Transfer rule changes

[MU82]

I feel that the proposed rule is well thought-out and potentially makes sense.  In a way, it is simply extending the grad transfer benefit to other students.  Like the grad transfer rule (where you need to achieve graduation to effect it), the proposed rule would tie the ability to play right away to academic achievement by restricting it to those who have a certain GPA - which presumably will be reasonably higher than the GPA required just to maintain eligibility.  It also restricts the benefit to one transfer per eligible SA.  It's not a free-for-all "free agency" as some suggest.  I think the biggest issue with enforcing the rule will be the the likelihood of tampering - it's difficult to monitor and could become a compliance nightmare as coaches accuse other coaches of recruiting their top talent.  I also think a lot of transfers shifting in and out of a team could affect team chemistry, but that's something a coach would need to take into account when they decide to accept transfers.  It's still a two-way street, with both the SA and the receiving coach wanting the transfer to take place.

I don't think the rule would mean much for the elite level programs, which more and more are being built around one-and-dones and elite talent.  Sure, Calipari reloads every year, but why would he want to take players who weren't even on the radar for the NBA draft when he has 5 of the top 15 potential future NBA stars who want to play for him the next year?  I suspect there will be fewer openings on the top teams, and maybe even a trickle-down effect, where players who aren't 1-and-dones on certain teams fo find another team to dominate on when the next crop of highly rated freshmen show up.  Providing they meet the GPA requirement, though.

And, while I know this works both ways, oh -- just imagine this year's team with Morrow playing the 4 (drool).

Superb post, Momo. This, several by Pakuni, and a handful of others reflect my feeling on this issue.

As an aside, I like how some routinely throw out lines like, "The kids should be fine with scholarships worth $150K." It's using a big number trying to justify an argument. The in-state kids at Arkansas State, South Carolina State, Jackson State and even many big, name-brand basketball schools aren't receiving scholarships anywhere near the value of $150K. Not that it really matters; it's just a straw man, an attempt to shift the goal posts.

Also, it's deceptive to argue stuff like, "they signed the contracts so they knew what they were getting into." They signed the contracts because they had to; it's a monopoly, the only game in town.

Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.

[StillAWarrior]

Superb post, Momo. This, several by Pakuni, and a handful of others reflect my feeling on this issue.

As an aside, I like how some routinely throw out lines like, "The kids should be fine with scholarships worth $150K." It's using a big number trying to justify an argument. The in-state kids at Arkansas State, South Carolina State, Jackson State and even many big, name-brand basketball schools aren't receiving scholarships anywhere near the value of $150K. Not that it really matters; it's just a straw man, an attempt to shift the goal posts.

Also, it's deceptive to argue stuff like, "they signed the contracts so they knew what they were getting into." They signed the contracts because they had to; it's a monopoly, the only game in town.

Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.

I think your post illustrates some of the problems of this debate.  You are, of course, correct that the value of a scholarship at Arkansas State, South Carolina State and Jackson State aren't nearly the value of some private schools like Stanford, Notre Dame or Marquette.  You know what also isn't the same?  The revenue.  Jackson State has revenue of a bit over $7.5 million.  South Carolina State has about $8.5 million.  Admittedly, Arkansas State is doing quite a lot better at $43 million.  How much more do you think Jackson State should offer its football players?

So, I contend that it's also a bit of a straw man to cite the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that Power 5 conference schools generate, and then cite schools like you mentioned.  You'd be far better off to cite Ohio State, Michigan and Texas.  You have a much stronger point in those cases.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Also, it's deceptive to argue stuff like, "they signed the contracts so they knew what they were getting into." They signed the contracts because they had to; it's a monopoly, the only game in town.

For basketball, that is a myth. There is the G-League, foreign leagues, transferring down to D-2 or 3 where they would be immediately game eligible.  For many basketball players, D-1 offers the best option.  And as far as I know, no one is coerced into signing a NLI.

Now if you want to argue the NCAA members are colluding, that I might listen to.  Individual athletes are unable to negotiate their own terms.  But since SAs aren't categorized as employees, it's tricky. A court of law would need to rule on that.

[StillAWarrior]

Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.

I thought this warranted a separate response, since I'm one of those people "seeking to protect the rights of huge institutions over the rights of the individuals."

I think that the trade-off of a college scholarship for playing sports is overwhelmingly beneficial  for the vast majority of college athletes.  I also believe that a significant overhaul of the system will benefit only an extremely small number of athletes at the expense of tens of thousands of others.

