Transfer article

[tower912]

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/07/ncaa_transfer_rule_college_coaches_can_block_their_former_players_from_getting.html

450 transfers so far this year.   Interesting perspective.   And maybe MU doesn't want to be like SLU after all. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

The drivel started with the very first sentence followed by the second.

Unjust?
Players get nothing?

I really wish some of these "authors" would actually do some research.

I read this article earlier today and thought about posting it, figured someone eventually would.  So much wrong with this article that is hides the 1 or 2 legit points the author actually has.

[Jay Bee]

Awful article.

[WarriorInNYC]

I read this yesterday after a friend of mine posted this on fb.  Very poorly done.

One thing I noted is that the author compares the mens basketball transfer rate to the transfer rate of non-athlete students in order to show that it is significantly less.  I'm assuming that this non-athlete student transfer rate encompasses all students.  What would be interesting is to see what the non-athlete student transfer rate is amongst those that have full-ride scholarships, as that would really be more applicable IMO.

[warriorchick]

I read this yesterday after a friend of mine posted this on fb.  Very poorly done.

One thing I noted is that the author compares the mens basketball transfer rate to the transfer rate of non-athlete students in order to show that it is significantly less.  I'm assuming that this non-athlete student transfer rate encompasses all students.  What would be interesting is to see what the non-athlete student transfer rate is amongst those that have full-ride scholarships, as that would really be more applicable IMO.

And if you click through to the article they reference for their stat that 1 in 3 college students eventually transfer, you will notice that they include students that transfer to a 4-year school from a 2-year school. Um, if you are going to a 2-year school, you have no choice but to transfer if you actually want to get a Bachelor's degree.  Also, what percentage of transfer students are  switching to a less expensive school because of finances?  Usually not an issue for students on a full-ride athletic scholly.

[Lennys Tap]

It's basically a bad editorial - the writer has a POV and doesn't much care if the "facts" that underpin it are true or not.

[denverMU]

While all the previous comments, about the article, may be true I still believe the main point of the article is valid.  IMHO, college athletes do get free room and board but the schools make millions.  It does seem as though the school have the upper hand in this arrangement between athletes and schools.  Athletes get free school.  The school makes the money and the coaches can not play a kid, tell him he won't ever play again, or not renew his scholarship.  Then they can stop a kid from going to any school they want.(with a scholarship)  That is crazy.  Finally, a coach can move any time they want.

[ChicosBailBonds]

While all the previous comments, about the article, may be true I still believe the main point of the article is valid.  IMHO, college athletes do get free room and board but the schools make millions.  It does seem as though the school have the upper hand in this arrangement between athletes and schools.  Athletes get free school.  The school makes the money and the coaches can not play a kid, tell him he won't ever play again, or not renew his scholarship.  Then they can stop a kid from going to any school they want.(with a scholarship)  That is crazy.  Finally, a coach can move any time they want.

350 DI schools, most don't make millions.  We have to stop thinking like college athletics is just the top 50 schools for basketball and football.  The money the NCAA makes funds all divisions, all sports championships, the vast vast vast majority of these sports lose money, yet those kids are still getting their free education which cannot be measured simply with the cost of tuition and room\board.  That educational value should be measured on what it leads to, what the earning power is for a college degree from that school vs not having a degree.

School does have the upper hand, as they should.

[WarriorInNYC]

While all the previous comments, about the article, may be true I still believe the main point of the article is valid.  IMHO, college athletes do get free room and board but the schools make millions.  It does seem as though the school have the upper hand in this arrangement between athletes and schools.  Athletes get free school.  The school makes the money and the coaches can not play a kid, tell him he won't ever play again, or not renew his scholarship.  Then they can stop a kid from going to any school they want.(with a scholarship)  That is crazy.  Finally, a coach can move any time they want.

The only thing I think would be worth changing, is allowing players to transfer without sitting out a year if their head coach leaves elsewhere.  That and the limiting player's options of schools for when they transfer should probably be curtailed a bit.

But this notion that the NCAA/schools are taking advantage of student-athletes is absurd.

