NCAA to tighten transfer rules

[forgetful]

If it was a rule intended to protect student-athletes, it would probably apply to...I don’t know...most student athletes. But, since it’s a rule that applies to only a small minority of student-athletes, I have to wonder if the goal might be something other than to protect the student-athletes. If only I could put my finger on what the small group where it applies has in common, I might be able to figure out the rule’s intent. But I’m $tumped.

Not disagreeing with you, but the group of student athletes these rules apply to are the ones that are often exploited the most by Universities. And I don't mean in regards to being paid.

Many of them would have no chance of getting into the schools they play for. Many do not have any of the skills necessary to succeed at that University. So schools, place them into special programs/majors where they will have the most success.

They treat them differently in other ways, besides the transfer rule. They often have special dedicated tutoring, conducted by a completely different group of individuals than other sports. They are often not allowed to pick any major they want, but steered into specific degree plans.

The result is that many of these students are most vulnerable to changes in their education plan/structure.

It actually does protect the athletes, as students. Ideally, it could have some education based waiver, where if they are performing above a certain threshold off the court, they could be eligible immediately.

[wadesworld]

FYI ... people who know me in the real world would never describe me that way. And, fyi, even here I can't think of a time I've said anything 180 from a free market.

Not to go too far astray, but nobody wants a truly free market. We all just puck and choose the level of freedom and for whom based on our values and biases.

I’m not a Republican, let alone stark.  I have been a registered Dem and GOP in my life, have been neither for easily a decade.  More libertarian than anything.  I have many views on things that don’t fit into your identity politics....or policies...despite you labeling me as.  I haven’t voted for the GOP pres candidate for multiple elections so how can I be a stark member as you claim?  Now Stop with the politics.

Unleashcain tried acted like he intimately knew things about posters on an online forum and got it completely wrong? Shocking.

[#UnleashSean]

Marquette will be fine, Me. Little.
And why preserve a system that provides free college educations to primarily white upper- and middle-class kids (those in non revenue spprts) through the labor of primarily lower-class black kids (i.e. the football and men's basketball players)?

I mean I see what your trying to do. But you left out some giant non Rev sports with plenty of black athletes. Track and soccer are two very big ones.

[#UnleashSean]

Unleashcain tried acted like he intimately knew things about posters on an online forum and got it completely wrong? Shocking.

Again, I laughed. Cheeks has been banned for fighting every republican value tooth and nail. Pakuni is a literal walking representation of a liberal. But "okay"

[brewcity77]

What data do you have on this? What does 'primarily' mean?

I think your claim is, how u say, FALSE.

It's a pretty simple concept, and not at all false.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/13/the-height-hypocrisy-higher-education/ZKAalThMCKHUwJPBqhUFMK/story.html

Black students make up a vastly (13x) greater quantity of white students earning athletic scholarships in revenue sports.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-black-families-have-struggled-for-decades-to-gain-wealth-2019-02-28

This article cites the federal reserve that on average black families have 10 cents for every dollar of wealth held by white families.

So the majority of revenue sport scholarships going to black students, the majority of black households being poorer than white households leads to the fairly obvious conclusion that Pakuni came to. This isn't something that's really debatable or controversial. It's just the numbers.

[Jay Bee]

It's a pretty simple concept, and not at all false.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/13/the-height-hypocrisy-higher-education/ZKAalThMCKHUwJPBqhUFMK/story.html

Black students make up a vastly (13x) greater quantity of white students earning athletic scholarships in revenue sports.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-black-families-have-struggled-for-decades-to-gain-wealth-2019-02-28

This article cites the federal reserve that on average black families have 10 cents for every dollar of wealth held by white families.

So the majority of revenue sport scholarships going to black students, the majority of black households being poorer than white households leads to the fairly obvious conclusion that Pakuni came to. This isn't something that's really debatable or controversial. It's just the numbers.

You’re displaying a horrible understanding of numbers and the claims Pak made.

He was wrong.

[Pakuni]

You’re displaying a horrible understanding of numbers and the claims Pak made.

He was wrong.

Actually, I'm not.
Football and men's basketball provides the revenue (both direct and indirect) that supports the other sports programs.  The majority of the athletes in those sports are black. The majority of the athletes in non revenue sports are white.

And that's not even getting into how many of the non revenue sports have socioeconomic barriers that make it difficult to impossible for kids of the working and poorer classes to excel in.

[brewcity77]

Actually, I'm not.
Football and men's basketball provides the revenue (both direct and indirect) that supports the other sports programs.  The majority of the athletes in those sports are black. The majority of the athletes in non revenue sports are white.

