NCAA To End Transfer Waivers
Isaac tried to avoid the no-pads thing last year without success. Future Isaacs won't wonder about immediate eligibility, because the answer will be "nope." [Bryan Fuller]
I must be the only person on earth paying attention to @umichcompliance. This is normally evidence that the rest of you are sane and hearty individuals, but yesterday they posted what looks like relatively big news nobody else has mentioned yet:
Beginning fall 2015, 4-4 undergrad transfers may no longer use a NCAA waiver to be immediately eligible http://t.co/yPrPY4OmzQ
— Michigan Compliance (@umichcompliance) March 17, 2015 You may remember transfer waivers being a big thing during the Ty Isaac transfer saga. It was thought that Michigan might lose out on him since they were not within the 200-mile radius of Isaac's house the NCAA required for a hardship transfer. He decided on Michigan anyway, applied for his waiver, and was denied.
Why make the change? In recent years more and more players had been trying to get transfer waivers for increasingly dubious reasons. It was getting ridiculous, and threatened to create more of an open market for transfers than there was before. (You may think that's a good idea; the NCAA does not.)
Instead the NCAA will offer a one-year extension of the five year clock* in circumstances that warrant it. IE: if you've already redshirted you can make a hardship transfer without losing a year of competition. This wouldn't have affected Isaac but would remove a barrier to other athletes without the incentive of immediate eligibility.
March 18th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 18th, 2015 at 12:06 PM ^
It sucks for guys that are transferring for legit reasons, but it was getting out of hand. Most people that transfer typically transfer closer to home (likely because they have a pre-established relationship with those staffs from recruiting; and also playing closer to home is something most recruits do), and people were stretching the limits of the reason for the rule.
This is an unfortunate case of people stretching the law hurting those that are using it for its true intent, but by giving a guy a 6th year in these cases, I think it's probably the best option so that guys that have already redshirted aren't disadvantaged when the situation arises that they want to move back closer to home. Some may still take advantage of it, but then it's more for a 6th year than any likelihood of using it as free agency. I'm for players rights, but I also don't want a free agent system in college where the guy I'm rooting for one year is off to another team the next, or vice versa; it's a four or five year period, not a decade.
March 18th, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^
But only if you think that the thing they were trying to keep IN hand is reasonable to begin with. I still don't see a viable reason why a played shouldn't be eligible immediately anyway if he wants to play somewhere else.
Besides, how are things getting out of hand for the NCAA? They have sole discretion on whether to approve these things. They can just look at all of the dubious applications, say "NOPE," and things are back in hand.
March 18th, 2015 at 12:23 PM ^
That's the case if things are in black and white. When they are in grey, it becomes murky. And it's the stuff that is murky that gets taken advantage of, because "you did it for him" often makes it sufficient to "do it for me".
To your first point, I'm all for allowing kids to transfer, but I'd prefer there be an incentive to stay. I prefer to have rooted for Denard Robinson all four years he played at Michigan rather than seeing him go elsewhere as soon as Rich Rod was let go. I prefer for Justin Boran to have to sit out a year if he wants to leave Michigan to play for a rival. There are plenty of areas where I believe players deserve more rights: they should be able to transfer within the conference, the whole LOI thing, etc. The NCAA is making the right move to move to four year scholarships. That is a plus for the players, one that certainly can still be skated by some coaches by dubiously disciplining underperforming players off the team, but headed in the right direction; I would prefer that there is incentive for that four year contract to be a two-way street. And it's not like a four year contract is out of scope, it's really not the same as the free agent market for the pros.
March 18th, 2015 at 12:31 PM ^
To your first point, I'm all for allowing kids to transfer, but I'd prefer there be an incentive to stay.
I'm all for an incentive, as long as it is equally applied to athletes and coaches.
I prefer to have rooted for Denard Robinson all four years he played at Michigan rather than seeing him go elsewhere as soon as Rich Rod was let go.
Do you prefer it even if it is against his wishes?
Nobody is saying guys shouldn't be able to transfer; they just have to ALL sit out a year, as opposed to the past when most of them did but a couple didn't because they had better arguments and lived in an appropriate geographic region.
1. While I think there is still progress that needs to be made for to make players and coaches be on equal ground, there certainly is incentive for coaches to retain players. 1) Retention of the players that have grown in your system typically improves your team; 2) coaches now offer four-year scholarships as a rule. There are still issues where a starter getting caught with weed miss one game and the guy buried on the depth chart gets cut; those are the types issues that need to start getting resolved, but we've already begun moving in the correct direction (though I still, as I've admitted, there are still things that need to be improved, particularly with recruiting).