[denverMU]

350 DI schools, most don't make millions.  We have to stop thinking like college athletics is just the top 50 schools for basketball and football.  The money the NCAA makes funds all divisions, all sports championships, the vast vast vast majority of these sports lose money, yet those kids are still getting their free education which cannot be measured simply with the cost of tuition and room\board.  That educational value should be measured on what it leads to, what the earning power is for a college degree from that school vs not having a degree.

School does have the upper hand, as they should.

Why should schools have the upper hand?  Why shouldn't it be a mutually fair arrangement?  Yes, at many schools(like MU),high revenue sports pay for all other sports.  That is great but at most of those schools there are millions of dollars left over that the schools make because of the athletes performances.

[denverMU]

The only thing I think would be worth changing, is allowing players to transfer without sitting out a year if their head coach leaves elsewhere.  That and the limiting player's options of schools for when they transfer should probably be curtailed a bit.

But this notion that the NCAA/schools are taking advantage of student-athletes is absurd.

If this notion is so absurd, why would you make any changes?  Many schools make millions from major sports and can cut athletes at any time and restrict their ability to move from school to school.  The most hypocritical part of the arrangement is the coaches complaining about athletes changing schools( not for more money) but the coaches leaving all the time for more cash.

[Lennys Tap]

350 DI schools, most don't make millions.  We have to stop thinking like college athletics is just the top 50 schools for basketball and football.  The money the NCAA makes funds all divisions, all sports championships, the vast vast vast majority of these sports lose money, yet those kids are still getting their free education which cannot be measured simply with the cost of tuition and room\board.  That educational value should be measured on what it leads to, what the earning power is for a college degree from that school vs not having a degree.

School does have the upper hand, as they should.

Chicos, my man, we have to do an intervention and save what's left of your Friedman principles. How would you feel if year after year your division knocked it out of the park but you went unrewarded as the profits went to subsidize divisions within the company that ALWAYS lost money? If universities can find 200 large lying around to pay a guy to teach one 3 hour class they can figure out a way to pay for the volleyball team. If not, non revenue sports can become non scholarship as well.

[brandx]

Chicos, my man, we have to do an intervention and save what's left of your Friedman principles. How would you feel if year after year your division knocked it out of the park but you went unrewarded as the profits went to subsidize divisions within the company that ALWAYS lost money? If universities can find 200 large lying around to pay a guy to teach one 3 hour class they can figure out a way to pay for the volleyball team. If not, non revenue sports can become non scholarship as well.

You took the words out of my keyboard (and probably made the point better than I would have). Isn't using Bball and Fball players' talents to fund other sports the very definition of taking advantage of these kids?

And to say they are getting a free education doesn't mean much either. Many are getting this 'free education' only because they are not allowed, by rule,  to pursue the job they seek without going to school.

[WarriorInNYC]

And to say they are getting a free education doesn't mean much either. Many are getting this 'free education' only because they are not allowed, by rule,  to pursue the job they seek without going to school.

This is completely false.  Nowhere does it say they have to go to school.  Europe is an option for basketball, and a very viable one (Jennings).  Football on the other hand is a different story, but again, they don't HAVE to go to school.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You took the words out of my keyboard (and probably made the point better than I would have). Isn't using Bball and Fball players' talents to fund other sports the very definition of taking advantage of these kids?

And to say they are getting a free education doesn't mean much either. Many are getting this 'free education' only because they are not allowed, by rule,  to pursue the job they seek without going to school.

The kids don't have to go to school to pursue their job. They can go somewhere else and apply their trade. Europe, Mexico, Canada, Globetrotters, XFL, Youtube, whatever.

This isn't to say that the athletic scholarships are perfectly "fair", but everybody knows the deal before they sign. If you don't like the deal, don't sign.

[GGGG]

The drivel started with the very first sentence followed by the second.

Unjust?
Players get nothing?

The players do get something...but IMO is completely unjust.

Every player should get one free transfer without sitting out...no restrictions.  The world wouldn't end by any means.