In my opinion, here is the list of stake-holders that I think will benefit from a significant overhaul of NCAA sports aimed at providing athletes a more "fair" piece of the revenue pie: 

• Superstar athletes in "revenue sports" at Power 5 Conference schools
• Power 5 Conference schools
• Media Outlets

Again, in my opinion, here is the list of stake-holders that I think will be harmed by a significant overhaul of NCAA sports aimed at providing athletes a more "fair" piece of the revenue pie: 

• Most athletes in "revenue sports" at Power 5 Conference schools
• Most athletes in "revenue sports" at non-Power 5 Conference
• Athletes in "non-revenue sports" at all schools
• Non-Power 5 Conference schools

The second group is much, much bigger than the first group.  In my personal opinion, you claim to be fighting the system for the little guy, but in actuality you're advocating a system that will totally benefit the "huge institutions" (and, admittedly, a select few elite athletes) at the expense of all the truly little guys.  The Power 5 schools will always get theirs.  Count on that.

[Pakuni]

I thought this warranted a separate response, since I'm one of those people "seeking to protect the rights of huge institutions over the rights of the individuals."

I think that the trade-off of a college scholarship for playing sports is overwhelmingly beneficial  for the vast majority of college athletes.  I also believe that a significant overhaul of the system will benefit only an extremely small number of athletes at the expense of tens of thousands of others.

Could you explain this a little further? What do you imagine the overhaul looking like, and why would it benefit only an "extremely small" number of athletes at the expense of others?

[GooooMarquette]

Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.

"The rights of individuals."

Is this somewhere in the Constitution?  It's only a "right" if you get it from somewhere (life, liberty, property, etc).  Their deal with NCAA member institutions explicitly explains that the free education doesn't include this "right."

Good effort, though.  They are seeking a privilege, and many here think an offer of a free education is privilege enough.  You disagree, and that's fine...but don't cloud the argument by calling it a "right."

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Frankly, I am surprised by the number of folks here seeking to protect the rights of the huge institutions over the rights of the individuals.

Playing D-1 sports for a scholarship is a privilege, not a right.  There are also perks typically associated with revenue sport atheletes that athletes in other sports, i.e. track, do not.  Things like better housing, preferred class registration times, flying charter instead of coach, etc.  It varies by school but let's not pretend football and basketball players are treated equal in all things except transfer rules.

And I also want to ask: What harm is there in requiring football and basketball players to sit out a year in residence? Delayed gratification?

[Jockey]

Typical of today's attitudes - instant gratification for all!!!

Heck, why not just let them transfer between games?

Exactly. Instant gratification should be restricted to adults (coaches).

[Pakuni]

"The rights of individuals."

Is this somewhere in the Constitution?  It's only a "right" if you get it from somewhere (life, liberty, property, etc).  Their deal with NCAA member institutions explicitly explains that the free education doesn't include this "right."

Good effort, though.  They are seeking a privilege, and many here think an offer of a free education is privilege enough.  You disagree, and that's fine...but don't cloud the argument by calling it a "right."

It's not a privilege. It's a job. They're trading their labor and skills in return for compensation from the schools that benefit - through revenue, public exposure, good will from alumni/donors, etc. - from their labor and skills. In that sense, it's no different than any other contractual relationship between labor and management (though the NCAA wants to assure you it's totally different).

There's really no debate about that. The debate is over what's fair and appropriate compensation

It never ceases to amaze me how those who lack the skills to become a scholarship or professional athlete, and never put in the work to become one, are so willing to argue that those who do should just feel lucky to play a game.

[brewcity77]

One thing I would highlight that should be done is allowing players to get compensation off their likeness....this would take care of those "super valuable" players who might not get their fair market value via scholarship compensation.

And overall, it's interesting to watch how principles ebb and flow depending the application.

The concern here is the potential for abuse when a T. Boone Pickens type is suddenly offering top dollar to every Oklahoma State football player. I do think there needs to be some kind of regulation or the dirty recruiting of today will pale in comparison to what we see after that change.

[StillAWarrior]

Could you explain this a little further? What do you imagine the overhaul looking like, and why would it benefit only an "extremely small" number of athletes at the expense of others?

I suppose it depends on the nature of the overhaul, so perhaps I was generalizing too much.  The overhaul that I'm thinking of is one that is often discussed:  allow schools to pay the players.  I'm interested to hear other ideas.

In my opinion, this will lead to a "rich get richer" scenario.  One assumption in my thinking -- and someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that whatever is done for the men's football/basketball players will have to be done for others  (because, let's face it, very few athletes outside FB/MBB are generating the dollars that are at issue here).  This makes changes pretty expensive.

