Transfer article

[keefe]

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.   

They do great work. I am also a Patron.

[denverMU]

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.

In your example, unless a non-compete contract has been signed, if your employee decides to leave he may have to pay you back for school but you do not get to stop him from working for a year and tell him where he can and cannot work next.  You still have not addressed the utter hypocrisy of the coaches leaving for large sums of money...see Brad Stevens he asked 13 kids to come to Butler and trust him then he left for 22M.  He's not sitting out a year and Butler could not stop him from going.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In your example, unless a non-compete contract has been signed, if your employee decides to leave he may have to pay you back for school but you do not get to stop him from working for a year and tell him where he can and cannot work next.  You still have not addressed the utter hypocrisy of the coaches leaving for large sums of money...see Brad Stevens he asked 13 kids to come to Butler and trust him then he left for 22M.  He's not sitting out a year and Butler could not stop him from going.

I don't see the hypocrisy.  Brad Stevens is a contract employee.  The student athletes are not employees. 

Those student athletes also signed letters of intent to play at Butler University, not Brad Stevens University.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive to suggest kids don't go to schools without the coach, but at the same time many kids while at the school learn to want to be in the program and not necessarily the coach.  This is why some kids transfer after a coach leaves and some do not.

On the employee continued education thing....ok, then if a kid wants to transfer should he \ she be required to reimburse the school for the year they invested in the kid (room, board, training, coaching, tuition)?  If so, then I'm all for them coming and going as that would eliminate the risk that the university took and the investment they put into that student athlete.

[denverMU]

The hypocrisy with the coaches, who have signed contracts, are the ones complaining about kids transferring, turning their backs on the team and their teammates and as soon as they can get a better deal thay are gone.  No one limits the coach from leaving a school but the coaches want to limit the kids from leaving.  Hypocrisy

[Jay Bee]

The hypocrisy with the coaches, who have signed contracts, are the ones complaining about kids transferring, turning their backs on the team and their teammates and as soon as they can get a better deal thay are gone.  No one limits the coach from leaving a school but the coaches want to limit the kids from leaving.  Hypocrisy

Coaches enter into head coaching employment agreements. Many of these agreements have different forms of "punishing" the coach for leaving the school at certain times.

If kids wanted to only attend a school where they had great assurances the coach would be there for the next four years (i.e., in the form of an enormous buyout, loss of deferred comp, etc.), schools would take note of this and negotiate contracts accordingly.

The sob story of kids is mostly overdone. The comparison of coaches to student-athletes is absurd.

[denverMU]

The sob story of kids is mostly overdone. The comparison of coaches to student-athletes is absurd.

Well I guess that's it, you say so the discussion is over.  The slave owners said they were taking the risks and after all they fed and housed the slaves  why would the slaves want to be free.  The comparison is quite apt, the coaches demand loyalty from the players until they get a better deal and then there off. Another example you ask?  See Tan Tommy! 

[ChicosBailBonds]

The hypocrisy with the coaches, who have signed contracts, are the ones complaining about kids transferring, turning their backs on the team and their teammates and as soon as they can get a better deal thay are gone.  No one limits the coach from leaving a school but the coaches want to limit the kids from leaving.  Hypocrisy

But that's not true, they have clauses that often requires the coach to buyout a contract to leave.  For example, Steve Alford just had to do that with New Mexico.  There are consequences to their actions as well.

http://www.abqjournal.com/sports/39832/college/breaking-unm-steve-alford-come-to-buyout-agreement.html

[keefe]

But that's not true, they have clauses that often requires the coach to buyout a contract to leave.  For example, Steve Alford just had to do that with New Mexico.  There are consequences to their actions as well.

Trust me, that gets eaten by the new employer. The taxpayers of New Mexico thank you and your Bear Republic neighbors, Chico!

[denverMU]

Trust me, that gets eaten by the new employer. The taxpayers of New Mexico thank you and your Bear Republic neighbors, Chico!

+1,000,000 or 22M if your Brad Stevens.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Trust me, that gets eaten by the new employer. The taxpayers of New Mexico thank you and your Bear Republic neighbors, Chico!

Usually, it does, but the point is there are repercussions.  Someone is paying, it's not like you can walk away scott free.  Someone's wallet will be hit as a result of that change.


Again, I'm all for transferring with no penalty, so long as the student athlete reimburses the school for the investment they made in the student athlete.  Otherwise, they need to sit a year.

[denverMU]

Usually, it does, but the point is there are repercussions.  Someone is paying, it's not like you can walk away scott free.  Someone's wallet will be hit as a result of that change.


Again, I'm all for transferring with no penalty, so long as the student athlete reimburses the school for the investment they made in the student athlete.  Otherwise, they need to sit a year.

Chicos, I normally find you to be very rational and not arguing for arguments sake.  I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary to die on ths sword.  We all know the schools have the upper hand in this relationship, you even said so you think they should.  You want the school to be reimbursed by the athlete I suppose that would be fine.  I propose the athlete pay the school from the funds the school gives him from his share of ticket sales, tv contracts, and merchandise sales.  You have forgot to take into account the school receives monetary compensation once the athlete starts to play.