[brandx]

This is completely false.  Nowhere does it say they have to go to school.  Europe is an option for basketball, and a very viable one (Jennings).  Football on the other hand is a different story, but again, they don't HAVE to go to school.

You may be correct, but if you are coming out of law school, would you accept a job with a two man firm in Racine or with a large firm in D.C.? Racine is an option, but if you really want to make it, which do you choose?

Andrew Wiggins has that option - he'll be the #1 pick - regardless of what he does or where her goes. Most don't have the same options.

[keefe]

You may be correct, but if you are coming out of law school, would you accept a job with a two man firm in Racine or with a large firm in D.C.? Racine is an option, but if you really want to make it, which do you choose?

Andrew Wiggins has that option - he'll be the #1 pick - regardless of what he does or where her goes. Most don't have the same options.

I am from DC and you really cannot get a good Kringle anywhere in the National Capital Region.

[WarriorInNYC]

You may be correct, but if you are coming out of law school, would you accept a job with a two man firm in Racine or with a large firm in D.C.? Racine is an option, but if you really want to make it, which do you choose?

Andrew Wiggins has that option - he'll be the #1 pick - regardless of what he does or where her goes. Most don't have the same options.

Using your analogy, if I was coming out of law school and wanted to get paid right away, have less exposure with less competition, then have a legitimate shot at going to a larger firm later, then I would go with the two man firm in Racine.

If I wanted to have an unpaid internship for a year (or more if I wanted), test myself against the best competition, have tons of exposure in the market I eventually want to be in, and then have a shot to go somewhere else, then I would go to the large firm in D.C.  Oh, and this lawfirm in DC would also provide me with career training in another field (just in case the whole law route didn't work out), provide me with housing in DC, and pay for my meals.  By the way, throughout this unpaid internship at this law firm, they are going to bill my services out to our clients at $200/hour.  I'm not getting paid and the firm is making money off the work I'm doing.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Using your analogy, if I was coming out of law school and wanted to get paid right away, have less exposure with less competition, then have a legitimate shot at going to a larger firm later, then I would go with the two man firm in Racine.

If I wanted to have an unpaid internship for a year (or more if I wanted), test myself against the best competition, have tons of exposure in the market I eventually want to be in, and then have a shot to go somewhere else, then I would go to the large firm in D.C.  Oh, and this lawfirm in DC would also provide me with career training in another field (just in case the whole law route didn't work out), provide me with housing in DC, and pay for my meals.  By the way, throughout this unpaid internship at this law firm, they are going to bill my services out to our clients at $200/hour.  I'm not getting paid and the firm is making money off the work I'm doing.

And you will receive per diem when you travel, which is the best kept secret in college athletics.

[brandx]

Using your analogy, if I was coming out of law school and wanted to get paid right away, have less exposure with less competition, then have a legitimate shot at going to a larger firm later, then I would go with the two man firm in Racine.

If I wanted to have an unpaid internship for a year (or more if I wanted), test myself against the best competition, have tons of exposure in the market I eventually want to be in, and then have a shot to go somewhere else, then I would go to the large firm in D.C.  Oh, and this lawfirm in DC would also provide me with career training in another field (just in case the whole law route didn't work out), provide me with housing in DC, and pay for my meals.  By the way, throughout this unpaid internship at this law firm, they are going to bill my services out to our clients at $200/hour.  I'm not getting paid and the firm is making money off the work I'm doing.

I wonder who is more successful - on average - someone who interns at a large law firm in NYC or DC or someone starting (and getting paid) at a small town firm.

(Hopefully I don't need to put this in teal)

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, my man, we have to do an intervention and save what's left of your Friedman principles. How would you feel if year after year your division knocked it out of the park but you went unrewarded as the profits went to subsidize divisions within the company that ALWAYS lost money? If universities can find 200 large lying around to pay a guy to teach one 3 hour class they can figure out a way to pay for the volleyball team. If not, non revenue sports can become non scholarship as well.

I love Uncle Milty, but sports is a different world and I think Milty would say the same thing.

