2019 Coaching Carousel

[79Warrior]

I don't think he would have left TCU for anywhere so yeah destination matters.

Yep. He is going home. I actually think he is a good hire for the Bruins.

[nyg]

Here's article on VaTech vacancy, with potential candidates, per Rivals.  Yes, no Wojo. 

https://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/news/buzz-williams-leave-virginia-tech-what-s-next-for-hokies-

[GoldenWarrior11]

They should be all over Ryan Odom, IMO.  That would be a terrific hire.

[MU82]

Jamie Dixon to UCLA, pending finalization of his buyout with TCU

Wait ... buyout?

When any of us who advocate for transferring athletes not having to sit out a year say, "Coaches don't have to sit out a year when they 'transfer,'" the comeback is always about the severe restriction that is the buyout clause.

I wonder how many times in history a buyout clause actually has kept a school from hiring the coach they wanted. Probably can count them on one hand. Maybe one finger.

What a crock.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Wait ... buyout?

When any of us who advocate for transferring athletes not having to sit out a year say, "Coaches don't have to sit out a year when they 'transfer,'" the comeback is always about the severe restriction that is the buyout clause.

I wonder how many times in history a buyout clause actually has kept a school from hiring the coach they wanted. Probably can count them on one hand. Maybe one finger.

What a crock.

Severe restriction?  Try contract law.  Equating an employment contract to the pseudo-employee student-athletes is a false equivalency.

[MU82]

Severe restriction?  Try contract law.  Equating an employment contract to the pseudo-employee student-athletes is a false equivalency.

A coach's "contract" doesn't prevent freedom of movement. He is absolutely, totally free to go from one multi-million-dollar job to another.

An athlete's "contract" shouldn't prevent freedom of movement, either.

I've been heartened by the number of exceptions and waivers the NCAA has granted the last couple of years and I hope the trend continues, but it's not enough. The mandatory sit-out rule has to go -- and I predict that it will at some point in the next few years.

[Dr. Blackheart]

A coach's "contract" doesn't prevent freedom of movement. He is absolutely, totally free to go from one multi-million-dollar job to another.

An athlete's "contract" shouldn't prevent freedom of movement, either.

I've been heartened by the number of exceptions and waivers the NCAA has granted the last couple of years and I hope the trend continues, but it's not enough. The mandatory sit-out rule has to go -- and I predict that it will at some point in the next few years.

Both coaches and athletes have an anchor attached to their legal documents.  For a coach, it is a buy out (and restrictions). For a basketball player, it's a sit out year. Both sets can be appealed, negotiated, negated or waived/released based on the conditions.

Freedom of movement is not a god given right, it's a contractual agreement signed voluntarily.

[MU82]

Both coaches and athletes have an anchor attached to their legal documents.  For a coach, it is a buy out (and restrictions). For a basketball player, it's a sit out year. Both sets can be appealed, negotiated, negated or waived/released based on the conditions.

Freedom of movement is not a god given right, it's a contractual agreement signed voluntarily.

That's a false equivalent.

School that hire coaches with buyout clauses don't bat an eye about paying off the buyouts. It's a non-issue.

The sit-out year is a big issue for the athlete. As I said, waivers are happening a little more now but they are by far the exception to the rule.

Can't play basketball without the players. They should have at least the same freedom-of-movement rights as the coaches, who become multimillionaires on the backs of their players.

[Dr. Blackheart]

That's a false equivalent.

School that hire coaches with buyout clauses don't bat an eye about paying off the buyouts. It's a non-issue.

The sit-out year is a big issue for the athlete. As I said, waivers are happening a little more now but they are by far the exception to the rule.

Can't play basketball without the players. They should have at least the same freedom-of-movement rights as the coaches, who become multimillionaires on the backs of their players.

Essentially what you arguing is that players should be paid an income as well above their academic compensation.  It's not a freedom of movement issue then. 

[muguru]

That's a false equivalent.

School that hire coaches with buyout clauses don't bat an eye about paying off the buyouts. It's a non-issue.

The sit-out year is a big issue for the athlete. As I said, waivers are happening a little more now but they are by far the exception to the rule.

Can't play basketball without the players. They should have at least the same freedom-of-movement rights as the coaches, who become multimillionaires on the backs of their players.

I don't disagree with any of this...but on the other hand, I don't like a kid leaving a school(any school), because the Coach that recruited him left. That's not the way it's supposed to work..I know it doesn't..but it should be that the kid commits to a school, not a Coach. When you sign that LOI you sign to play at xxxx University not for Xxxx Coach. Kids have to know going in that Coaches can leave or get fired at any time...it's no guarantee they will be there for your entire career, but the school will be there.

It just bothers me...If your Coach leaves before your time is up...you know what?? That's too bad, but suck it up and finish out your career to the SCHOOL you committed to.

[Dr. Blackheart]

So let me pose this theoretical, if players are paid, should they be required to sign buy-out clauses if they want to transfer and play immediately?

[muguru]

So let me pose this theoretical, if players are paid, should they be required to sign buy-out clauses if they want to transfer and play immediately?

I say yes...because it goes along with what i said above...players are SUPPOSED to be committing to that school, not a particular coach, and the school would be paying you(not the Coach, well at least at most schools ). Know what you're getting into before you commit to that school.

[wadesworld]

Must've been hard to turn down less money in a more expensive location

To be fair, if I could make $10M/year in Lexington or $8M/year in Westwood I think I'd take the $8M/year in SoCal.

[MU82]

Essentially what you arguing is that players should be paid an income as well above their academic compensation.  It's not a freedom of movement issue then.