[Jay Bee]

Well I guess that's it, you say so the discussion is over.  The slave owners said they were taking the risks and after all they fed and housed the slaves  why would the slaves want to be free.  The comparison is quite apt, the coaches demand loyalty from the players until they get a better deal and then there off. Another example you ask?  See Tan Tommy! 

Well at least you don't sound racist.

Many who have a bit of a dislike for I4 do not have this dislike because he left for another job.

And let's remember - kids can transfer anywhere they wish. They just may not be able to play basketball immediately.

Maybe you crybabies would like coaches to start promising kids a certain number of minutes and punish the school if the kids don't receive the promised minutes of playing time. Poor kiddos.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, I normally find you to be very rational and not arguing for arguments sake.  I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary to die on ths sword.  We all know the schools have the upper hand in this relationship, you even said so you think they should.  You want the school to be reimbursed by the athlete I suppose that would be fine.  I propose the athlete pay the school from the funds the school gives him from his share of ticket sales, tv contracts, and merchandise sales.  You have forgot to take into account the school receives monetary compensation once the athlete starts to play.

I haven't forgotten about it, I just know what a pittance that money is in so many programs.  There are DI basketball programs that have as few as 6 home games and revenue of less than $60,000. (To be clear, I'm talking gate receipts...these programs make more in the form of Buy Guarantees). I'll give you an example, Grambling's basketball budget is $325K.  Of course there are those on the other side with many home games and larger revenues into the millions.  

At the end of the day, the school is taking the risk.  I don't think I'm falling on the sword with that argument....they are taking the risk.  Meanwhile, the student is getting an education, room and board, training expertise, coaching expertise, a chance to showcase his talents for a future job in the association or Europe (if he is good enough).  He is often getting to travel and experience something very few kids in this country get to experience.  That is valuable and worth something.  

So how about we propose paying the student athlete but the education, room and board are no longer free.  I'm paid by my employer, but I have to pay for my clothes, cleaning, my car, gas, etc.  Perhaps the students should have to pay for their uniforms, shoes, laundering of them.  

I just don't understand why people poohpooh what they are getting as if it has no or little value.  It has tremendous value and tremendous opportunities.

[real chili 83]

What are the rules for athletes transferring when there is a head coach change?  Is it different for incoming players versus existing players?

[ChicosBailBonds]

What are the rules for athletes transferring when there is a head coach change?  Is it different for incoming players versus existing players?

No rules.  Schools can release players from their commitments if they wish, but they do not have to.

[brandx]

Usually, it does, but the point is there are repercussions.  Someone is paying, it's not like you can walk away scott free.  Someone's wallet will be hit as a result of that change.


Again, I'm all for transferring with no penalty, so long as the student athlete reimburses the school for the investment they made in the student athlete.  Otherwise, they need to sit a year.

And should the school also cut a check to the student athlete for the revenue he/she created for the school?

[Jay Bee]

What are the rules for athletes transferring when there is a head coach change?  Is it different for incoming players versus existing players?

Like Chicos says - there are no rules specific to head coaching changes.

The key to remember is that kids commit to institutions, not to coaches or individuals. This is beaten into their heads time and time again. Those who sign an NLI contractually acknowledge this fact.

Sure, we know that many kids want to play for certain coaches. But the rules - which are clearly laid out for all parties to understand - are very clear that it's the academic institution that matters.
--------
In practice, schools are quick to release students from their NLI if a head coach leaves and the kid wants out. It's a PR thing and not doing so could negatively impact future recruiting.

No reason (except for "market conditions") that schools can't include provisions that make leaving a school "suddenly" quite painful for a coach under contract.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And should the school also cut a check to the student athlete for the revenue he/she created for the school?

How are you going to determine that?  If the kid doesn't play as a freshman and is on the bench, do they get $0?  And if they play only 10 minutes a game, then what?  How about the women's soccer player, what does she get?  Does the QB get more than the right tackle or the inside linebacker? 

[forgetful]

How are you going to determine that?  If the kid doesn't play as a freshman and is on the bench, do they get $0?  And if they play only 10 minutes a game, then what?  How about the women's soccer player, what does she get?  Does the QB get more than the right tackle or the inside linebacker? 

While we are at paying athletes for the value they bring to the University, we can't forget about everyone else.  Undergrads with top scores bring in $'s and recognition, why stop at just giving them scholarships, we should be paying them.  Not only that, but in some fields, the future graduates can be counted on for donations.  Let'd pay them forward for that money they are worth.

What about graduate students.  They do research (at top schools bringing in millions in revenue) and teach, all for a measly stipend that is barely sufficient to pay for living expenses. 

In life, very few are actually paid for the value they bring to an organization...if the athletes have an issue with it, by all means try Europe or the D-league.  This they bring value crap is ridiculous.  In fact at the vast majority of universities the athletes are not the students bringing in the most value, so in many regards they are already overcompensated for their value. 

