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

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The player gets something for that one year...no inequity at all.  Most get far more than they give, but either way it is a Give and Get relationship. How many guys are studs for 4 years?  Very few.  So while they are learning the system, etc, etc, they are GETTING a lot more than they are GIVING.

If they want to leave, they can leave...and STILL have their remaining years of eligibility left.  They just have to sit out a year.  It's part of the deal, don't like it...don't sign the paper and don't play ball at a school that gives a one year scholarship.  Demand a 4 year scholarship, which are permissible.

Finally, how is there no penalty?  If a kid transfers, they are down a player.  That hurts the team.  Especially if it is a transfer that the school doesn't want.  There are transfers and there are TRANSFERS.  If DG transferred last year, that would be a big loss for MU.  The school is penalized as such.  If it was a below average player, the impact is much less, but how can you say there are no impacts to the school?  Did they not fork out a ton of money to coach that kid?  Feed that kid?  Shelter that kid?  Clothe that kid?  Did they not invest the coaching into the kid?   It's like hiring someone at work, training them for several months and they leave....that doesn't penalize the company?  Of course it does, just like a kid transferring penalizes a school.

It amazes me that people are so completely blind to THIS.

Personally, I don't like looking at scholarships in the same way I look at a contract. In a very basic sense they are the same thing. "If you do service X than we will pay Y amount of money" vs. "If you maintain GPA X, do community service Y, etc. then we will pay Z amount of money towards your tuition." But I have NEVER seen any other scholarship besides athletics that require a student to sit out for a year because they transfer schools. They may lose that scholarship, but they aren't prevented from acquiring another one.

If you want to look at as a contract, that is fine. But these scholarships are only one year contracts. If a player decides not to renew their scholarship after the contract is up, why should they be penalized? If I don't renew my contract as a Texas A&M employee at the end of the year, there is no penalty for me. Yes the school fed the player, housed the player, and developed the player. But they way I see it, the player already paid the school back by playing their sport for the year.

Just my humble opinion. I'm always going to value the wellbeing of the student over the wellbeing of the university

[ChicosBailBonds]

Personally, I don't like looking at scholarships in the same way I look at a contract. In a very basic sense they are the same thing. "If you do service X than we will pay Y amount of money" vs. "If you maintain GPA X, do community service Y, etc. then we will pay Z amount of money towards your tuition." But I have NEVER seen any other scholarship besides athletics that require a student to sit out for a year because they transfer schools. They may lose that scholarship, but they aren't prevented from acquiring another one.

If you want to look at as a contract, that is fine. But these scholarships are only one year contracts. If a player decides not to renew their scholarship after the contract is up, why should they be penalized? If I don't renew my contract as a Texas A&M employee at the end of the year, there is no penalty for me. Yes the school fed the player, housed the player, and developed the player. But they way I see it, the player already paid the school back by playing their sport for the year.

Just my humble opinion. I'm always going to value the wellbeing of the student over the wellbeing of the university

We have employee contracts that essentially do the same thing.  If you leave, you have to "sit out a year" (or longer) based on where you go.  Cannot go to a competitor, etc.  Now, there are all sorts of lawyers that will say those types of restrictions aren't legal, but they're there and commonplace for many in the industry.

These scholarships MAY be one year, but 4 year scholarships available now as well.  That rule was changed last year.

Maybe the player did "pay the school back" for playing that year.  Suppose the player rode the pine the entire year, or suppose he was redshirting.  He certainly provided some value in practice, etc, but did the university get in return what they gave?  I'm merely thinking out loud, but seems a fair question.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Very few. But those students can apply for similar scholarships at their new school. So why can't athletes leave, lose their scholarship at school A and get a new one at school B?

I realize that I am dumbing it down a lot. But I really think that if student athletes are truly students first, then they should be able to transfer without penalty.

Still comes down to filling a roster out, planning for a roster, etc.  If the art student leaves who is on a scholarship, it doesn't prevent the art department from fielding a team.  Nor is the art department spending a hundred thousand dollars on training the athlete, etc.  Not sure these examples are apples to apples in my opinion. 