The comparison you laid out is apples to oranges, because my company isn't requiring us to carry a bunch of people or products that are a complete burden to the bottom line without making other contributions. (Yes, there are many departments that don't bring in revenue per se, but the provide a support function like IT, customer service, accounting, etc, that are needed to run a division). In the world of college athletics, we have money makers (for some schools) in men's hoops and football, then we have money losers in women's volleyball, women's hoops, track and field, tennis, soccer, etc, etc.  Yet to be NCAA certified, all those sports have to be fielded to constitute a DI athletic program...minimum of 14 sports with the necessary scholarships.  So going by those restrictive rules (haven't even gotten into Title IX yet), the revenue producers have to pay for the others (think about who pays fed taxes vs those that don't).

It sucks, I get it.  Totally get it.  The question comes down to whether we feel it is the right thing to do to have men's and women's teams competing.  The law is pretty clear on this.  As such, because most of these teams lose money something has to bring in revenue to cover those expenses.  If we believe (and if the courts concur) that creating a scheme where only revenue sports are played and have their own P & L, self sufficient, etc...then I believe there is a more legitimate way to reach an end to this.  However, I don't see the courts, college presidents, female athletes, male athletes from non-revenue sports, etc allowing this to happen. Until it does, there are 400,000+ athletes to deal with, the overwhelming majority playing a sport that loses money and is subsidized by the revenue sports, NCAA television money (to some extent), student activity fees, donations, etc. 

As for the Petraeus thing, that salary will be funded by a gift to CUNY. Of course, that goes to the question of whether that gift money could be spent on something else....a question that ultimately comes back to the gifter who chooses to provide the gift. 

If someone can present a legitimate model here that deals with the realities of what the courts have ruled, I'm sure many folks would love to hear it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why should schools have the upper hand?  Why shouldn't it be a mutually fair arrangement?  Yes, at many schools(like MU),high revenue sports pay for all other sports.  That is great but at most of those schools there are millions of dollars left over that the schools make because of the athletes performances.

I don't agree with your latter statement to say most schools are in that situation.  That's just off memory, I would have to check the data to be certain.

In terms of the upper hand question, I have several reasons why I believe that should be the case.  Risk is primary.

The school is assuming the risk in holding a scholarship slot for that student athlete.  If he\she doesn't work out and the team suffers, the school's athletic department takes the majority of hit be it in prestige, lost ticket sales (revenue), etc

The school is providing the coaching expertise, the educational opportunity, the venue(s) for which to train and showcase talents


Think of it this way.  Many companies have educational reimbursement programs.  For example, if one of my people desires to get an MBA, we will pay for it in full but they have to sign off that they will be here for a full five years, otherwise we're paying to increase the skills of an employee on our dime when they could leave and apply those skills (which we paid for) at another company.  We're taking on the initial risk, we get the payoff with a better employee down the road.  I view the relationship with student athletes in a similar fashion.  The university is putting up the dollars to educate, house, feed, train this student athlete and in return the student athlete performs for the university.  That's a HEAVY investment by the university with no guarantee of return...in fact often there is no return.  If the student athlete does make it big, it is in large part to that investment the university made, including helping to showcase that athlete on television, in large arenas, in the media, through connections, etc.  The student athlete benefits greatly, even if they do hit the big time because without the vehicle to perform, they are on their own to reach their goal of professional athlete.

[keefe]

350 DI schools, most don't make millions.  We have to stop thinking like college athletics is just the top 50 schools for basketball and football.  The money the NCAA makes funds all divisions, all sports championships, the vast vast vast majority of these sports lose money, yet those kids are still getting their free education which cannot be measured simply with the cost of tuition and room\board.  That educational value should be measured on what it leads to, what the earning power is for a college degree from that school vs not having a degree.

I have serious doubts as to your free market credentials. Be advised I have notified the Cato Institute of your treasonous remarks.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have serious doubts as to your free market credentials. Be advised I have notified the Cato Institute of your treasonous remarks.

As my beloved president /sarc  would say, it's nuanced.   


I don't think they are going to budge, I'm considered "patron" level in terms of annual donation to Cato.org....they want my money.