of college basketball as we know it. 

(And it wouldn't be "unrestricted" because the player would have to meet certain academic targets...and would only get one "free" transfer...so there are restrictions.)

It would be the end of college basketball as we know it.  Teams would actively recruit players away from all teams.  There would be less carry over that allows fans to cheer for the same guys year after year.

Lower level teams would be poached, meaning all the resources, money and training they put in to improve a player would be a waste, as the player would just jump ship the moment a better offer came up.  

This is not like any other business.  A Murray State, can't just offer the kid a bigger compensation package (aka, salary/retirement), as occurs in business to mitigate poaching of talent.  They just have to watch them walk out the door.  

Frankly, the free transfer year with no limitations is the WORST idea I have hear of for college sports.  To think that anyone thinks this wouldn't affect the competitive balance, is quite shocking to me.  

Imagine what would happen in business if you could never give your employees a raise or promotion after you hired them, but your big competition could come in and offer them a better work environment/atmosphere with more long-term opportunities.  Would that affect the competition and business landscape???

[GooooMarquette]

Not sure we're all on the same page about what Infante means by one "penalty-free" transfer after a year.  If he just means that the kid can choose any other school he wants (without the coach limiting the choices) - that's how I interpreted it - I'd be fine with that because I view these limitations by coaches as "penalties."  I still think the kid should have to sit a year though, as I don't view that as a "penalty" imposed by a coach.

Just my $0.02.

[GGGG]

Again, you're missing the point

You ignore that the NCAA was created and continues to exist for the benefit of its member institutions, not the players (though the players certainly can and do benefit from the existence of the NCAA). This is hardly unusual ... it's why any association of this nature is created.
What you seem to be arguing is that NCAA should alter their system to make it more "fair" for players, even to their members' detriment ... I'd argue significant detriment. You think the recruiting system - with its street agents, handlers, shoe salesmen, handout-seekers, etc. - is corrupt now? Just wait until a freshman All-American declares himself a free agent and goes seeking offers.

So, why on earth would the NCAA want to do such a thing? Can you name a single association or business entity that intentionally subverts its own best interests?

The NCAA will likely not do it for some of the reasons you suggest.  That doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be done.

[GGGG]

It would be the end of college basketball as we know it.  Teams would actively recruit players away from all teams.  There would be less carry over that allows fans to cheer for the same guys year after year.

Lower level teams would be poached, meaning all the resources, money and training they put in to improve a player would be a waste, as the player would just jump ship the moment a better offer came up. 

This is not like any other business.  A Murray State, can't just offer the kid a bigger compensation package (aka, salary/retirement), as occurs in business to mitigate poaching of talent.  They just have to watch them walk out the door. 

Frankly, the free transfer year with no limitations is the WORST idea I have hear of for college sports.  To think that anyone thinks this wouldn't affect the competitive balance, is quite shocking to me. 

I never said that it wouldn't effect competitive balance.  I just don't think competitive balance should be the main driver.  And spare me the chicken little "end of college basketball as we know it" arguments.  I remember the same thing being said when pros were allowed in the Olympics, and read the same thing about the end of the reserve clause in baseball.  It may be worse...it may be better...who can really say for sure?

Imagine what would happen in business if you could never give your employees a raise or promotion after you hired them, but your big competition could come in and offer them a better work environment/atmosphere with more long-term opportunities.  Would that affect the competition and business landscape???

Yeah, this kind of stuff *never* happens now. 

[forgetful]

I never said that it wouldn't effect competitive balance.  I just don't think competitive balance should be the main driver.  And spare me the chicken little "end of college basketball as we know it" arguments.  I remember the same thing being said when pros were allowed in the Olympics, and read the same thing about the end of the reserve clause in baseball.  It may be worse...it may be better...who can really say for sure?


Yeah, this kind of stuff *never* happens now. 

My point is that it does happen, but at least the existing company has some options to sweeten the pot to get talent to stay, which helps offset some of the damage, that will not exist in CBB.  Talent will leave. 

[Pakuni]

I never said that it wouldn't effect competitive balance.  I just don't think competitive balance should be the main driver.  And spare me the chicken little "end of college basketball as we know it" arguments.  I remember the same thing being said when pros were allowed in the Olympics, and read the same thing about the end of the reserve clause in baseball.  It may be worse...it may be better...who can really say for sure?