[avid1010]

We have employee contracts that essentially do the same thing.  If you leave, you have to "sit out a year" (or longer) based on where you go.  Cannot go to a competitor, etc.  Now, there are all sorts of lawyers that will say those types of restrictions aren't legal, but they're there and commonplace for many in the industry.

These scholarships MAY be one year, but 4 year scholarships available now as well.  That rule was changed last year.

Maybe the player did "pay the school back" for playing that year.  Suppose the player rode the pine the entire year, or suppose he was redshirting.  He certainly provided some value in practice, etc, but did the university get in return what they gave?  I'm merely thinking out loud, but seems a fair question.

in the real world non-compete clauses rarely hold up...and to act like a d1 athlete can negotiate a contract in the same manner as someone with a non-compete is ridiculous. 

it is great that you're thinking of how kids can pay universities back if they don't make enough money of them, but you won't think about how a university should pay a kid if they make way more $$$ off them than the scholarship and facility uses are worth...the only difference is that if a school doesn't like a kid after a year he's gone...if a kid doesn't like a school after a year he's options are more limited. 

[Jay Bee]

I'm with Chicos on this for a number of reasons.

One problem with the many people who whine about the current setup is that they haven't thought through the various potential pitfalls of other models. Slippery slopes all around. I fear that one day a "fix" is going to hose things up for most or all of the stakeholders. A sad, "are you happy now?" situation.

Personally, I don't like looking at scholarships in the same way I look at a contract. In a very basic sense they are the same thing. "If you do service X than we will pay Y amount of money" vs. "If you maintain GPA X, do community service Y, etc. then we will pay Z amount of money towards your tuition."

Actually you can take out that second quote. In both the business world and college basketball the first quote applies. If you play basketball, then we will pay your tuition and certain other expenses.

The second quote is similar to saying, "if you perform work to expectations, come to work on time, make money for the company, etc. then we will you X amount of money to you".

[augoman]

If a school fires a coach under contract, he still gets paid every penny he has coming to him. That coach can even become a head coach or assistant at another school or in the NBA and get paid by two organizations.

Usually the school firing the coach is relieved of his salary if the coach signs a new contract at another school.

[NavinRJohnson]

I absolutely agree that there should be a hard, fast, no-exception rule on this issue ... as soon as there is a hard, fast, no-exception rule that a coach can't walk out on his contract at one school and start working at another immediately.

It's easy for Mr. High & Mighty to want a rule constraining 20-year-olds that he doesn't have to abide by himself.

He can leave for untold millions but if a kid leave wants to leave for an opportunity ... screw the "student/athlete."

What a hypocritical crock of you-know-what.

This, and its not close. If coaches want the freedom to move without sitting out a year, the players should be afforded the same opportunity. Farce is the right word.

[NavinRJohnson]

You guys think way too much about the schools and not nearly enough about the students.

Testify, Brother. I have been making this agprgument on this board for some time now. I get it, though most arent willing to call it what it is, people want their college ball, they want MU to be good, etc., and these types of rules help to accommodate that.

If they did change to a hard and fast rule, that eliminates the requirement that kids sit out a year, and MU's program goes belly up as a result (it wouldn't), so be it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If a school fires a coach under contract, he still gets paid every penny he has coming to him. That coach can even become a head coach or assistant at another school or in the NBA and get paid by two organizations.

But if a coach fires a student-athlete, the kid is completely on his own.

Please ... let's not even try to claim that coaches have the right to high moral ground on this issue. They own the kids. Aside from the true superstars, the kids are totally beholden to every whim by the coaches, who are free to do what they want in their careers with almost total freedom.

This is not always accurate.  Let me explain what happens.  Often a coach is "reassigned", which means they aren't fired.  So you reassign Bob Dukiet to the Rec Center (I'm not kidding) and of course Bob Dukiet says not a chance in hell, I want to continue to coach.  So they then work out a separation agreement which is far less than what was remaining on the contract.  So, in fact, they don't get every penny coming to them in those situations.  This is exactly what we did to Mr. Dukiet until a settlement was reached.  It is still done today.