2. To the second point: what? "Against his wishes" as if he's a slave? "Against his wishes" as if he has no other choice. I'd prefer he stays and I prefer there is incentive for him to stay, but if his desire to leave outweighs the incentive than he should transfer, by all means.
But I do not want a free agent market. I do not think it benefits the sport to allow guys to transfer wherever without incentive to stay. You can argue if players should be paid and if what college football players go through is fair given the work they do and money they bring in, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. If you open up what are essentially one-year contracts between coaches and players, then it would very unfair to coaches and bad for the game. LeVert, a guy Beilein took a risk on, may have been just as likely to transfer to where he'd be "the guy" or to a program he perceived as better. Bama could just take the best players from CMU and USF and all the other small schools.
And let's not act like every day life doesn't have moments where incentive outweighs the alternative. For the most part, these are 18-22 year old kids/young men. They can sign contracts, which they are essentially doing for a four-year period. Many people would like to have a different job, but they don't look for one because of the incentive of money. Some people would like to steal somethig they really want, but they don't, because of the incentive of not going to jail. Some people would like to switch majors at the end of their JR year, but they don't, because of the incentive of not paying for an extra year or two of college.
For these players, the incentive to stay is that they can play. The penalty for leaving is not that they have to pay back money for breaking a contract. It's not that they don't get a scholarship for a year while they sit out. The penalty is that for one year, they do not play, while still having a scholarship to a school.
I don't think the NCAA is perfect in many regards. In regards to the rule above, I think they went the correct direction.
I ain't see no carrots here. These be sticks.
In that, for his staying with the program where he initially agreed to stay, he continues to be eligible to play. I think that's a pretty big carrot.
If we open up to the idea that players can transfer freely, then suddenly the incentive becomes "where can I immediately star" or "where can I immediately win". That is extremely unfair to coaches and programs. Smaller programs would have no shot. Coaches that took chances on kids and invested in them and improved them are suddenly left with no benefit. Now, if a player wants to leave to immediately star or immediately win, they have that right. But I think it's fair that there is incentive (in continued eligibility) that they stay.
There is a reason all sports utilize term-contracts, and it is because of this very thing. I'm not for preventing a guy from leaving, I'm not for forcing guys to stay at one place for ten years despite anything else. But a term-contract of four years with incentive to stay the course isn't a terrible trade off, assuming they have the capability to get out of that scenario if the desire to leave outweighs the incentive of playing immediately.
If we open up to the idea that coaches can transfer freely, then suddenly the incentive becomes "where can I immediately star" or "where can I immediately win". That is extremely unfair to players and programs.
Namely, buyouts. They have to pay to leave. That's the benefit of dealing with money. If you want to have the "players should be paid" discussion, that discussion can be had. That's outside the scope of what we are discussing.
I've also said that there should be more incentive for coaches to stay at schools, particularly when it comes to penalties that are imposed because of their wrong-doing.
Directly from Brian's last line.
I actually think, if I'm reading into Brian's post correctly, that for the most part we agree on this overall being a pretty good move by the NCAA, though by no means making the NCAA good overall or fixed in any major way because of this.
1. While I think there is still progress that needs to be made for to make players and coaches be on equal ground, there certainly is incentive for coaches to retain players.
I'm not saying there is no incentive for coaches to want to keep players - I'm saying there is no equivalent "incentive" to tie the coach to the school as there is for players.
If players have to sit out a year to change schools, coaches should be required to sit out a year when changing jobs.
They can sign contracts, which they are essentially doing for a four-year period.
Except almost all of the scholarships out there are 1 year, and even the 4 year are easy for the school to get out of.
Another new rule is that scholarships "cannot choose to not renew scholarships for athletic reasons", or in other words, four year scholarships.
I agreed that more needs to be done to correct that though so that coaches can't go after the loop holes to get out of it. Personally, I think once a team gives a four year scholarship, that whether that kid is playing or not, those four years should be counted against their total (unless there is a legit injury that is out of anyone's control that prevents the player from playing again, at which point the player should still have a scholarship paid for by the football team, but not count against the scholarship limit). That makes coaches and programs look more into the quality of the kid when recruiting him, and doesn't benefit them for finding loopholes to cut the player.
This is largely my take as well. The argument being made against this move is that it doesn't affect coaches, but that's a different beast. Coaches and institutions have always abused the unilateral power they have as "adults" compared to the NCAA rules for athletes. That absolutely needs to be fixed, though I'm dubious it will happen anytime soon. But the transfer rules regarding waivers and distances always struck me as inherently illogical and easy to abuse. While I'd prefer they move more toward fewer restrictions on transfers than more, the move to a more clear, black-and-white rule (though I think they've gone too far on the dark side) at least eliminates the potential for abuse by both athlete and coaches.
