Coach K weighs in on Transfers.....no exceptions

[TJ]

The answer seems pretty obvious, doesn't?

Your quote...

What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else.  Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue.  Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also?  I'm just asking.

To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently.  Am I wrong in this assumption?

If it's not ok to have a different set of rules for football, basketball, baseball, and hockey players then why is it ok that they currently have a different set of transfer rules for them?

[NavinRJohnson]

Appalachian state be clowning themselves, and showing in crystal clear form how one sided and ridiculous the NLI/transfer rules are.

Translation: "we hold all the cards, and are not going to allow this selfish little brat to do what he believes to be in his best interest, as it conflicts with our interests."

The line I like most..."As our coaching staff fully expected, Devonte had a terrific senior season last winter and, accordingly, drew the interest of programs from what are widely recognized as "power conferences."

So they fully expected it, but went ahead and signed him to the NLI anyway, and now they're   bitching about it and are unwilling to take any responsibility. Instead, they are indignant when the kid wants to take advantage of what he perceives to be a better opportunity, and he's the selfish one. Good grief!

http://www.appstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=21500&ATCLID=209269294

[GGGG]

They should have never written that press release.  They only made it worse. 

And they should release the kid from his NLI.  This won't end well for them.

[Jay Bee]

You guys are nuts.

Go cry about people who agreed to pay a car loan back and now "don't have the money". "Oooh, poor person.. yeah, they agreed to something, but ... ummm, oooh, big mean bank"

Word is bond, son.

[GGGG]

You guys are nuts.

Go cry about people who agreed to pay a car loan back and now "don't have the money". "Oooh, poor person.. yeah, they agreed to something, but ... ummm, oooh, big mean bank"

Word is bond, son.

Right.

In the long run, Appy State isn't going to benefit from this.  Just like MU wouldn't have benefited requiring Tayshawn Taylor stick to his.  You don't want a player on your team that doesn't want to be there.

[Jay Bee]

In the long run, Appy State isn't going to benefit from this.  Just like MU wouldn't have benefited requiring Tayshawn Taylor stick to his.  You don't want a player on your team that doesn't want to be there.

Completely agree on that. What I don't like is the "outrage" over a school playing by the rules.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They should have never written that press release.  They only made it worse. 

And they should release the kid from his NLI.  This won't end well for them.

I support App State 100% on this.  The kid signed a letter of intent.  App State turned away other kids they could have signed.  Abide by what you signed. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Right.

In the long run, Appy State isn't going to benefit from this.  Just like MU wouldn't have benefited requiring Tayshawn Taylor stick to his.  You don't want a player on your team that doesn't want to be there.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it will hurt App State either.  I don't get why it is so devastating that these kids learn a lesson that signing a contract or a NLI or other obligation is something that is not only enforceable, it should be at its core a follow through on your word.  He signed a letter of intent.  When he hadn't blown up, App State was his best option and we was all good to go there.  Then, all of a sudden he gets better and the school that went after him and committed to him and vice versa is no longer good enough.  Then sit out a year young man.  Next time wait to sign the NLI or don't sign it at all.

There has to be consequences for actions. 

[NavinRJohnson]

Again, argument is primarily about the NLI/transfer rule, which is so ridiculously one-sided. But as usual, you guys demonstrate plain and simple who you are concerned about in defending outdated rules - yourselves, the college basketball fan, and your viewing plaesure.  Rather than justify the rule, you rationalize this crap under the guise of 'living up to your commitments.' I'm all for living up to commitments, but circumstances change, times change, etc., and 'rules are rules' ceases to be an adequate defense, particularly when the rules in question are in place to protect and professional sports league posing as an amateur organization.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Again, argument is primarily about the NLI/transfer rule, which is so ridiculously one-sided. But as usual, you guys demonstrate plain and simple who you are concerned about in defending outdated rules - yourselves, the college basketball fan, and your viewing plaesure.  Rather than justify the rule, you rationalize this crap under the guise of 'living up to your commitments.' I'm all for living up to commitments, but circumstances change, times change, etc., and 'rules are rules' ceases to be an adequate defense, particularly when the rules in question are in place to protect and professional sports league posing as an amateur organization.