I believe if the schools start paying these players, the smaller schools won't be able to compete for athletes.  The power conferences will have an extraordinary recruiting advantage (as we're already seeing to a lesser extent with the new guaranteed four year scholarships and cost of living) and will get even stronger.  Right now, smaller schools with far less revenue are able to offer something of comparable value -- and in many cases greater value -- to what is offered by the big boys.  Once players start getting a "fair" share of the revenue, how can Jackson State ever hope to compete with Ole Miss for a player?   And the Power 5 schools will still have boatloads of cash.  And I also think that most of the money flowing to players will flow toward a limited number of superstar players -- and not down to players numbers 30-85 on the roster.  I envision a situation developing where the limited number of athletes would be compensated pretty well, but the proverbial long-snapper and 3rd string OG would not.  I suppose that this could be remedied by making it be equal across the board -- but I'm not sure that would solve the current problem.

I think our disagreement is based upon two key factors.  First, I think that most college sports programs don't really generate all that much profit for their schools.  Second, I think most individual athletes don't "move the needle" all that much in terms of value.  I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on these points.  But, to set up a new system to account for a minority of athletes in a minority of programs, it just doesn't make sense to me.  I'm certainly open to listen to ways that it could be done, but in my opinion it's just trying to fix something that I personally don't see as a problem.

How do you think the system should be changed?  How do you propose ensuring that the athletes receive a fair share of the revenue?  What would this mean to the Jackson States of the world?

By the way, I acknowledge my personal bias as a beneficiary of the existing system.  However, I felt the same way before that was the case.

[Jockey]

One caveat that I worry about here though - we all talked about Buzz cutting, etc., and when that happens, the NCAA apologists are quick to remind us that scholarships are one year renewable pacts. Under this rule, what's to stop coaches from cutting the second half of their bench every season to bring in the top guys from the mid-major conferences? Right now, its at least somewhat difficult to tell kids to take a hike.

Do you think top guys from mid-majors would really want to move just to be a bench player at a top school?

[GGGG]

It's not a privilege. It's a job. They're trading their labor and skills in return for compensation from the schools that benefit - through revenue, public exposure, good will from alumni/donors, etc. - from their labor and skills. In that sense, it's no different than any other contractual relationship between labor and management (though the NCAA wants to assure you it's totally different).

There's really no debate about that. The debate is over what's fair and appropriate compensation

And I would argue it isn't fair.  First, it doesn't come with the worker's compensation protections that a traditional job entails.  Second, it doesn't allow players to negotiate their compensation.  Everyone is given the exact same amount (in basketball) without being collectively bargained.

[StillAWarrior]

And I would argue it isn't fair.  First, it doesn't come with the worker's compensation protections that a traditional job entails.  Second, it doesn't allow players to negotiate their compensation.  Everyone is given the exact same amount (in basketball) without being collectively bargained.

I understand your points.  I also think that for many athletes, this belongs in the "be careful what you wish for" category.  I really question whether most athletes would improve their situation if they were deemed employees.

[GGGG]

I understand your points.  I also think that for many athletes, this belongs in the "be careful what you wish for" category.  I really question whether most athletes would improve their situation if they were deemed employees.

It probably wouldn't because many colleges and universities wouldn't want the expense as if they were actual employees.

And to be fair, I don't think they should be classified as employees. 

[GooooMarquette]

It's not a privilege. It's a job. They're trading their labor and skills in return for compensation from the schools that benefit - through revenue, public exposure, good will from alumni/donors, etc. - from their labor and skills. In that sense, it's no different than any other contractual relationship between labor and management (though the NCAA wants to assure you it's totally different).

There's really no debate about that. The debate is over what's fair and appropriate compensation

It never ceases to amaze me how those who lack the skills to become a scholarship or professional athlete, and never put in the work to become one, are so willing to argue that those who do should just feel lucky to play a game.

If it's a job and they're getting compensation, you better let the IRS know because they should be collecting taxes.  Or maybe you're just wrong....

[Pakuni]

I suppose it depends on the nature of the overhaul, so perhaps I was generalizing too much.  The overhaul that I'm thinking of is one that is often discussed:  allow schools to pay the players.  I'm interested to hear other ideas.