The fact the NCAA doesn't have limitations on coaches being able to jump jobs is an issue, but I agree that making scholarhsips more bilateral requires some of these more harsh rules being implemented.
Particularly for coaches that leave during the recruiting period (if a coach leaves, a player should be out of his scholarship immediately, whether head coach, position coach, or lead recruiter). For players, I think it'd be fair to let them transfer and not lose a year of eligibility. I think there should be more incentive for coaches to have to stay, that's typically in the form of a buyout, but that only benefits the school and not the players on the team. Maybe some form of year or two scholarship losses, though sometimes that happens anyway with the coaching change. I dunno, that's just spit balling a bit.
I don't want to restrict the ability for coaches to move up, as that isn't fair for coaches either. I'd be worried if players could just freely transfer without penalty when a coach leaves, more for the smaller schools than the bigger ones (because to no fault of the program, suddenly the program can be gutted). But I do agree there has to be some leeway for the players that signed up to play for a guy that is no longer there.
For penalties against a program, those should also follow a coach as well. That's probably the worst thing.
I don't want to restrict the ability for coaches to move up, as that isn't fair for coaches either.
...but it is fair for players?
Which focuses almost completely on how there needs to be reform for coaches leaving, you nitpick one sentence out of context to argue it? Yeah, that seems like you're trolling with the old straw man again.
1) There needs to be reform on coaches ability to move
2) It isn't fair to restrict coaches ability to move
Holy cognitive dissonance Batman!
There are no "reforms" on coaches ability to move that won't restrict coaches ability to move.
I said "there needs to be reform for coaches leaving", as in, in the event a coach leaves a program, there needs to be reform to the rules for how that situation is treated.
I did not say that a coaches ability to move should be restricted. "Restricted", in the way you are using it, means putting a limit on, keeping under control, or limiting their ability to only stay in one place. I am not in favor of preventing coaches from moving. I am in favor of their being reform in the event they do move, particularly in the event that a coach is responsible for sanctions and leaves to only have the school and players see the impact of those sanctions.
By the way, it isn't the NCAA that prevents players from "moving up" outside of the fact that they don't pay them. Coaches move up because they get paid more. If you want to argue players should be paid, that's a different discussion. But coaches aren't just moving up to "win now". Furthermore, players can theoretically "go pro" at any time according to the NCAA. Jack Miller just decided to go pro in something other than sports. In basketball, the only reason there is a limit is because the NBA makes players essentially play one year of college ball. I'm sure the NCAA doesn't have a problem with guys having to play three years of college football, but they aren't preventing them from going pro or "moving up".
You love to pull out the logical fallacies and psychological concepts and not really know what you're talking about outside of a broad view of what those things mean. You argue semantics instead of topics, I presume because you lack the ability to have a functional, productive debate. You never bring evidence or substance to the table, you just try to nitpick your way through debates in a manner that is troll-ish. I'm sure coming off as smart does well for you in many ways, and I'm sure in many ways you are actually smart. But you constantly go this route with me and anyone you respond to (because almost all of what you do on this site is nitpick people arguements in a similar manner), and the issue is that you deal with other smart people that can call you out on the BS.
I said "there needs to be reform for coaches leaving", as in, in the event a coach leaves a program, there needs to be reform to the rules for how that situation is treated.
What possible "reform" that involves no restriction on coach movement can improve the situation?
Note - giving the player more leeway to leave after a coach does is not improving the situation, merely allowing the player to avoid the situation.
If we need to "incentivize" the players to stay around (and what is being proposed is a stick and not a carrot)... why don't we need to equally "incentivize" coaches to stick around?
By the way, it isn't the NCAA that prevents players from "moving up" outside of the fact that they don't pay them.
Sure it is. Moving from Kent State to Alabama is "moving up" whether you're a player or coach. A coach is allowed to do so with ZERO restrictions. A player has significant restrictions, and this proposal aims to INCREASE the restrictions.
You love to pull out the logical fallacies and psychological concepts
Semantics matter. The letter of the law overrides the intent. Punishments aren't incentives.
There just seems to be a massive dichotomy in how you believe the rules should treat players and coaches.
Your view seems to be: Players aren't restricted enough in transferring, coaches shouldn't be restricted in transferring.
My view is: The current restriction on player transfer are already onerous, and coaches restrictions on movement need to be similar.