[real chili 83]

Like Chicos says - there are no rules specific to head coaching changes.

The key to remember is that kids commit to institutions, not to coaches or individuals. This is beaten into their heads time and time again. Those who sign an NLI contractually acknowledge this fact.

Sure, we know that many kids want to play for certain coaches. But the rules - which are clearly laid out for all parties to understand - are very clear that it's the academic institution that matters.
--------
In practice, schools are quick to release students from their NLI if a head coach leaves and the kid wants out. It's a PR thing and not doing so could negatively impact future recruiting.

No reason (except for "market conditions") that schools can't include provisions that make leaving a school "suddenly" quite painful for a coach under contract.

Thanks JB.

Say, when's the tourney in Bloominton?

How's the move going?

[brandx]

While we are at paying athletes for the value they bring to the University, we can't forget about everyone else.  Undergrads with top scores bring in $'s and recognition, why stop at just giving them scholarships, we should be paying them.  Not only that, but in some fields, the future graduates can be counted on for donations.  Let'd pay them forward for that money they are worth.

What about graduate students.  They do research (at top schools bringing in millions in revenue) and teach, all for a measly stipend that is barely sufficient to pay for living expenses.  

In life, very few are actually paid for the value they bring to an organization...if the athletes have an issue with it, by all means try Europe or the D-league.  This they bring value crap is ridiculous.  In fact at the vast majority of universities the athletes are not the students bringing in the most value, so in many regards they are already overcompensated for their value.  

So Andrew Wiggins is overcompensated for his value? You're going to have to explain that to me. In a free market - his "value" is 10's of millions of dollars - so getting $20,000-$25,000 dollars this year to play at Kansas means he is overcompensated?

[forgetful]

So Andrew Wiggins is overcompensated for his value? You're going to have to explain that to me. In a free market - his "value" is 10's of millions of dollars - so getting $20,000-$25,000 dollars this year to play at Kansas means he is overcompensated?

Wiggins is one example (note I said most are over compensated).  For analogy sake, the discovery of the synthesis of Taxol has brought Florida State 100's of millions of dollars.  I would not be surprised if taxol and its analogs are approaching $1 billion in profits to FSU.  Yet, the vast vast majority of grad students that did the work to yield taxol and its derivatives got a free PhD and around $18-20K in living expenses each year.  In comparison, yes Wiggins would still be over compensated......given that as I mentioned, the vast majority are not Wiggins and do not contribute anywhere near that value.  In fact most yield no value whatsoever and cost universities money.  So on the average yes they are over compensated.  

Wiggins is an extreme case, one that occurs in all facets of life and business.

[keefe]

Sounds like college basketball players are ripe for organizing!

Hoopsters of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

[GGGG]

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.

Sorry...but Europe is not a "very viable" option.  The fact that only one player has chosen that route should show that.

The NCAA is a monopoly.  They have the upper-hand in determining the terms of the contract.  Most here seem to like system because we don't want to see players transfer...why I am not sure...but it is completely laughable if you think it is "fair."

I agree that the comparing it to the coaches is dumb because the coaches do what their contracts allow them to do.

However the players aren't employees, so they don't get workman's comp in case of injury, they can't collectively bargain, they don't earn what their "value" allows them to earn.  (I mean really....should Andrew Wiggins really get the same value from his contract with Kansas next year as the 13th guy on the bench?  Of course not.)

It is an absurd and unfair system - and the only reason it is set up this way is because the NCAA has no serious competitors.  And that's the way the membership wants it.  It is like a cartel.  That is why any sort of comeback along the lines of "well that's the contract" doesn't make any sense.  That is the same line of thinking when American commerce was dominated by the likes of Standard Oil.  If you have no real alternative, you have no choice but to accept their terms.

[Galway Eagle]

Sorry...but Europe is not a "very viable" option.  The fact that only one player has chosen that route should show that.

The NCAA is a monopoly.  They have the upper-hand in determining the terms of the contract.  Most here seem to like system because we don't want to see players transfer...why I am not sure...but it is completely laughable if you think it is "fair."

I agree that the comparing it to the coaches is dumb because the coaches do what their contracts allow them to do.

However the players aren't employees, so they don't get workman's comp in case of injury, they can't collectively bargain, they don't earn what their "value" allows them to earn.  (I mean really....should Andrew Wiggins really get the same value from his contract with Kansas next year as the 13th guy on the bench?  Of course not.)

It is an absurd and unfair system - and the only reason it is set up this way is because the NCAA has no serious competitors.  And that's the way the membership wants it.  It is like a cartel.  That is why any sort of comeback along the lines of "well that's the contract" doesn't make any sense.  That is the same line of thinking when American commerce was dominated by the likes of Standard Oil.  If you have no real alternative, you have no choice but to accept their terms.

The NAIA is totally a viable option! (Teal not needed)