So if competitive balance (and, of course, revenue) shouldn't be the main driver of the NCAA, what should be?
Your position here is the equivalent of a company's board of directors putting the best interests of its labor force ahead of that of its shareholders and customers. Because, gosh, without those widget makers the company wouldn't have a product to sell and the customers wouldn't be getting their widget fix met.
You're a smart guy Terror .... which is why it's hard to figure your naivete here.

[Dr. Blackheart]

So, every year, about 14% of eligible basketball student athletes transfer. At Marquette, about 11% of the general population freshmen transfer for their sophomore year. It sounds like the free market is working here.

The one area I have a concern with is if a non-revenue SA decides to transfer, and gets a release from their original school (assuming this is to assure that athlete has achieved proper academic status), they get to play at their next school right away.  A revenue sport athlete has to wait a year.  Is that fair?  Seems a bit discriminatory as a two tiered system.

I know that JayBee laid out the academic case for the difference between the sports and why that exists.  But, if a student fulfills their academic requirements for that year, I feel they should be released unconditionally of the sport to play immediately if they so choose. The scholarship is good for a year, why shouldn't a SA be free to move?  The APR may be more effective if yearly check-ins are required any way...rather than waiting to the end like UCONN and being way short.  Set the requirement to academic progress, or the transferee must sit out the year.

[Jay Bee]

I know that JayBee laid out the academic case for the difference between the sports and why that exists.  But, if a student fulfills their academic requirements for that year, I feel they should be released unconditionally of the sport to play immediately if they so choose. The scholarship is good for a year, why shouldn't a SA be free to move?  The APR may be more effective if yearly check-ins are required any way...rather than waiting to the end like UCONN and being way short.  Set the requirement to academic progress, or the transferee must sit out the year.

The SA is free to move. They just aren't free to play right away.

What do you mean by "The APR may be more effective if yearly check-ins are required any way...waiting to the end like UCONN and being way short"?

Things should get interesting. The 930 will be mostly phased in (with a 940 two-year clause) for the 2014-15 season. For the 2015 postseason the data looked at will be for the years ended this spring.

Many schools should today know if they are screwed for the 2015 tournament. We'll see how the NCAA reacts if there are "too many of them".

Also remember that as of today, a student who has "fulfilled their academic requirements", has made satisfactory progress towards a degree, etc. and transfers CAN ding a schools APR (i.e., a 1-for-2). But again - the current rules are there for a reason (i.e., data suggests that students who transfer with less than a 2.6 GPA don't do nearly as well as compared to those who transfer with a 2.6 or higher GPA).

There are a number of issues here... and competing interests of different parties.

Anyway, I think Sultan is just plain nuts on this issue.

And APR in 2014-15 and 2015-16 is going to be trouble. Having teams banned from postseason hurts everyone. I'd change a lot of things up.

[Dr. Blackheart]

What I am saying is add to the APR requirements based on academic progress.  So, a freshman player has fulfilled progress towards his academic goals to be considered a sophomore, etc. in their field of study.  If they fulfilled that requirement, they can be released to play immediately at their new school.  If after freshman year, the school still classifies the student as a freshman, then they can still transfer but have to sit out a year.  Btw, this would hold back the basketball factory concern by happenstance from the free agent issue.

In UCONN's case, APR was ignored and students took crappy classes just to remain eligible.  Classes that didn't allow the student to progress toward graduating in a major.  The hoops player figured they are at UCONN so they are good enough and will just declare early...and UCONN will be given the APR pass.  Well, those students didn't declare and were just passed on and then the team was penalized.  If yearly checks on academic progress were required, APR would have not been an issue for UCONN.

[forgetful]

What I am saying is add to the APR requirements based on academic progress.  So, a freshman player has fulfilled progress towards his academic goals to be considered a sophomore, etc. in their field of study.  If they fulfilled that requirement, they can be released to play immediately at their new school.  If after freshman year, the school still classifies the student as a freshman, then they can still transfer but have to sit out a year.  Btw, this would hold back the basketball factory concern by happenstance from the free agent issue.

