Interesting take on the NCAA and transfers
my buddy has been working on a blog that usually has nothing to do with sports, but today he called me and asked me to check out his post on the NCAA. I thought he made an interesting point about transfers that the board might like.
3. Transfers – Now pretend your head coach bolts to the NFL. Then they bring in a completely different style of coach. You’re a duel-threat QB and they bring in a pro style offense that really does not fit your talents…so you decide to transfer to a better situation. Well the NCAA is going to make you sit out a year unless you drop down to a smaller collegiate division. Why can’t the NCAA make an exception in the case of coaching changes? The real question is if I am on a 1 year scholarship then why am I not a free agent at the end of each school year? The school's responsibility to me has run out so why do I owe them more. The collective schools already make BILLIONS in football revenue of what amounts to be cheap labor and now they have it both ways. They can keep your playing rights on 4 or 5, one year renewable contracts. It can be compared to a pro sports contract when a player signs a contract with a team option. The difference is that a team option usually would include more money for the player if they renew. What does a collegiate player get if the University renews his contract? The same exact deal. I hate to say it but it may be time for NCAA players to form a union.you can check out the rest here
January 13th, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
A duel-threat QB? That would be amazing! He could drop back and pass...or he could drop ten paces and shoot somebody.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^
the worst part is I was trying to help him out and I thought he made a good point. Now I have made him look like a mongoloid.
boo me
January 13th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
While I agree that there should be an exception for when there are coaching changes what would happen if a majority of the team bolted?
Also I don't think that they should be just 1 year contracts and then they can bolt because team continuity is one of the biggest aspects of college ball (as we have seen here at Michigan).
With all this being said something needs to be done.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
I think the solution is that you have to honor all 4/5 years when you bring a recruit on board. That at least gives the student athlete something to hold on to.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
I understand the logic your buddy uses, but I imagine the NCAA would still like to place some kind of emphasis on the concept of being a student-athlete.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^
So every time there's a coaching change, 85 players are going to be looking for new schools without anything to hold them in place? That's chaos.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
I really have my doubts that the whole team would leave. The problem is who are we trying to protect? The player made an agreement with the school based on (X) set of circumstances. The school has not lived up to those circumstances. I don't agree that everyone should be able to leave but how do you make it right for those kids? Please dont say they are getting their education becuase most of these kids could go to any NCAA school and still get their education and in a better situation.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
the bigger issue is that if players can transfer without penalty, then recruiting continues past high school.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
SO give the players 4 year scholarships so they have some security even if there is a coaching change or they just suck. That risk should be on the coach and university when they recruit the player.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
I would take it a step further and guarantee that any athlete who signs a LOI gets a lifetime guarantee that he can attend classes at that school until he graduates. Critics would cite the "cost," but, until profs are paid by the hour or by the student, the "costs" are only on paper and are more than offset by the revenue from football.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^
I think going to a four-year scholarship is reasonable, but to say it has no cost is not true. Yes, technically if you were very careful about where you put him/her you probably could slip one student through the university without increasing costs much but that doesn't mean the costs of giving away a scholarship aren't really there.
If there are 100 students in the class, you don't charge the first 50 for the full cost of the class just because you would have had the lecture with 50 anyways, and then let the next 50 in for free. The university's costs for that lecture haven't gone up dramatically for the additional 50 but they might still need to higher more graders, use a larger lecture hall and have more computers for those 50 students, plus there might now be 20 more people who can't get in to the class because it's full so the university needs to offer another section. More importantly, though, it costs the university dramatically more to have this number of undergrads rather than half the number, so everyone needs to pay tuition. You can change the numbers (just add 1 or 2 rather than 50) but it doesn't change the principle.
Even if you don't buy that argument, I think the Athletic Department actually buys the scholarship from the university so the Athletic Department, the people theoretically paying for the student to stay longer, are paying for a full scholarship. The athletic department here would still make money but that's not a good reason to just give it away, plus most athletic departments don't make money.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
I would take it a step further and guarantee that any athlete who signs a LOI gets a lifetime guarantee that he can attend classes at that school until he graduates.This would be sweet. If I were an athlete who didn't make it into the NFL, I would be on the 17 year plan for sure; man I miss college sometimes.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
I think you either give the players more freedom or you make opting out of contracts "illegal." It's a shame how many coaches just walk out on their kids.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
It's a little unfortunate but, although Pete Carroll recruited those students, they still get to play under Kiffin. If they're a complete misfit for the new system, there is a way out even if it's not ideal.
Even if you wanted to, there's really there's nothing to do about it: how could it possibly be more fair to make coaching the only job in the world where you're not allowed to move or change jobs until a contract expires?
January 13th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
I think you either give the players more freedom or you make opting out of contracts "illegal." It's a shame how many coaches just walk out on their kids.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
Opting out of a contract IS "illegal" in that's it's actionable, you just can't force the breaching party to carry out their end of the bargain (usually). So, we compensate the injured party with money according to what they lost. That's the entire point of the liquidated damages "buyout" clauses.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
If the players could move after a coach quits I think it would be fair. Schools that totally botched a coaching replacement would be made to suffer for their stupidity, but such is life.
I think the best solution might be to somehow put windows on coaching moves vs player moves. Schools should be given a certian amount of time to find a new coach and let the dust settle before the players can bolt. Give the new guy time to come in and emotions to calm down.
The biggest problem to all is are the deadlines for admission/application. If your coach leaves in say Feb, a player is in trouble because most schools already are past the deadline for Fall term applications. So they could transfer, but allt he schools admissions offices have filled the incoming class.
I really like the idea that players can move when coaches do. It will put more focus on program building, building from within using a coaching tree and not suddenly blowing up programs because some AD and Coach are having a pissing match. I really like how programs with Boise just promote a talented assistant and reload when a HC is poached and I'd like to see that encouraged.