Sorry, I've yet to hear you explain why it is bad to have someone live up to what they signed?  You say circumstances change, times change, etc.....we live in a world where agreements are supposed to mean something.  Let's see, this month has been a little tought, guess what Wells Fargo, I don't think I'm going to pay my full mortgage cuz times have changed.

Exactly what would you like to see done?  A kid can say he's going to a school, the school holds a slot for him and then has to turn away other kids only to  let the kid at the end change his mind leaving the school high and dry?  Doesn't the coach, school, team to which the person committed suffer injury in that case?  That's before we even get into the reality of what total chaos would be created without a NLI system.

I'm for it because it stabilizes the system, and it requries two sides to enter into an agreement.

[forgetful]

I support App State 100% on this.  The kid signed a letter of intent.  App State turned away other kids they could have signed.  Abide by what you signed. 

I agree completely. At the end of the year he can transfer.  A University like App State is going to have a difficult time finding a good replacement.  Getting one year of the commitment to allow them to find a replacement is fair.  I also agree with it being a good life lesson.

As far as it being one-sided (Navin).  I disagree.  There are far more athletes that seek a release and get it than there are athletes that are forced to abide by the NLI.  Those are mutual decisions, the athlete wants to leave and the University agrees.  The flip side happens from time to time, when a player is in over their head.  They have the option to stay and force the NLI...most do not, they also agree that it is the wrong place for them and move on.  Not one-sided at all.   Navin does have more of a point on the transfers rather than the NLI.

[NavinRJohnson]

Exactly what would you like to see done?  A kid can say he's going to a school, the school holds a slot for him and then has to turn away other kids only to  let the kid at the end change his mind leaving the school high and dry?  Doesn't the coach, school, team to which the person committed suffer injury in that case?  That's before we even get into the reality of what total chaos would be created without a NLI system.

Consistency across the board. That's it. Similar movement rules that apply to coaches and players alike. Coach is fired or moves on, you are allowed to transfer, no questions. All scholarships are for four years, not one, so the school/coach can't decide that you aren't good enough anymore and cut you loose, when you aren't allowed to improve our situation without having to sit a year,when you exceed expectations? Think the players don't suffer injury in such cases? Think these things don't cause a little chaos in their lives? Of course it does. You just don't care about them. You want your March Madness damnit.

This is about the NCaA and members protecting their revenue streams, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, only some are willing to admit it.

As I said earlier, your provide rationalization, not justifications because you are fan of college basketball/football, and changes would be bad for business.

[GGGG]

I agree completely. At the end of the year he can transfer.  A University like App State is going to have a difficult time finding a good replacement.  Getting one year of the commitment to allow them to find a replacement is fair.  I also agree with it being a good life lesson.

As far as it being one-sided (Navin).  I disagree.  There are far more athletes that seek a release and get it than there are athletes that are forced to abide by the NLI.  Those are mutual decisions, the athlete wants to leave and the University agrees.  The flip side happens from time to time, when a player is in over their head.  They have the option to stay and force the NLI...most do not, they also agree that it is the wrong place for them and move on.  Not one-sided at all.   Navin does have more of a point on the transfers rather than the NLI.

He won't play for App State.  He will sit, or go Juco.  App State is in a no win situation here and is going to look the loser no matter what.

[forgetful]

He won't play for App State.  He will sit, or go Juco.  App State is in a no win situation here and is going to look the loser no matter what.

That's his right to do.  Regardless this is a good life lesson for the young man.

[keefe]

That's his right to do.  Regardless this is a good life lesson for the young man.

Agree. Kid signed a contract. Honor it.

[MU82]

Agree. Kid signed a contract. Honor it.

And Coach K signed a contract, too. So he shouldn't even have been talking to the Lakers.

In fact, not only do all the coaches sign these contracts, many (if not all) of them tell their players they will be there for the entirety of their time at the university. That "verbal contract," of course, is non-binding.

I think these are separate issues. If one wants to say a kid should stand by his word, okey dokey, I won't argue with that.

But when one of these sanctimonious coaches -- guys who seem to view loyalty as a one-way street -- lecture the rest of us about living up to contracts, I can only laugh.

And yes, I am well aware that most high-level coaches have out clauses and buyouts. IMHO, when they bolt, they still are breaking the spirit of their contract -- and lying to the very kids they want to be loyal to them.