There is a difference in rules between players and coaches because one is being paid in the other is getting compensation. Until/if players get paid, that dichotomy continues. When a coach leaves, he has a buy out. When a player leaves, he has to sit out one year (but doesn't lose any of his compensation of a scholarship). That's the "stick" for both.
Reform could be penalties for moving jobs, such as a slight reduction in scholarships, or, despite you saying it doesn't count, the ability of players to move freely (both on a coaches previous team and his new team) in the event a coaching change occurs. That is more freedom for the players (making life better for players), which helps the players, and gives an incentive for coaches to stay at a school (whether you want to call it a stick or a carrot it's still an incentive to not have to go through that).
And sure, moving from Kent State to Alabama is a move up. The NCAA allows a player to transfer to Alabama if he is good enough and Alabama wants him. My argument is that if it's his first transfer he should not lose any eligibility either way. The only cost is that you don't get to play for a year. You don't lose a scholarship or eligibility, so your compensation is the same. I just don't want a free agent market where Alabama says "your good" and takes kids away from Kent State freely. I've explained further in other posts.
You keep on using restrictions. I am not for restrictions. I am not for preventing movement. If a player feels he needs to move on and transfer, he should transfer. If a coach feels he should move on, he should move on. I am not for restricting anyone. I'm for giving an incentive to stay.
I hardly see how making the situation for coaches worse improves the situation for players, which is seemly your view. This is the first time you have outright expressed this view, so thank you for actually bringing something to the table instead of just nitpicking other people in a troll-ish manner. Like you said, semantics matter, part of semantics is having meaning, part of semantics is having a relavent conversation about the topic and not misrepresenting the other person to try to improve your argument (which you hadn't made).
If you want to know more about my point of view on the situation, I've said it in this thread. At the end of the day, I think the right move is to try to improve the system for everyone, rather than recognize it's not good for some so it should be not good for others. That's just my opinion and I've supported it with my thoughts.
There is a difference in rules between players and coaches because one is being paid in the other is getting compensation.
This just seems to be asserting a tautology, not supporting the status quo. You're basically saying "they are different because they are different".
One is getting payment, the other is getting payment in kind.
Yes, the compensation is in different forms. I have no argument on that. My question is - How does that fact JUSTIFY the difference in the restriction?
I just don't want a free agent market where Alabama says "your good" and takes kids away from Kent State freely.
...but you don't seem to have a problem with a free market where Alabama says "your good" and takes coaches away from Kent State freely.
I understand you don't want a free agent market on players. I don't want a free agent market on players OR coaches... but at a minimum, they should be treated equally.
My questions are:
1) Why should what we want matter at all? Fan desires are about #100 on the list of appropriate priorities
2) What logical, objective, ethical justification is there for restricting players much more significantly than coaches?
I don't want to restrict coaching moves either. I've always thought it weird that kids aren't allowed to transfer if their coaches leave. People around here complain that you commit to the "school" and not the coach, but I've never felt that was relevant. Some people commit to the school, but there is nothing wrong with committing to play for a particular staff and then being blind-sided when that guy leaves. The reasoning shouldn't matter, just like if the coach leaves for more money or a better chance to compete for a title doesn't get held against him.
In terms of dealing with coaching moves, I agree that a scholarship reduction might work if, say, the move comes after a particular date. I think a comprehensive change to the LOI system might help suss out the appropriate deadlines. And those only apply if you are the school initiating the move by, say, firing the incumbent, and if they are hiring a coach from another program. So in this situation, Florida and Michigan firing their head coaches are the initators, but only Florida could potentially deal with a penalty because they are taking CSU's HC, while Michigan just got a guy from the NFL. CSU, now scrambling for a replacement, wouldn't be subject to any penalties. At all three schools, though, players would be free to transfer without penalty.
Players choose where they go to school based off of many factors, and one of those factors is and really should be the coaches. I think the recruiting process needs a lot of reform, more than any other area really. In the recruiting process, you are really dealing with kids for almost the entire process. That process needs to favor the kids a lot more than it currently does in multiple ways.
...if Denard WANTS to stay. But my overriding priority is that these kids not get doinked by the system that often seems designed to doink them.
No one else is subject to these kinds of absolute restrictions. If my company tried to make me sign a document that I wouldn't do my job anywhere for anyone for one year after I left, even if they FIRED me, a judge would throw that crap out the instant he was able to stop laughing. And to your point about these being like pro contracts, I can think of two teeeeeeensy little differences between college contracts and pro contracts. The first is that a pro career is limited theoretically unlimited, and a college career is capped at 4/5 years. The second difference is that one is a negotiated contract between parties of somewhat equal bargaining power (where the employee gets, like, paid and stuff), whereas the "contract" with a college is... not.