And that's not even getting into how many of the non revenue sports have socioeconomic barriers that make it difficult to impossible for kids of the working and poorer classes to excel in.

+1

This is really as simple as saying that revenue sports prop up non-revenue sports. That's not controversial. And who makes up the scholarship recipients of revenue sports is also not controversial.

[#UnleashSean]

You’re displaying a horrible understanding of numbers and the claims Pak made.

He was wrong.

I wouldn't say his claim of a majority of d1 revenue athletes are black is wrong. It's actually factually correct. I'd say his claim of little representation of blacks in non revenue is wring however.

[Pakuni]

I wouldn't say his claim of a majority of d1 revenue athletes are black is wrong. It's actually factually correct. I'd say his claim of little representation of blacks in non revenue is wring however.

I'm not sure why you say that. I wrote that the non revenue sport athletes are primarily white. This is factually correct. I didn't write exclusively white or even predominantly white (though many are).
What am I missing?

[Cheeks]

Coaches get paid. Trainers get paid. Administrators get paid. SIDs get paid. Ticket sellers get paid. Merchandise makers and sellers get paid. Universities get paid.
But yeah, these are amateur athletics.

So what.  Coaches get paid coaching 6 year old kids playin tennis at the club, too.  The theater charges ticket prices for the MU glee club.  The school choir charges for tickets.  Lots of teachers, coaches, facilities cpget compensated where the performers do not. 

Better yet, If I go to a MU cross country event there is no charge yet the coaches and trainers are paid...it is still sport, I can still be entertained as well as those kids earn a degree while on scholarship.

[#UnleashSean]

I'm not sure why you say that. I wrote that the non revenue sport athletes are primarily white. This is factually correct. I didn't write exclusively white or even predominantly white (though many are).
What am I missing?

I would say saying primarily, generally means the same thing as a majority. While there are sports such as lacrosse and hockey (which is probably a revenue sport at a lot of colleges) have a large majority of whites. While others such as track, soccer, and baseball are a lot more even.

Then we have to talk about how much of a majority it is. If it's something like 60/40 or 65/35 that's pretty even in terms of population.

[Cheeks]

Marquette will be fine, Me. Little.
And why preserve a system that provides free college educations to primarily white upper- and middle-class kids (those in non revenue spprts) through the labor of primarily lower-class black kids (i.e. the football and men's basketball players)?

You mean the one that is providing massive opportunities for women (and even biological men transitioning to women) as well as many minorities even in rev sports like lower D1 basketball, track and field, etc.  I don’t understand the race argument here, but someone always brings it up. 

You sure you have your stats right on socio economics for football?

And before you say MU will be fine, you don’t know this nor do you understand how many kids from non revenue sports pay tuition to attend MU.

[#UnleashSean]

So what.  Coaches get paid coaching 6 year old kids rapt the club, too.  The theater charges ticket prices for the MU glee club.  The school choir charges for tickets.  Lots of teachers, coaches, facilities cpget compensated where the performers do not. 

Better yet, If I go to a MU cross country event there is no charge yet the coaches and trainers are paid...it is still sport, I can still be entertained as well as those kids earn a degree while on scholarship.

Aye but if those 6 year olds wish to change teams, or a glee club member decides to go to DePaul, or hell a cross country player transfers. They do not need to sit out a year. Hence the stupid hypocrisy we are talking about.

[Cheeks]

Aye but if those 6 year olds wish to change teams, or a glee club member decides to go to DePaul, or hell a cross country player transfers. They do not need to sit out a year. Hence the stupid hypocrisy we are talking about.

Not hypocritical at all.  Free agency would destroy college sports, but I suspect you don’t care and like many things your team wants these days....destruction is worth it even if you have no idea what the other side bears.  As long as it is FREEEEEEEEEEE and you feel good about it.  Feeling good is the important part...unicorns and rainbow marshmallows...and feeling good until it hits the fan by your actions and the destruction caused by the feel good moments rear their ugly head.

I’d ask you to interview the young black players at Prairie View A&M or any of 200 other schools that have zero chance of playing pro ball, but are receiving an education and a chance to play a sport they love, travel, etc under the current system.....ask them how great it will be when that is taken away from them.  The interview the hundreds of thousands of female athletes, get their opinions on the matter.

Ah, but we have to compensate the .5% and throw the baby out with the bath water even though the vast vast vast majority of those kids get paid after school anyway when they play pro ball.  Brilliant.