[keefe]

And Coach K signed a contract, too. So he shouldn't even have been talking to the Lakers.

In fact, not only do all the coaches sign these contracts, many (if not all) of them tell their players they will be there for the entirety of their time at the university. That "verbal contract," of course, is non-binding.

I think these are separate issues. If one wants to say a kid should stand by his word, okey dokey, I won't argue with that.

But when one of these sanctimonious coaches -- guys who seem to view loyalty as a one-way street -- lecture the rest of us about living up to contracts, I can only laugh.

And yes, I am well aware that most high-level coaches have out clauses and buyouts. IMHO, when they bolt, they still are breaking the spirit of their contract -- and lying to the very kids they want to be loyal to them.

You will get no argument from me on this. Two words: Tom Crean.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Consistency across the board. That's it. Similar movement rules that apply to coaches and players alike. Coach is fired or moves on, you are allowed to transfer, no questions. All scholarships are for four years, not one, so the school/coach can't decide that you aren't good enough anymore and cut you loose, when you aren't allowed to improve our situation without having to sit a year,when you exceed expectations? Think the players don't suffer injury in such cases? Think these things don't cause a little chaos in their lives? Of course it does. You just don't care about them. You want your March Madness damnit.

This is about the NCaA and members protecting their revenue streams, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, only some are willing to admit it.

As I said earlier, your provide rationalization, not justifications because you are fan of college basketball/football, and changes would be bad for business.

Yes, stability is always good for business, it's also good for the programs, the universities and the athletes.  Everyone knows where they stand.  To say I don't care about them is just wrong.  I'm betting I'm one of only 2 or 3 people on this board that has actually worked in DI athletics, with the student athletes and did so for a number of years.  I care quite a lot about them.  If my son continues to progress the way he is, he may be one of those DI athletes in a few years...we'll see.

Players and coaches aren't the same, nevertheless when a coach leaves he\she usually has to pay a penalty of some kind...or a consequence (just like transferring has a consequence).  4 year scholarships already exist today. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

You will get no argument from me on this. Two words: Tom Crean.

6 words

Rick Majerus...broke contract
Kevin O'Neill....broke contract
Buzz Williams....broke contract

However, there should be an argument.  They broke their contract, but also had to pay a penalty to do so.  Thus, a consequence.  Just like transferring brings a....Consequence.  I don't know why people that keep bringing up the coaches leave argument as if there aren't consequences there as well.  There are.

[Jay Bee]

Buzz Williams....broke contract

However, there should be an argument.  They broke their contract, but also had to pay a penalty to do so.  Thus, a consequence.  Just like transferring brings a....Consequence.  I don't know why people that keep bringing up the coaches leave argument as if there aren't consequences there as well.  There are.

Debatable. Crean of course was praising Marquette and his contract which ran through 2017... then players found out from the media he was jumping ship.

Williams on the other hand.. filed suit against UNO.. both disputing that he owed a termination fee, but also seeking damages.

When he became head coach, the case settled. The terms of the settlement? We don't know.

Often in legal disputes you settle because it becomes such a long, drawn out headache. In fact, even in criminal trials many innocent people plead guilty to get the trial process over with. Despite some reports to the contrary but the often-wrong media, the settlement details weren't released.

So.. why did Buzz leave UNO and did he break his contract? Reasonable arguments from multiple perspectives can be made with the limited knowledge we have.

Crean on the other hand was a different story. Why players had to find out from the media? Well, that's still one that I don't think there is a good answer to. Why did he leave? We all know that. I4.

Completely different situations.

[MU82]

6 words

Rick Majerus...broke contract
Kevin O'Neill....broke contract
Buzz Williams....broke contract

However, there should be an argument.  They broke their contract, but also had to pay a penalty to do so.  Thus, a consequence.  Just like transferring brings a....Consequence.  I don't know why people that keep bringing up the coaches leave argument as if there aren't consequences there as well.  There are.

Consequence:

When a player breaks his contract to go to another school, he has to sit out a year. He spends that year in limbo. He is part of the team, but not really.

Consequence:

When a coach breaks his contract to go to another school, he starts coaching at his new place on Day 1. He is worshiped as a savior. Oh, and he almost always walks right into a situation in which he immediately starts receiving larger paychecks.