Good paper on it right here   http://www.drthompark.com/publications/N5E.pdf

[ChicosBailBonds]

Testify, Brother. I have been making this agprgument on this board for some time now. I get it, though most arent willing to call it what it is, people want their college ball, they want MU to be good, etc., and these types of rules help to accommodate that.

If they did change to a hard and fast rule, that eliminates the requirement that kids sit out a year, and MU's program goes belly up as a result (it wouldn't), so be it.

People want people to honor commitments.  You sign the line which is dotted...I come play for you, you pay for my education, room, board, etc.  If I leave early, I have to sit out a year.

Why on earth is this a bad thing to want people to honor commitments?  The kids are getting plenty out of the deal, in many cases FAR more than the university gets.  Yes, in other cases the university gets far more than the athlete.  It's the way it goes.

[Jay Bee]

This is not always accurate.  Let me explain what happens.  Often a coach is "reassigned", which means they aren't fired.  So you reassign Bob Dukiet to the Rec Center (I'm not kidding) and of course Bob Dukiet says not a chance in hell, I want to continue to coach.  So they then work out a separation agreement which is far less than what was remaining on the contract.  So, in fact, they don't get every penny coming to them in those situations.  This is exactly what we did to Mr. Dukiet until a settlement was reached.  It is still done today.

Good paper on it right here   http://www.drthompark.com/publications/N5E.pdf

Chicos, I think you're living in the stone ages a bit. Things have changed. That paper appears really old.

You don't see coaches being "often reassigned". They are usually out the door immediately if fired (although some of the archaic contract templates used by some schools would have you fooled -it's nutty).

Early termination provisions are generally handled on the front end and some offer HUGE payouts (though generally not as much as 'every penny coming to the coach' if he remained employed through the stated date of the contract). A example is Indiana's new deal with Tom Crean, which started off last November with a monstrous $16MM termination fee due to Crean if he's fired early "without cause".

Where settlement agrees are reached is usually when contracts have been poorly written (which is often the case). An issue seen far too often is that a memorandum of understanding is reached with a coach, but a formal contract isn't finalized for months or even years... then a separation occurs and debate ensues. By law, one party is often "in the right", but litigating is brutally awful and if it's not clear as day a settlement is often the right approach.

Schools and coaches need to get out in front of contracts... they have become increasingly complex over the past decade and of course the compensation packages have jumped significantly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, I think you're living in the stone ages a bit. Things have changed. That paper appears really old.

You don't see coaches being "often reassigned". They are usually out the door immediately if fired (although some of the archaic contract templates used by some schools would have you fooled -it's nutty).

Early termination provisions are generally handled on the front end and some offer HUGE payouts (though generally not as much as 'every penny coming to the coach' if he remained employed through the stated date of the contract). A example is Indiana's new deal with Tom Crean, which started off last November with a monstrous $16MM termination fee due to Crean if he's fired early "without cause".

Where settlement agrees are reached is usually when contracts have been poorly written (which is often the case). An issue seen far too often is that a memorandum of understanding is reached with a coach, but a formal contract isn't finalized for months or even years... then a separation occurs and debate ensues. By law, one party is often "in the right", but litigating is brutally awful and if it's not clear as day a settlement is often the right approach.

Schools and coaches need to get out in front of contracts... they have become increasingly complex over the past decade and of course the compensation packages have jumped significantly.

I think I was pretty clear to say this isn't always the case (a coach getting every penny), because it is not.  I used Dukiet as an example.  Yes, this particular paper is older, but it also explains what I was saying.  Yes, it is still done today.  Typically at smaller schools or non revenue sports, but it still happens today.  Most recently about 8 months ago to Jacksonville State's head football coach.

DeWayne Walker's contract expired this year, 2013, head coach at New Mexico State (he was a UCLA coach) and the clause allows NMSU to reassign him.  http://www.coacheshotseat.com/CHSNewMexicoState.pdf     (Walker quit this January to become defensive coach for the Jax Jaguars).




