Good for Wojo

[MU82]

I also think, if their is a coaching change, the year sit-out rule should be suspended for a transfer in good standing.

All the rule does is protect the coach and the school....this is suppose to be about the student athletes.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Whew ... thanks for that ... I needed a good laugh this morning.

[mu03eng]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Whew ... thanks for that ... I needed a good laugh this morning.

That's why I'm here 

[Coleman]

If I were coach I'd say no Big East and no UW. You are restricting 10 other choices out of 351 schools in 32 Division I conferences. I think that is more than reasonable.

But Wojo is clearly a better man than I

[Pakuni]

The year sit-out rule should be done away with under any circumstance. As you say, that is not about the player, it's about protecting the schools only. The only restriction should be mid-year transfer, where Deonte Burton, as an expample could not transfer from MU and be playing at ABCU the next week. Similar to the contractual obligations in the rest of pro sports. If these guys are on one year renewable contracts, I think its fine to enforce that within the year, but if they want to transfer during the off season, and sign a "free agent contract" with another school, there is no good reason for the NCAA to force them to sit out a year.

Well, actually, there is a really good reason to discourage transfers. Without some disincentive, players would be constantly recruited away from their schools. Is the system for recruiting of high school kids so ethical and proper that you want to extend it into the college ranks?

I mean, can you imagine what it would have been like around Marquette had Dwyane Wade been a "free agent" after his first season? Think UNC, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, etc., might have come calling? Think he would have stayed in Milwaukee if he had the opportunity to go play for Coach K, and face absolutely no barrier to leaving? Think of all the smaller programs whose top talent would be pilfered every season by the top programs. And the even larger number of kids at those top programs who would be encouraged to leave to make way for transfers.

It's fair to argue that the system is unfair to players, and there probably should be more allowance for special circumstances (i.e. a coach leaves, family issues, etc.). But, as has been noted before, playing NCAA college basketball is a voluntary activity, and any kid who feels the rules are too oppressive or unfair can explore other options.

[NavinRJohnson]

I mean, can you imagine what it would have been like around Marquette had Dwyane Wade been a "free agent" after his first season? Think UNC, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, etc., might have come calling? Think he would have stayed in Milwaukee if he had the opportunity to go play for Coach K, and face absolutely no barrier to leaving?

I get it, but again that looks at it from the schools' perspective, so you have effectively demonstrated the reason for the rule. It's to protect the school, NCAA, etc. It's not about the player at all. On the contrary, it is about systematically limiting players' ability to move. Small programs would suffer on one hand, but may benefit on the other, as room is made at UK for Dwyane Wade to come play there.

I understand its voluntary, and the NCAA can do what they want. Doesn't make it right however, and at the very least its time for everyone to call it what it is, and stop hiding behind this sham of amateurism, and student athletes, etc (as it relates to the big time revenue sports).

[bilsu]

I get it, but again that looks at it from the schools' perspective, so you have effectively demonstrated the reason for the rule. It's to protect the school, NCAA, etc. It's not about the player at all. On the contrary, it is about systematically limiting players' ability to move. Small programs would suffer on one hand, but may benefit on the other, as room is made at UK for Dwyane Wade to come play there.

I understand its voluntary, and the NCAA can do what they want. Doesn't make it right however, and at the very least its time for everyone to call it what it is, and stop hiding behind this sham of amateurism, and student athletes, etc (as it relates to the big time revenue sports).

The school invest a significant amount of money in educating and training players. I think the one year rule should still be there. What they should do is make mid-year transfers sit out 1 1/2 years. Players leaving midseason really hurt a team. Maybe Dawson and Burton should of asked the coach what they need to do to improve their games instead of sulking about playing time.

[NavinRJohnson]

Maybe Dawson and Burton should of asked the coach what they need to do to improve their games instead of sulking about playing time.

How exactly do you know they didn't, or that they sulked about playing time?

[Warhawk Warrior]

Woo takes the high road.  Good for him.  Players shouldn't have more restrictive provisions than paid coaches.

[Pakuni]

I get it, but again that looks at it from the schools' perspective, so you have effectively demonstrated the reason for the rule. It's to protect the school, NCAA, etc. It's not about the player at all. On the contrary, it is about systematically limiting players' ability to move. Small programs would suffer on one hand, but may benefit on the other, as room is made at UK for Dwyane Wade to come play there.

I understand its voluntary, and the NCAA can do what they want. Doesn't make it right however, and at the very least its time for everyone to call it what it is, and stop hiding behind this sham of amateurism, and student athletes, etc (as it relates to the big time revenue sports).

I guess I don't understand why anyone would find it unethical or inappropriate for the NCAA - and organization created by and for its member institutions - to make rules that benefit those member institutions.
I mean, that's the reason the NCAA exists in the first place.

[Dawson Rental]

The school invest a significant amount of money in educating and training players. I think the one year rule should still be there. What they should do is make mid-year transfers sit out 1 1/2 years. Players leaving midseason really hurt a team. Maybe Dawson and Burton should of asked the coach what they need to do to improve their games instead of sulking about playing time.