In UCONN's case, APR was ignored and students took crappy classes just to remain eligible.  Classes that didn't allow the student to progress toward graduating in a major.  The hoops player figured they are at UCONN so they are good enough and will just declare early...and UCONN will be given the APR pass.  Well, those students didn't declare and were just passed on and then the team was penalized.  If yearly checks on academic progress were required, APR would have not been an issue for UCONN.

The APR is becoming a non-issue.  Schools know how to beat the system already.  Most high D1 schools just institute new majors that nearly all of their athletes that may be at risk focus on.  So they can still take the crappy classes just to remain eligible and progress towards a degree.

The APR hit some schools early, but they have adjusted.

[GGGG]

So if competitive balance (and, of course, revenue) shouldn't be the main driver of the NCAA, what should be?
Your position here is the equivalent of a company's board of directors putting the best interests of its labor force ahead of that of its shareholders and customers. Because, gosh, without those widget makers the company wouldn't have a product to sell and the customers wouldn't be getting their widget fix met.
You're a smart guy Terror .... which is why it's hard to figure your naivete here.

Again....I UNDERSTAND WHY THE NCAA WON'T WANT TO DO THIS!!!

That doesn't mean *I* don't think it should be done.

[GGGG]

So, every year, about 14% of eligible basketball student athletes transfer. At Marquette, about 11% of the general population freshmen transfer for their sophomore year. It sounds like the free market is working here.

The one area I have a concern with is if a non-revenue SA decides to transfer, and gets a release from their original school (assuming this is to assure that athlete has achieved proper academic status), they get to play at their next school right away.  A revenue sport athlete has to wait a year.  Is that fair?  Seems a bit discriminatory as a two tiered system.

I know that JayBee laid out the academic case for the difference between the sports and why that exists.  But, if a student fulfills their academic requirements for that year, I feel they should be released unconditionally of the sport to play immediately if they so choose. The scholarship is good for a year, why shouldn't a SA be free to move?  The APR may be more effective if yearly check-ins are required any way...rather than waiting to the end like UCONN and being way short.  Set the requirement to academic progress, or the transferee must sit out the year.

Excellent points.  I agree with this entirely.

[Jay Bee]

In UCONN's case, APR was ignored and students took crappy classes just to remain eligible.  Classes that didn't allow the student to progress toward graduating in a major.  The hoops player figured they are at UCONN so they are good enough and will just declare early...and UCONN will be given the APR pass.  Well, those students didn't declare and were just passed on and then the team was penalized.  If yearly checks on academic progress were required, APR would have not been an issue for UCONN.

UCONN's horrid APR scores weren't mostly due to players not graduating. Not at all. It was mostly due to crappy grades and not going to class. Numerous kids became ineligible. It was not due to academic progress toward degree issues.

(Also the NCAA retroactively changing punishments was questionable.)

The APR is becoming a non-issue.  Schools know how to beat the system already.  Most high D1 schools just institute new majors that nearly all of their athletes that may be at risk focus on.  So they can still take the crappy classes just to remain eligible and progress towards a degree.

The APR hit some schools early, but they have adjusted.

I believe the opposite is true. It's going to become a bigger issue. It's not yet phased-in. There are issues that are extremely difficult to address. Look at MU for examples.

(btw, I will dig into some APR numbers for MU and others this week. MU should be in fine shape, but a rough year or two can really put schools into a difficult spot.)

[TJ]

And I am very much against four year scholarships.  The motivation needs to be there to earn your spot.

Agreed, and I think that's another argument for your idea.  If it's a one year renewable contract, make it a one year renewable contract for both parties.  What if the coach/team/institution isn't living up to its word/promises/etc.  The player has no recourse but to transfer and sit out a year, and then they have to deal with the jerk who didn't live up to his word also putting a ton of restrictions on where he can transfer.

I knew a girl who played ball at a D3 school and it wasn't what she was promised when she got there.  Her options were to sit out a year or transfer to an NAIA school.  She had other NCAA offers, but was unwilling to sit, so she went NAIA.  This rule would help her situation just as much as a star.

[Benny B]

Agreed, and I think that's another argument for your idea.  If it's a one year renewable contract, make it a one year renewable contract for both parties.  What if the coach/team/institution isn't living up to its word/promises/etc.  The player has no recourse but to transfer and sit out a year, and then they have to deal with the jerk who didn't live up to his word also putting a ton of restrictions on where he can transfer.