But yes, a good attorney and a strong contract that tilts to the coach's side is going to prevent this.  I'm merely pointing out this isn't always the case, even today, and the coach isn't getting every penny as stated.  That's not even factoring in if he was fired for cause, etc, etc, which also would hinder collection of remaining wages.  Don't think I'm in the stone age, provided you with a few examples from just a few months ago.  Still happens today.

[MU82]

I've already admitted to exaggerating about "every penny" coming to the coach.

The point is that coaches who are fired are taken care of quite nicely. And, unless they have made lots of enemies, they usually can step right into a good job, even if it's only as an assistant. See: Wainwright, Jerry; Judson, Rob; etc., etc., etc.

Meanwhile, a player who is fired is set adrift. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

And a huge percentage of those set adrift are not the very good players with legitimate pro aspirations. Most are the Jake Thomas (or worse) types who simply were deemed expendable. (I know Jake had some kind of agreement coming in and I also know that it ended up working out for him to stay; I'm just using him as an example of ability level.) Some might be good enough to get a scholarship at a lesser place, but others might not.

And that's not the point, anyway. The point is that the whole system favors coaches and administrators by a gazillion miles more than the "kids" they all claim to care so deeply about.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I've already admitted to exaggerating about "every penny" coming to the coach.

The point is that coaches who are fired are taken care of quite nicely. And, unless they have made lots of enemies, they usually can step right into a good job, even if it's only as an assistant. See: Wainwright, Jerry; Judson, Rob; etc., etc., etc.

Meanwhile, a player who is fired is set adrift. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

And a huge percentage of those set adrift are not the very good players with legitimate pro aspirations. Most are the Jake Thomas (or worse) types who simply were deemed expendable. (I know Jake had some kind of agreement coming in and I also know that it ended up working out for him to stay; I'm just using him as an example of ability level.) Some might be good enough to get a scholarship at a lesser place, but others might not.

And that's not the point, anyway. The point is that the whole system favors coaches and administrators by a gazillion miles more than the "kids" they all claim to care so deeply about.

Yes, life is unfair sometimes, though I STRONGLY disagree with your gazillion times comment.  Who benefits from non-revenue sports...the university or the student athletes?  I would put that squarely on the side of the student athlete 9 times out of 10.  Most of them have no pro league to go to, and if they did, 99.99% of them aren't going there anyway.  Yet they get school paid for and what does the university get out of it?  All that publicity from the women's tennis team?   Come on.

[TJ]

I've already admitted to exaggerating about "every penny" coming to the coach.

The point is that coaches who are fired are taken care of quite nicely. And, unless they have made lots of enemies, they usually can step right into a good job, even if it's only as an assistant. See: Wainwright, Jerry; Judson, Rob; etc., etc., etc.

Meanwhile, a player who is fired is set adrift. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

And a huge percentage of those set adrift are not the very good players with legitimate pro aspirations. Most are the Jake Thomas (or worse) types who simply were deemed expendable. (I know Jake had some kind of agreement coming in and I also know that it ended up working out for him to stay; I'm just using him as an example of ability level.) Some might be good enough to get a scholarship at a lesser place, but others might not.

And that's not the point, anyway. The point is that the whole system favors coaches and administrators by a gazillion miles more than the "kids" they all claim to care so deeply about.

This is what Chicos, et. al. don't want to admit in my opinion:

The NCAA is working toward the best interests of the NCAA first, the member institutions second, and in a distant third the student-athletes.
The member institutions are working toward the best interests of themselves, and that's pretty much it.
The student-athletes have no power whatsoever.  They didn't collectively sign any agreements about how the system should work and they have no influence when changes in the system are made.  Their representative should be the NCAA, but that's not how the system works.  That's why it's a crappy system, rigged against the players.  That's why a coach can leave on a whim and get a new job the next day, or even get fired and get a new job the next day, but the student athlete has to sit out a year if he wants to, or is forced to transfer.  That's why the coach gets compensation if he is fired, but if the student athlete gets cut he is out on his own and even if he finds a new opportunity he has to sit out a year.  (Actually, I think I would have a lot less of a problem with all of this if players who were cut were allowed to transfer without sitting out a year.)