Like you, I suspect, mid-year transfers leave me scratching my head.  You have to want out really bad to give up a year of eligibility along with sitting out a year.  It smacks of impulsiveness to me.  I assume that kids start out the year thinking that they'll have a certain role on the team, then when they don't see it happening rather than persevering and working to make it happen, they bolt.  On the other hand, if a kid wants out that badly, is he someone that you'd still want around your program?  That's why I am somewhat surprised by the excitement displayed with many here about the prospect of getting one.  There are exceptions like Semi Ojeleye who will give up eligibility while sitting out their transfer no matter what they do since they have already used up the year they can take without using up eligibility by doing a redshirt year.  Ultimately, I think that the school is properly protected with hitting a kid with a loss of a year of eligibility during the year of sitting out.

It's also helpful for me to remember that when you'e in your late teens and 20's a year is a lot longer than it is later on in life, so the prospect of playing out the year then sitting out a year without playing (almost two year's time) can seem like putting your life on hold indefinitely.

[Dawson Rental]

I guess I don't understand why anyone would find it unethical or inappropriate for the NCAA - and organization created by and for its member institutions - to make rules that benefit those member institutions.
I mean, that's the reason the NCAA exists in the first place.

WOW!  Think about what you just said.

If all the grocery chains in the US got together and agreed to price-fix certain food items in order to gouge the public would it be ethical because their agreement benefited the member organizations?

[brewcity77]

It's more of the immediacy that we see in sports. These kids want to play now, and if they can't play now, they don't want to wait until November 2016. If Dawson doesn't get in this year, doesn't really get any meaningful run, he'll have to sit out until then. But if he transfers now, he'll be able to play in December 2015. It's a year sooner. Sure, he burns a year in the process, but when you're 19-20 years old, you have all your life ahead of you. You already have to wait a year, and if you wait you will have to wait 2. Big difference when the 2 years represents 10% of your life as opposed to 5% or less.

As we all know, youth is wasted on the young.

[NavinRJohnson]

I guess I don't understand why anyone would find it unethical or inappropriate for the NCAA - and organization created by and for its member institutions - to make rules that benefit those member institutions.
I mean, that's the reason the NCAA exists in the first place.

Of course that'$ what they're about. I guess I just want them and everyone related to it to stop pretending it isn't and stop with this BS of amateurism, etc.

they claim to be about the 'student athletes,' but as you correctly state, their priority is the institutions and use a percentage of those athletes to fund it all. That percentage deserves to be treated differently.

[NavinRJohnson]

WOW!  Think about what you just said.

If all the grocery chains in the US got together and agreed to price-fix certain food items in order to gouge the public would it be ethical because their agreement benefited the member organizations?

Correct. Like I said, let's call it what is.

[Pakuni]

WOW!  Think about what you just said.

If all the grocery chains in the US got together and agreed to price-fix certain food items in order to gouge the public would it be ethical because their agreement benefited the member organizations?

The analogy doesn't work because the NCAA isn't a monopoly for 18-22 year old young men who want to play basketball.

[Coleman]

Like you, I suspect, mid-year transfers leave me scratching my head.  You have to want out really bad to give up a year of eligibility along with sitting out a year.  It smacks of impulsiveness to me.  I assume that kids start out the year thinking that they'll have a certain role on the team, then when they don't see it happening rather than persevering and working to make it happen, they bolt.  On the other hand, if a kid wants out that badly, is he someone that you'd still want around your program?  That's why I am somewhat surprised by the excitement displayed with many here about the prospect of getting one.  There are exceptions like Semi Ojeleye who will give up eligibility while sitting out their transfer no matter what they do since they have already used up the year they can take without using up eligibility by doing a redshirt year.  Ultimately, I think that the school is properly protected with hitting a kid with a loss of a year of eligibility during the year of sitting out.

It's also helpful for me to remember that when you'e in your late teens and 20's a year is a lot longer than it is later on in life, so the prospect of playing out the year then sitting out a year without playing (almost two year's time) can seem like putting your life on hold indefinitely.

I agree for someone like Burton, who was playing 16/min a game, its pretty mind-boggling to give up eligibility for a mid-year transfer.

But I do get it for Dawson. The dude hadn't played for the first game, so he was basically burning eligibility anyway.

[jsglow]

The analogy doesn't work because the NCAA isn't a monopoly for 18-22 year old young men who want to play basketball.

+1.

I'm a firm believer in free competition for grocery stores but sports is predicated on some level of the 'collective good' in order to be most successful.  I personally support the one year red-shirt rule while allowing all student athletes the ability to use their 4 scholarship years over a 5 year time frame.  I also support the graduate transfer rule as a means of encouraging athletes to finish their degrees in a timely manner.  I think about Carlino. Perhaps his mindset was one year of great point guard coaching might improve his professional opportunities next year.  He's already a college grad so he's simply pursuing his future professional objectives right now in the best way possible.  Win/win.

[mu03eng]

+1.