The system, as usual, screws the player while making the coach ever richer.

[Jay Bee]

Consequence:

When a player breaks his contract to go to another school, he has to sit out a year. He spends that year in limbo. He is part of the team, but not really.

No - a kid spending a year in residence enjoys a year practicing with his team while he benefits academically by being able to focus on easing into a new surrounding via free education w/o competing. (Free) Academics first. Great situation - thanks, 5-year clock!

Many schools would love to have stud transfers play immediately. NCAA says let's really care for these kids - and put their academic well being at the forefront.

[keefe]

No - a kid spending a year in residence enjoys a year practicing with his team while he benefits academically by being able to focus on easing into a new surrounding via free education w/o competing. (Free) Academics first. Great situation - thanks, 5-year clock!

Many schools would love to have stud transfers play immediately. NCAA says let's really care for these kids - and put their academic well being at the forefront.

very well put, JB

[mu03eng]

No - a kid spending a year in residence enjoys a year practicing with his team while he benefits academically by being able to focus on easing into a new surrounding via free education w/o competing. (Free) Academics first. Great situation - thanks, 5-year clock!

Many schools would love to have stud transfers play immediately. NCAA says let's really care for these kids - and put their academic well being at the forefront.

Where does one find the NCAA kool aid to drink?  Sitting out a year to get the academics straight is straight up horse hockey.  If that was the case why would the NCAA waive that requirement when they punished Penn State by allowing players to transfer without the year sit out penalty?  The NCAA made it part of the punishment showing it is intended as a disincentive for players to transfer.  In fact the conferences often have rules about in conference transfers sitting out for 2 years, it is punitive in nature.

Coaches occasionally have to suffer consequences but more often than not their buy out is paid by their new school, they can leave immediately, potentially bring their recruits with them, and have a larger paycheck. 

Oh and the recruits usually don't have a ton of money for legal representation and to be able to fully understand all of their options.  You are asking a 16/17 year kid to understand all the ins and outs of college recruiting and all the permutations consequences and then hold him to a contract he signed.  I'm pretty sure he's learned a lesson already, forcing a stand off doesn't help anyone.

[forgetful]

Where does one find the NCAA kool aid to drink?  Sitting out a year to get the academics straight is straight up horse hockey.  If that was the case why would the NCAA waive that requirement when they punished Penn State by allowing players to transfer without the year sit out penalty?  The NCAA made it part of the punishment showing it is intended as a disincentive for players to transfer.  In fact the conferences often have rules about in conference transfers sitting out for 2 years, it is punitive in nature.

Universities made it a penalty for their coach to leave by putting a buyout in the contract.  It was intended to be punitive in nature.  On the otherhand, when an athlete leaves a University the University gets nothing in return.  Seems to favor the athlete (see how we can flip these things if we want to.)

Coaches occasionally have to suffer consequences but more often than not their buy out is paid by their new school, they can leave immediately, potentially bring their recruits with them, and have a larger paycheck. 

So the new school is punished by having to pay a substantial buyout.  Similar to the new school of a transfer to have to provide up to $250,000 in scholarships and related benefits for an athlete that cannot compete.  Meanwhile, they get free training and education that can help them get a Masters degree all on the Universities dime.  Seems like the only ones getting a benefit are the new coach (better job) and the athlete (possibly better school and a chance at a free masters degree). In both cases the University loses out. 

Oh and the recruits usually don't have a ton of money for legal representation and to be able to fully understand all of their options.  You are asking a 16/17 year kid to understand all the ins and outs of college recruiting and all the permutations consequences and then hold him to a contract he signed.  I'm pretty sure he's learned a lesson already, forcing a stand off doesn't help anyone.

By most accounts the kid in question here is unlikely to ever be a professional athlete.  Instead of complaining about how unfair his contract is.  Maybe he should be thinking about the fact that he now has 5-years of free education to pursue a Masters degree and set him up for life. 

It is easy to pick one side or the other.  In reality there are consequences and benefits for all parties involved.  One is not being treated more or less fairly than the other.  It all just depends on an individuals perspective of the situation.  I think more often than not, if you think the NCAA is the big bad wolf, everything they do is wrong and unfair to the athlete.  The reality is these kids are getting a really good deal.  They can make the best of it if they chose.