Call it whatever you want. Call it "Fred" if you want to. I am saying that athletes should be free agents every year, just as coaches are.

So let me pose this theoretical, if players are paid, should they be required to sign buy-out clauses if they want to transfer and play immediately?

Sure. Although, theoretically, the school that gets them out of the buyout clause would simply pay the buyout, just as happens with coaches. So this buyout clause, theoretically, would be equally meaningless.

I don't like a kid leaving a school(any school), because the Coach that recruited him left.
It just bothers me...If your Coach leaves before your time is up...you know what?? That's too bad, but suck it up and finish out your career to the SCHOOL you committed to.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it or it bothers you. You aren't affected one iota.

Very easy for you to tell those affected to "suck it up."

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

MU82 cant u recognize when you sound like an idiot?  Is this editor-less posting?

[SERocks]

..but it should be that the kid commits to a school, not a Coach.

The kid almost always commits to the Coach.  To believe otherwise is foolhardy.  To wish for something different is a sandwich.

[MU82]

MU82 cant u recognize when you sound like an idiot?  Is this editor-less posting?

Says the guy who can't spell or use grammar correctly.

Yes, thinking that the athlete should have control over his/her own future and should face no more barriers to freedom of movement than the coach who gets rich off his back ... how idiotic!

[Galway Eagle]

Says the guy who can't spell or use grammar correctly.

Yes, thinking that the athlete should have control over his/her own future and should face no more barriers to freedom of movement than the coach who gets rich off his back ... how idiotic!

I agree with the general premise of no sitting out a year but there's have to be a lot more investigations regarding tampering for it to happen. I sympathize with transfers but I could see this good idea turning into another way for major programs to rob mid majors of their diamonds in rough

[MU82]

I agree with the general premise of no sitting out a year but there's have to be a lot more investigations regarding tampering for it to happen. I sympathize with transfers but I could see this good idea turning into another way for major programs to rob mid majors of their diamonds in rough

Reasonable points.

There could be some "unintended consequences" of giving athletes the same freedom of movement as coaches -- and as non-athletes who receive scholarship money.

And you're right that there would have to be more oversight somehow, which does scare me given how incompetent the powers-that-be are of conducting oversight now.

[GOO]

Quid pro Quo.  You take a scholarship and the schools money, you want to transfer you sit out a year of playing.

Yes, you can transfer anytime and transfer to any school.  No restrictions.  You want to play ball at the D-1 level, you sit out a season. 

All very reasonable.  You don't want that deal, don't take a scholarship or play at a level that doesn't have these restrictions.

This is college after all, or at least should be.  If your primary reason for attending college is to play ball, then sitting out a season might do you some good.

[GOO]

Quid pro Quo.  You take a scholarship and the schools money, you want to transfer you sit out a year of playing.

Yes, you can transfer anytime and transfer to any school.  No restrictions.  You want to play ball at the D-1 level, you sit out a season. 

All very reasonable.  You don't want that deal, don't take a scholarship or play at a level that doesn't have these restrictions.

This is college after all, or at least should be.  If your primary reason for attending college is to play ball, then sitting out a season might do you some good and might further you towards actually getting a degree in the end.

[jesmu84]

I agree with 82 about transfers, to an extent. If something out of the player's control changes like a coach leaving, I think they should be able to transfer without sitting out.

I also wonder if this scenario would be functional: to avoid the sit-out year, the school receiving the player would have to void a scholarship for that year. So, school has to give something in exchange for immediate playing time. They would have to determine worth for that player. Otherwise, business as usual for a sit-out transfer season

Thoughts?

[StillAWarrior]

Quid pro Quo.  You take a scholarship and the schools money, you want to transfer you sit out a year of playing.

Yes, you can transfer anytime and transfer to any school.  No restrictions.  You want to play ball at the D-1 level, you sit out a season. 

All very reasonable.  You don't want that deal, don't take a scholarship or play at a level that doesn't have these restrictions.

This is college after all, or at least should be.  If your primary reason for attending college is to play ball, then sitting out a season might do you some good.

I support allowing athletes more freedom to transfer without sitting out (as they can in a lot of other sports).  But as a parent paying for kids to go to college (and also a parent of a college athlete) it's not lost on me that sitting out a year can buy an athlete another year of free school.  That allows them to take a somewhat lighter load or, even better, to get a start on an advanced degree.  I don't want my daughter to transfer (or, God forbid, be injured), but it certainly wouldn't break my heart if she could figure out a way to squeeze another year out of the deal.

[MU82]

Quid pro Quo.  You take a scholarship and the schools money, you want to transfer you sit out a year of playing.

Yes, you can transfer anytime and transfer to any school.  No restrictions.  You want to play ball at the D-1 level, you sit out a season. 

All very reasonable.  You don't want that deal, don't take a scholarship or play at a level that doesn't have these restrictions.

This is college after all, or at least should be.  If your primary reason for attending college is to play ball, then sitting out a season might do you some good.

I understand what's in the "contract." I think the contract is a bad one, one tilted heavily in favor of those in power.

We have a difference of opinion.

You are fine with the institution and the coach having all the power and all the money, and with the athlete having none of the power or money. You are fine saying, "If you don't like it, tough, go pound sand."

I am not fine with those things, and I don't think that's how it "should be."

Years ago, it was OK for southern schools to not bring in black athletes. Years ago, there were no women playing scholarship sports. All kinds of "traditions" that were allowed because that's how it always was and that's how it always should be have been blown up, thank goodness.

[🏀]

If a coach leaves, the AD should immediately release all incoming recruits from their NLI.