I'm a firm believer in free competition for grocery stores but sports is predicated on some level of the 'collective good' in order to be most successful.  I personally support the one year red-shirt rule while allowing all student athletes the ability to use their 4 scholarship years over a 5 year time frame.  I also support the graduate transfer rule as a means of encouraging athletes to finish their degrees in a timely manner.  I think about Carlino. Perhaps his mindset was one year of great point guard coaching might improve his professional opportunities next year.  He's already a college grad so he's simply pursuing his future professional objectives right now in the best way possible.  Win/win.

I do think the grocery store analogy is a good one.  I have an alternative to the grocery store, raise my own crops or purchase from a farm direct, etc.  There are alternatives but they are certainly less desirable.  The grocery store could argue banding together is for the greater good, perhaps better purchase power, etc.

Now, I think there should be a one year restriction because there would be chaos otherwise, plus the schools and coaches do have an investment in the player so there does need to be a protection against losing that investment unnecessarily.  However, when a coach leaves or other significant alteration in what the student "signed up for" I think that protection should be removed.

I do agree with Pakuni that if you had no restriction there would be recruiting endlessly.  When the NCAA imposed the penalties against Penn State they also allowed players to transfer without penalty.  Friggin Tim Beckman of Illinois had his coaches camped outside the football players residences for a week trying to recruit them away.

[jakeec]

What about Bo? How does he handle transfers?

Similar with George Marshall, Ian Markloff and Mickey Perry.  Uthoff there was likely some tampering going on.

[MU Buff]

Uthoff there was likely some tampering going on.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify it.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I do think the grocery store analogy is a good one.  I have an alternative to the grocery store, raise my own crops or purchase from a farm direct, etc.  There are alternatives but they are certainly less desirable.  The grocery store could argue banding together is for the greater good, perhaps better purchase power, etc.

Now, I think there should be a one year restriction because there would be chaos otherwise, plus the schools and coaches do have an investment in the player so there does need to be a protection against losing that investment unnecessarily.  However, when a coach leaves or other significant alteration in what the student "signed up for" I think that protection should be removed.

I do agree with Pakuni that if you had no restriction there would be recruiting endlessly.  When the NCAA imposed the penalties against Penn State they also allowed players to transfer without penalty.  Friggin Tim Beckman of Illinois had his coaches camped outside the football players residences for a week trying to recruit them away.

You are making an apples and oranges comparison.  The player-university relationship is more like an employee-employer relationship.  As such the player is essentially signing a 4 year contract with the university that gives the university the option to terminate after each year.  The player can ask out of the contract and typically is granted a release.  The one year rule that requires transfers to sit out is essentially a one year non-compete clause, typical of what you might find in a work contract.

Take Epic Software in Verona.  A friend of my wife worked there for a few years but finally decided to quit, was unemployed for a few months, got a job in retail, then went to work for a software consulting company after her one year non-compete time expired.  The company happens to serve some Epic customers.  Her experience at Epic essentially made her a shoe-in to be hired.  She would have left Epic sooner but the non-compete clause kept her around.  Eventually she saved enough money to afford being unemployed, work briefly in retail, and then finally a software consulting company.  Now she's at a place where she's much happier and can make a decent living.

So the one year transfer rule is a perfectly legal non-compete clause.  If you want to argue athletes are entitled to more compensation go ahead.  I personally feel that they should get something more than just tuition, room, and board.  Not sure how much or how you decide to treat non-revenue sports.  But the one year transfer rule is rock solid.

[oldwarrior81]

Similar with George Marshall, Ian Markloff and Mickey Perry.  Uthoff there was likely some tampering going on.

...all Big Ten teams, all ACC teams, Marquette and Iowa State.   Must have been a heck of a conference call to be tampered with by so many institutions that warranted transfer restrictions to about 25% of all the high D1 programs.

[brandx]

The player-university relationship is more like an employee-employer relationship.  

So the one year transfer rule is a perfectly legal non-compete clause.  ......  But the one year transfer rule is rock solid.

1. The NCAA is fighting in court that the player university relationship is NOT an employee-employer relationship.  - I know you didn't say they are the same.

2. Let's also put in a one-year transfer rule for coaches. Since they are both "employee-employer" type relationships, let treat them the same as opposed to rewarding one side (coaches getting raises when they quit one school for another) and punishing the other side (players having to sit out for a year thus possibly delaying their max earning potential).

[CTWarrior]

If I were coach I'd say no Big East and no UW. You are restricting 10 other choices out of 351 schools in 32 Division I conferences. I think that is more than reasonable.

But Wojo is clearly a better man than I

The old Big East conference rule was that the Big East flat-out does not allow transfers from one Big East school to another for the sports of basketball (men's and women's) or football.  Don't know if the rules changed after the separation.  Likely the only difference between you and Wojo on this topic is UW.

[brandx]

The old Big East conference rule was that the Big East flat-out does not allow transfers from one Big East school to another for the sports of basketball (men's and women's) or football.  Don't know if the rules changed after the separation.  Likely the only difference between you and Wojo on this topic is UW.

Rule is still in place.