One of the biggest problems I have with Chicos argument is when he said that the players choose to sign the scholarship agreement and they don't have to.  Seriously - what choice do they have?  What negotiating power do they have to get a different agreement?  It's either play by the NCAA/member institution's rules or stay home.

[TJ]

Yes, life is unfair sometimes, though I STRONGLY disagree with your gazillion times comment.  Who benefits from non-revenue sports...the university or the student athletes?  I would put that squarely on the side of the student athlete 9 times out of 10.  Most of them have no pro league to go to, and if they did, 99.99% of them aren't going there anyway.  Yet they get school paid for and what does the university get out of it?  All that publicity from the women's tennis team?   Come on.

Who the hell is talking about non-revenue sports in this thread?

[Jay Bee]

Who the hell is talking about non-revenue sports in this thread?

You have to. They're married together with revenue sports.

[NavinRJohnson]

People want people to honor commitments.  You sign the line which is dotted...I come play for you, you pay for my education, room, board, etc.  If I leave early, I have to sit out a year.

Why on earth is this a bad thing to want people to honor commitments?  The kids are getting plenty out of the deal, in many cases FAR more than the university gets.  Yes, in other cases the university gets far more than the athlete.  It's the way it goes.

If the same applied to all involved, I'd agree with you. Scholarships aren't renewed, coach leaves for a better gig, coach is fired, etc...all examples of one party or another not living up to their commitment, yet its only the player that is required to sit a year. So, in your basketball world, its seemingly only about the players living up to their commitments, further reinforcing the fact that what you really care about is pretty much the same as the NCAA...maintaining the legal monopoly status quo.

[NavinRJohnson]

You have to. They're married together with revenue sports.

Says who?

[MU82]

Who the hell is talking about non-revenue sports in this thread?

Exactly.

[NavinRJohnson]

Yes, life is unfair sometimes, though I STRONGLY disagree with your gazillion times comment.  Who benefits from non-revenue sports...the university or the student athletes?  I would put that squarely on the side of the student athlete 9 times out of 10.  Most of them have no pro league to go to, and if they did, 99.99% of them aren't going there anyway.  Yet they get school paid for and what does the university get out of it?  All that publicity from the women's tennis team?   Come on.

So in other words, the Football and basketball players should have to foot the bill for the players in all of those other sports, as they have for years, and that's just the way it is, huh? Again and again with your comments you demonstrate where your priorities lie...yourself as a college sports fan.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Who the hell is talking about non-revenue sports in this thread?

That's the biggest problem with you guys that want to pay student athletes, YOU NEVER factor in non-revenue sports, women's sports, etc.  YET YOU HAVE TO FOR TITLE IX purposes.  That's one of the biggest obstacles you guys have and you NEVER address it....because you can't.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So in other words, the Football and basketball players should have to foot the bill for the players in all of those other sports, as they have for years, and that's just the way it is, huh? Again and again with your comments you demonstrate where your priorities lie...yourself as a college sports fan.

It's the law

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is what Chicos, et. al. don't want to admit in my opinion:

The NCAA is working toward the best interests of the NCAA first, the member institutions second, and in a distant third the student-athletes.

In your lifetime, you have dealt with the NCAA as a college athletics administrator or student athlete how often?

[ChicosBailBonds]

If the same applied to all involved, I'd agree with you. Scholarships aren't renewed, coach leaves for a better gig, coach is fired, etc...all examples of one party or another not living up to their commitment, yet its only the player that is required to sit a year. So, in your basketball world, its seemingly only about the players living up to their commitments, further reinforcing the fact that what you really care about is pretty much the same as the NCAA...maintaining the legal monopoly status quo.

That's not accurate.  Those coaches sign contracts also, which ALLOW THEM to leave but with penalty (payout to the school, etc).  Just as student athletes can leave...WITH PENALTY (sit out a year).

You make it sound like they just leave and their are no repercussions.  Yes there are.  Different repercussions, but there are still repercussions.