[#UnleashSean]

Not hypocritical at all.  Free agency would destroy college sports, but I suspect you don’t care and like many things your team wants these days....destruction is worth it even if you have no idea what the other side bears.  As long as it is FREEEEEEEEEEE and you feel good about it.  Feeling good is the important part...unicorns and rainbow marshmallows...and feeling good until it hits the fan by your actions and the destruction caused by the feel good moments rear their ugly head.

I’d ask you to interview the young black players at Prairie View A&M or any of 200 other schools that have zero chance of playing pro ball, but are receiving an education and a chance to play a sport they love, travel, etc under the current system.....ask them how great it will be when that is taken away from them.  The interview the hundreds of thousands of female athletes, get their opinions on the matter.

Ah, but we have to compensate the .5% and throw the baby out with the bath water even though the vast vast vast majority of those kids get paid after school anyway when they play pro ball.  Brilliant.

Oooooooook.

So let's be real for one second.

You don't care about the players. You care about the game and how the system is setup. Where finding a diamond in the rough guarantees him to your team.

You like the system of them being "amateurs". You dont want the system to change. So you make these huge arguments about how letting kids transfer freely will end all life as we know it at the college level. Because you don't want your system to change.

Thats what it truly is. And that's a fine opinion to have. But don't hide it behind "being best for the players" or "it'll ruin all the low level colleges". Just be real with it.

[brewcity77]

You like the system of them being "amateurs".

The system of amateurism makes him feel good, which is the important part. It's the same BS claim he's making at you. This is what hypocrisy looks like.

[forgetful]

It's a pretty simple concept, and not at all false.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/13/the-height-hypocrisy-higher-education/ZKAalThMCKHUwJPBqhUFMK/story.html

Black students make up a vastly (13x) greater quantity of white students earning athletic scholarships in revenue sports.

Warning: I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, rather simply illustrating that many numbers on their own are unreliable in this argument, and given the discrepancies, and outright manipulation of how expenses/revenue are distributed in University accounting, it is difficult to come away with concrete answers. Rather, anyone can justify their stance depending on which numbers they look for.

For instance:

If the article's 13x number is correct, then one could actually make the opposite conclusion, that non-black athletes in revenue sports are subsidizing the scholarships. That doesn't even take into consideration the number of non-revenue sport tuition paying students.

In all of division 1 football, 44.8% are African-American; 40.1% are white. At the FBS level it is 54.3% and 39.8% respectively. That means that in D1, the ratio of participants is essentially a 1:1 ratio, and at the FBS level it is a 1.5:1 ratio. In D1 basketball it is a 2:1 ratio. So pretty even actually (I was surprised by the numbers). On the contrary, the ratio of scholarships offered is 13:1.

My point is simply this. This is a complex issue with many moving parts, in a complex business. In any business there are net revenue generating segments, and net revenue losing segments. Often compensation is not directed towards those generating the revenue, and someone/something is always subsidizing someone/something else. Expecting college sports to be different is denying the reality of our economic system.

edited for the most recent numbers (the other ones were from 2017).

additional note: due to how the statistics are compiled, basketball numbers (in particular) may be misleading. 12.2% of basketball participants are categorized as "non-resident alien" and are not included in the statistics for racial demographics.

source: https://www.tidesport.org/racial-gender-report-card

[#UnleashSean]

like many things your team wants these days....destruction is worth it even if you have no idea what the other side bears.  As long as it is FREEEEEEEEEEE and you feel good about it. 

Also, could you explain what "my team" is and what I want for "FREEEEEEEE"

[Jay Bee]

Per the NCAA’s demographics database, in 2018 56% and 48% of D1 men’s Bball & Football players, respectively, were black. Take b-ball - what % were from “lower class”?

You guys tend to make arguments about things that aren’t even being discussed.

Pak’s claim is supported by nothing I’ve seen yet... and certainly by nothing argued on here yet

I don’t know where the 65-60 type % nonsense comes from, but chop it in half and then some, then maybe we can talk. Of course, if it’s 15-30%, your reason for whining goes away


 

[Cheeks]

Chronicle of Higher Ed says 42.5% of D1 football players are white, 44% are black.  No mention who was poor, etc....I’d be curious to see Pakuni’s data to support his claim.

[Cheeks]

Oooooooook.

So let's be real for one second.

You don't care about the players. You care about the game and how the system is setup. Where finding a diamond in the rough guarantees him to your team.