I think we are talking about schools paying players, but that can be done in several ways, from a completely "free market" approach in which schools pay kids whatever they're willing to shell out, to a limited system in which all players receive an equal amount through a revenue-sharing model, the money is collected only after a kid gives up his eligibility, etc. Heck, the NCAA could even impose a cap. Maybe School A wants to sign one 5-star kid a year and fill out the roster with borderline kids, while School B would rather have 13 3- and 4-star kids.
(I'm not advocating for a cap system, by the way, just saying it's an option).

In my opinion, this will lead to a "rich get richer" scenario. 

I think this already is the case. The "blue blood" programs almost always land the top players as it is. but instead of paying for the top players (at least above the table), they outspend other schools with inducements like $10 million locker rooms, $17 million athlete dorms. $20 million workout facilities, the highest-paid coaches, private jets, etc.
The rich have the advantages either way. But I'd rather  see their riches go to the players rather than the coaches and facilities.

One assumption in my thinking -- and someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that whatever is done for the men's football/basketball players will have to be done for others  (because, let's face it, very few athletes outside FB/MBB are generating the dollars that are at issue here).  This makes changes pretty expensive.

This ultimately would be decided by the courts via Title IX, but there's already some precedent that would allow paying of some athletes without requiring the paying of all athletes. For example, federal courts have ruled that Title IX does not require the women's basketball coach to be paid the same as the men's basketball coach. And the golf coach doesn't have to be paid as much as the football coach.

I believe if the schools start paying these players, the smaller schools won't be able to compete for athletes.

They already don't compete for the same athletes. When was the last time Ole Miss lost a top recruit the Jackson State? No kid who has an offer from Alabama is choosing Georgia Southern instead, and paying kids won't change that. If anything, it might help the smaller schools, which might be willing to offer a better package for a 2/3-star kid than a Power 5 school, which would be more apt to focus its resources on higher-rated recruits.
Ultimately, the power schools will come out on top either way.
Moreover - and I suspect this won't be a popular opinion - why do we need to prop up the programs like Jackson State on the backs of the kids at Alabama and Ole Miss? Or, taken to its logical conclusion, why should a volleyball players go to school for free on the backs of the basketball players?
Ultimately, I'd be for a system that shares some revenues among all the schools and pays the players relatively equally, but I'm not sure why  its sacrosanct that every college that wants to field a college football team can or should, economics be dam*ed. If a school's athletic program is a money pit that siphons funds away from the task of educating students, perhaps it's OK if that program shrinks or ceases to exist. The world won't end if San Jose State and Tulane don't have FBS programs.

I think our disagreement is based upon two key factors.  First, I think that most college sports programs don't really generate all that much profit for their schools.  Second, I think most individual athletes don't "move the needle" all that much in terms of value.  I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on these points.

No, I actually agree on both points. Where we disagree is in whether that's justification for not more equitably sharing in the revenues the good players at the good programs generate.

How do you think the system should be changed?  How do you propose ensuring that the athletes receive a fair share of the revenue?  What would this mean to the Jackson States of the world?

I'll try to answer this later.

[Jay Bee]

How many more Andrew Rowseys jet from their school when they don't need to sit a year? Then, play immediately instead of a year to settle in a bit and get their academics rolling?

[Pakuni]

If it's a job and they're getting compensation, you better let the IRS know because they should be collecting taxes.  Or maybe you're just wrong....

The IRS has determined that scholarships - athletic or otherwise - are exempt forms of compensation.

[GooooMarquette]

The IRS has determined that scholarships - athletic or otherwise - are exempt forms of compensation.

Because they determined that the athletes are not employees performing a job. But you just said they are performing a job. I'm inclined to side with the courts.

And my guess is that you never got any closer to being a D-1 athlete than I did....

[Pakuni]

Because they determined that the athletes are not employees performing a job. But you just said they are performing a job. I'm inclined to side with the courts.

No, it's because they decided that scholarships of any type are not taxable income. They make no distinction regarding the type of scholarship.
Not sure if you're being obtuse here on purpose or what.

[GooooMarquette]

Personal attacks - nice.

No, I'm not obtuse. I just understand the issue far better than you do. I also know about the change in taxability of medical resident stipends - they used to be exempt, but this changed a few years back. Keep giving the athletes more and more, and the IRS and SCOTUS will do the same to athletes as they did to medical residents.