I knew a girl who played ball at a D3 school and it wasn't what she was promised when she got there.  Her options were to sit out a year or transfer to an NAIA school.  She had other NCAA offers, but was unwilling to sit, so she went NAIA.  This rule would help her situation just as much as a star.

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who goes somewhere and finds out "it wasn't all that" in this age.  I may have had a different opinion up to the late 1990s/early 2000s when there was no facebook, twitter, ratemyprofessor.com, etc. and a campus could have spit-shined itself for recruiting visits without anyone ever being the wiser.  But today there are plenty of resources to vet a college and know what you're getting into, so the responsibility is on the SA to do their diligence before making a commitment.  If someone what fraudulently misled, that's another issue entirely, and one which I'm sure the NCAA would grant a waiver.

Nevertheless, D-III schools are non-scholarship, but they can receive "athletic-related" financial aid; moreover, D-III does permit a one-time transfer to all SAs already without having to sit a year, they simply can't take the "athletic-related" aid for one year.  That doesn't preclude a D-III school from awarding non-athletic, need-based or other financial aid to fill in the gap for that one year.  But even if that wasn't the case, the SA is typically only giving up a couple thousand in athletic financial aid, at most, so it's not nearly as much of an obstacle that the transfer rules for D-I revenue athletes.

[The Equalizer]

UCONN's horrid APR scores weren't mostly due to players not graduating. Not at all. It was mostly due to crappy grades and not going to class. Numerous kids became ineligible. It was not due to academic progress toward degree issues.

(Also the NCAA retroactively changing punishments was questionable.)

I believe the opposite is true. It's going to become a bigger issue. It's not yet phased-in. There are issues that are extremely difficult to address. Look at MU for examples.

(btw, I will dig into some APR numbers for MU and others this week. MU should be in fine shape, but a rough year or two can really put schools into a difficult spot.)

I didn't think of this before, but the unexpected return of Jake Thomas and Juan Anderson may have had something to do with maintaining MU's APR.

Assuming Cadougan graduated, with Furgueson and Blue leaving, Mayo's first semester ineligibility, and the potential of Anderson and Thomas transfers, our single year APR would have dropped to .896.  

The APR gives you 4 points/year--one for remaining eligible, and one for returning the next semester (or graduating if you've used up eligiblity).  Had Anderson and Thomas both followed through on their transfers, we would have been below the 925 cutoff:

Player	Actual	Possible	Notes
Vander Blue	3	4	NBA
Junior Cadougan	4	4
Trent Lockett	4	4
Jamil Wilson	4	4
Davante Gardner	4	4
Chris Otule	4	4
Derrick Wilson	4	4
Juan Anderson	3	4	Transfer
Todd Mayo	3	4	Adademics
Steve Talylor	4	4
Jake Thomas	3	4	Transfer
Jamal Ferguson	3	4	Transfer
TOTAL	43	48
APR	43/48	0.895833333

With Anderson and Thomas back in the fold, our single year improves to .938

If only one of them returned, our single year would have been .916

This wouldn't have affected NCAA eligiblity or scholarship limits (I don't think) because we were high enough in prior years, and the NCAA uses a 4-year rolling average.  

[TJ]

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who goes somewhere and finds out "it wasn't all that" in this age.  I may have had a different opinion up to the late 1990s/early 2000s when there was no facebook, twitter, ratemyprofessor.com, etc. and a campus could have spit-shined itself for recruiting visits without anyone ever being the wiser.  But today there are plenty of resources to vet a college and know what you're getting into, so the responsibility is on the SA to do their diligence before making a commitment.  If someone what fraudulently misled, that's another issue entirely, and one which I'm sure the NCAA would grant a waiver.

Nevertheless, D-III schools are non-scholarship, but they can receive "athletic-related" financial aid; moreover, D-III does permit a one-time transfer to all SAs already without having to sit a year, they simply can't take the "athletic-related" aid for one year.  That doesn't preclude a D-III school from awarding non-athletic, need-based or other financial aid to fill in the gap for that one year.  But even if that wasn't the case, the SA is typically only giving up a couple thousand in athletic financial aid, at most, so it's not nearly as much of an obstacle that the transfer rules for D-I revenue athletes.