You like the system of them being "amateurs". You dont want the system to change. So you make these huge arguments about how letting kids transfer freely will end all life as we know it at the college level. Because you don't want your system to change.

Thats what it truly is. And that's a fine opinion to have. But don't hide it behind "being best for the players" or "it'll ruin all the low level colleges". Just be real with it.

I worked almost 7 years of my life in multiple athletic departments caring very much for the student athletes.  I still do.  It is the VERY reason I am calling these insane ideas out because it will destroy the opportunities for many of those kids.  Exactly why I am against it, because I do give a damn and do care...about the women’s vball team, soccer teams, track athletes, etc that will be harmed tremendously by some of the actions that people who have no idea what they are talking about will “unleash”.

I did work with these kids daily, yearly, you and 99% of others here didn’t. I give a huge damn, the irony is that most here don’t give two shats about non revenue sports and only basketball...you can pretend to deny this fact, but you know it is true.

Don’t say I don’t care about the students.  They have an insanely great deal under the current system, including those most vulnerable that don’t generate any revenue or are immensely unprofitable and a drag on the athletic department.

[#UnleashSean]

I worked almost 7 years of my life in multiple athletic departments caring very much for the student athletes.  I still do.  It is the VERY reason I am calling these insane ideas out because it will destroy the opportunities for many of those kids.  Exactly why I am against it, because I do give a damn and do care...about the women’s vball team, soccer teams, track athletes, etc that will be harmed tremendously by some of the actions that people who have no idea what they are talking about will “unleash”.

I did work with these kids daily, yearly, you and 99% of others here didn’t. I give a huge damn, the irony is that most here don’t give two shats about non revenue sports and only basketball...you can pretend to deny this fact, but you know it is true.

Don’t say I don’t care about the students.  They have an insanely great deal under the current system, including those most vulnerable that don’t generate any revenue or are immensely unprofitable and a drag on the athletic department.

So women's volleyball will be destroyed if they let men's basketball play instantly after transferring? That's a hell of a stretch.

"I did work with these kids daily, yearly, you and 99% of others here didn’t."

That's a hell of an assumption. Especially as I've talked about my college days and my professional days a decent amount on scoop.

[Herman Cain]

I worked almost 7 years of my life in multiple athletic departments caring very much for the student athletes.  I still do.  It is the VERY reason I am calling these insane ideas out because it will destroy the opportunities for many of those kids.  Exactly why I am against it, because I do give a damn and do care...about the women’s vball team, soccer teams, track athletes, etc that will be harmed tremendously by some of the actions that people who have no idea what they are talking about will “unleash”.

I did work with these kids daily, yearly, you and 99% of others here didn’t. I give a huge damn, the irony is that most here don’t give two shats about non revenue sports and only basketball...you can pretend to deny this fact, but you know it is true.

Don’t say I don’t care about the students.  They have an insanely great deal under the current system, including those most vulnerable that don’t generate any revenue or are immensely unprofitable and a drag on the athletic department.

I am in agreement with Chicos Bail Bonds on the topic of collegiate athletics economics. Athletics are a very central part of the strategic component for most colleges and universities today. The labels revenue and non revenue are very misleading. As Chicos points out revenue and expense allocations can vary by school.

The equivalency sports , i.e. those that allocate a fixed number  of scholarships fractionally over the entire team are quite attractive to the schools. Take for example Track and Field. MU presently has 103 kids on the Mens and Womans Track team. There are a total of 30 scholarships available, spread in partial increments . That means there are 73 net paying tuitions assuming MU  funds the max 30 scholarships. Multiply that by the current tuition rate 43,350 and that is $3,164,550 coming in to the University coffers. Schools all over the country are eagerly adding programs as the math makes sense similar to this. 

Also it is worth pointing out that when a conference enters into a media agreement it is for all sports. So while Football drives the eyeballs and basketball to a lesser extent; the other sports do have the benefit of providing content for the networks content. After all, the networks can only put out so many monster truck and corn hole competitions. By the way, some of these minor sports have a very dedicated following such as Woman's softball and Volleyball. In fact Gymnastics at Utah averages 15,000 in attendance more than basketball.

As Chicos points out.  The students in a head count sports do have a great deal. As they get the full cost of attendance. So tuition, room and board, books etc. The equivalency athletes come out of pocket for everything beyond the dollar amount they are allocated .

[rocket surgeon]

  " They can now form a union and bargain for things like better compensation, health benefits, hours, etc."

  really?  is that automatic/mandatory or do they need to vote on it first?  what about states with open shops? dues? 

  ...a window to the mind