Don't think it could happen? Educate yourself: http://blogs.mprnews.org/oncampus/2011/01/med-residents-are-taxable-employees-supreme-court-rules/

[StillAWarrior]

I think we are talking about schools paying players, but that can be done in several ways, from a completely "free market" approach in which schools pay kids whatever they're willing to shell out, to a limited system in which all players receive an equal amount through a revenue-sharing model, the money is collected only after a kid gives up his eligibility, etc. Heck, the NCAA could even impose a cap. Maybe School A wants to sign one 5-star kid a year and fill out the roster with borderline kids, while School B would rather have 13 3- and 4-star kids.
(I'm not advocating for a cap system, by the way, just saying it's an option).

I think this already is the case. The "blue blood" programs almost always land the top players as it is. but instead of paying for the top players (at least above the table), they outspend other schools with inducements like $10 million locker rooms, $17 million athlete dorms. $20 million workout facilities, the highest-paid coaches, private jets, etc.
The rich have the advantages either way. But I'd rather  see their riches go to the players rather than the coaches and facilities.

This ultimately would be decided by the courts via Title IX, but there's already some precedent that would allow paying of some athletes without requiring the paying of all athletes. For example, federal courts have ruled that Title IX does not require the women's basketball coach to be paid the same as the men's basketball coach. And the golf coach doesn't have to be paid as much as the football coach.

They already don't compete for the same athletes. When was the last time Ole Miss lost a top recruit the Jackson State? No kid who has an offer from Alabama is choosing Georgia Southern instead, and paying kids won't change that. If anything, it might help the smaller schools, which might be willing to offer a better package for a 2/3-star kid than a Power 5 school, which would be more apt to focus its resources on higher-rated recruits.
Ultimately, the power schools will come out on top either way.
Moreover - and I suspect this won't be a popular opinion - why do we need to prop up the programs like Jackson State on the backs of the kids at Alabama and Ole Miss? Or, taken to its logical conclusion, why should a volleyball players go to school for free on the backs of the basketball players?
Ultimately, I'd be for a system that shares some revenues among all the schools and pays the players relatively equally, but I'm not sure why  its sacrosanct that every college that wants to field a college football team can or should, economics be dam*ed. If a school's athletic program is a money pit that siphons funds away from the task of educating students, perhaps it's OK if that program shrinks or ceases to exist. The world won't end if San Jose State and Tulane don't have FBS programs.
No, I actually agree on both points. Where we disagree is in whether that's justification for not more equitably sharing in the revenues the good players at the good programs generate.

I'll try to answer this later.

There's a lot here, and some to think about.  Perhaps we don't disagree as much as it would appear.

I think one of the more interesting points you made -- and one I've tiptoed around although acknowledging my bias -- relates to athletes in other sports.  There is no question that the revenue sports are subsidizing the athletes in all the other sports.  It can't honestly be debated.  Before I sent my daughter off to school, I told her, "if ever you feel it's unfair that the basketball team gets a lot of extra benefits, remember that basketball is paying for everything."  I recognize that.  However, I return to one of my original points:  it's the school's brand that generates that revenue, not the individual athletes.

I struggle to envision what it would look like if they just opened it up and allowed schools to simply pay for players.  I envision a scenario where a handful of key players at certain schools (MBB and high profile skill position players in FB) would make out extremely well, but the vast majority of athletes would probably end up with less than they currently have.  I understand your point that maybe that's the way it should be -- free market and all.  And maybe you're right.  That doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.  I think it will be the death of college sports as we know it.  And I think that would be unfortunate.

[Jay Bee]

The IRS has determined that scholarships - athletic or otherwise - are exempt forms of compensation.

This is patently false. You are lying.

[Pakuni]

However, I return to one of my original points:  it's the school's brand that generates that revenue, not the individual athletes.

I think this is one of our main points of disagreement then.
I believe if you pulled 13 random students out of the rec center, put them in MU uniforms and sent them out onto the BC floor to play Marquette's schedule, the brand's revenue will dwindle and dwindle and the brand is will die.
The success and revenue of the brand are almost entirely dependent on the success of the players. Look no further than our friends in Lincoln Park. How's DePaul's "brand" these days?

As for non-star players getting less, unless you're talking about taking away scholarships and selling off facilities, I don't see how they'll be any worse off. I firmly believe there's enough money in college athletics to pay players in revenue producing sports a reasonable amount without taking anything away from other athletes.
It's just a matter of priorities.
Maybe Kansas basketball doesn't need a $14 million dorm. build them a $4 million dorm, and you could pay every scholarship basketball player a $10K salary for the next 76 years with the savings.
Perhaps Michigan football doesn't need a $21 million weight room. Maybe cut the price in half - still a pretty excellent weight room, IMO - and you can pay every player $10K a year for the next 12 years.