I got the details wrong then.  She had a partial scholarship to a lower-level NCAA school.  The coach misled her about certain things during recruitment, and the reality of the situation was not the same.  It was nothing that she would have been granted a waiver for, and even if it was it was all verbal anyway, but it was enough that she no longer wanted to be there.  I don't know all the details at all, but it's just a broad example to show that this wouldn't affect only the star at Murray State.

As for "this age" - you are stuck on the major universities.  Outside the biggest 150 schools there are still hundreds of schools with scholarship (or partial) athletes that are affected by this rule.  It is not as easy as you think to find all of the details you need to know about Middle of Nowhere State.  

Plus we are again back to saying that 16-17 year olds shouldn't make a mistake and they can face the consequences if they do, but grown coaches and institutions should not be held liable in any way.  If a kid can be cut by a coach they should also be able to transfer without penalty, OR the coach should have to lose a scholarship for a year if he cuts someone.  The inequity is mind-boggling.

And before you start, I like Sultan do understand the NCAA has a vested interest in keeping the status quo.  Doesn't mean its right.  Pakuni brings up businesses that wouldn't do something against their interests, but businesses have to deal with labor that is allowed to unionize and fight back.  NCAA athletes have no such recourse.

[Benny B]

As for "this age" - you are stuck on the major universities.  Outside the biggest 150 schools there are still hundreds of schools with scholarship (or partial) athletes that are affected by this rule.  It is not as easy as you think to find all of the details you need to know about Middle of Nowhere State.  

Actually, there is plenty of information on Washington State University on the web.

In seriousness, I do get what you're saying, but caveat emptor.  If you're going somewhere small enough to not have a reputation at all, then you have to understand there may be consequences for going into uncharted territories.

[Jay Bee]

I didn't think of this before, but the unexpected return of Jake Thomas and Juan Anderson may have had something to do with maintaining MU's APR.

Assuming Cadougan graduated, with Furgueson and Blue leaving, Mayo's first semester ineligibility, and the potential of Anderson and Thomas transfers, our single year APR would have dropped to .896.  

The APR gives you 4 points/year--one for remaining eligible, and one for returning the next semester (or graduating if you've used up eligiblity).  Had Anderson and Thomas both followed through on their transfers, we would have been below the 925 cutoff:

Player	Actual	Possible	Notes
Vander Blue	3	4	NBA
Junior Cadougan	4	4
Trent Lockett	4	4
Jamil Wilson	4	4
Davante Gardner	4	4
Chris Otule	4	4
Derrick Wilson	4	4
Juan Anderson	3	4	Transfer
Todd Mayo	3	4	Adademics
Steve Talylor	4	4
Jake Thomas	3	4	Transfer
Jamal Ferguson	3	4	Transfer
TOTAL	43	48
APR	43/48	0.895833333

With Anderson and Thomas back in the fold, our single year improves to .938

If only one of them returned, our single year would have been .916

This wouldn't have affected NCAA eligiblity or scholarship limits (I don't think) because we were high enough in prior years, and the NCAA uses a 4-year rolling average.  

Your understanding of the APR could use some work. Not going to give a long lesson here, but some comments:

Vander as of a 3/4 - I don't think that will be the case. Two likely scenarios: (1) didn't complete the semester and finished ineligible academically, is a 2/4, or (2) completes the semester's classes and is a 3/3.

Jake Thomas - I understand him to have graduated. Therefore, no matter what he did next year MU would get the retention point. 4/4 whether he transferred, stayed at MU or went to work at a steel mill.

Todd Mayo - eligibility issue was from 2011-12 (served fall semester of 2012-13) - could be a 4/4, I believe.

Juan Anderson (had he transferred) & Jamal Ferguson - as long as their cumulative GPAs were 2.6+, should be 3/3.

-------------
Some of the reason why I think the APR will be a struggle for some schools are because of kids leaving for pro without finishing up their semester (i.e, 2/4 or 3/4 [grad students]).. and <2.6 GPA transfers. Kid can be perfectly eligible his entire time at your school, but if you've got a couple of kids who leave school right after the season ends to go workout with trainers, you've going to be banned from postseason.

-------------
PS - there is no 925 cutoff. You're speaking on rules from years ago.