That may be the case for your profession, but I'm pretty sure many other professions utilize term contracts. I'm pretty sure many other professions have clauses that prohibit employers from seeking employment with competing companies. I don't think that's all that unusual, and it certainly isn't in sports.
If they fired you, then they broke the contract, that's the difference. But, with 4 year scholarships, kids cannot simply be fired (though I admit there is still too much of an issue of allowing coaches to find ways to cut players low on the depth chart, that loop hole needs to be closed).
I'm not saying pro and college are the same, but there are similarities. We talk about kids, and they are kids when they get recruited, but they are in that grey area of being adults, albeit young adults, when they are in college. I believe there needs to be some balance in the negotiation, and I'm not talking about paying players and things of that nature, but there is no balance in the negotiation if players are free to leave at any time without any incentive to stay. Any program besides the top programs immediately loses any ground to stand on. That's bad for the sport, that's bad for the coaches, that's bad for the programs, that's unfair to other members of the team, and while I understand it's a bit of a slippery slope argument, giving the players the immediate impression that "when it's not the way I want it I can just pack my bags and go elsewhere" isn't the best approach. One of the things sprots taught me was to stick through the really hard times because of things like team, competition, and sometimes doing stuff that isn't quite as selfish.
Again, not saying there aren't issues on the coaching side of things as well, where selfish acts happen too frequently as well. But the solution is to close that loophole, not to completely turn the tides.
I'm pretty sure many other professions have clauses that prohibit employers from seeking employment with competing companies.
I'm pretty sure many of those non-compete clauses won't hold up in a court of law, and a number of states outlaw non-compete agreements.
That's my point. It's the difference between "you can't go play for a team we play this year" and "you can't go anywhere."
cartels who offer take-it-or-leave-it adhesive non-competes. That's the real rub, coaches get to have independant entities bidding against each other for their services in an almost entirely unfettered market. Players get the business end of a monopsonistic cartel.
If I want to quit midway through a term contract, I can. The company can't make me keep working (after all, 13th Amendment and whatnot). And I can go work for another company doing the same stuff. I might owe financial damages, and I'm forbidden from using trade secrets and stuff, but that's it.
This is essentially a mandatory industry-wide non-compete, which is a no-no in any industry.
In one way, I get what you are saying about "non-compete". I'm not a lawyer, I know you are, I'm certain you have a better understanding of that than I do from an industry standpoint, and I'll differ to you on it. However, this becomes murky because we aren't dealing with money like most other industries, and without getting into "players should be paid", which opens a big can of worms, I think it should be viewed differently
From a college football standpoint, on one hand, I see non-compete because it isn't a free market and you can't immediately play for another team.
On the other hand, there is nothing preventing players from transferring at any time of their choosing, and with that, there is nothing preventing players from receiving a scholarship from another university. In short, there is nothing preventing players from getting the form of compensation that is standard in their industry. Furthermore, now there is the possibility that their eligibility status is also unchanged. I'd argue to take the proposed waiver prosess complely off the shelf and say any first time transfer doesn't lose eligibility. Make it even more black and white, get rid of things that bog down the system and make it unclear. Players that want to transfer closer to home for reasons will do so, players that want to just go elsewhere will do so without losing eligibility.
Because we aren't dealing with directly with money, but instead some other form of compensation, I see it differently. I see the "can't play for a year" as the NCAA form of a buyout penalty. At least they aren't taking away a scholarship and the kid has to sit out a year without getting school paid. Likewise, many leagues and industries have restrictions and rules they must abide by. While I don't agree with many restrictions and rules for the NCAA, I think having players sit out a year due to transfer is justifiable penalty for transferring that fits within the mission.
If we are still under the assumption that these are student athletes, as far-fetched as that may be, then we shouldn't open the compensation of a full-ride scholarship to a free market that permits players to switch schools based primarily on sports so willingly without any penalty. If it is truly about school, there is no penalty, as they still get a free education and get to participate in athletics, though not in games. And a year off may actually help them catch up academically, as transferring schools isn't easy from that standpoint.
I just disagree that this is a bad thing overall. I think it's good for the schools, for the sport, for the fans, and I don't think it is a negative for the players. Making things better for other parts of college football doesn't necessarily make it worse for players. The things that need to get better for players need to be addressed (and often times aren't by the NCAA), but the life for players isn't made better because everything else gets respectively worse. And ultimately, if you want to go to a free-market system where players can transfer and play immediately, then schools can rightly argue to play by the same rules; if people are upset about over-signing now and cutting kids now, they'll be really upset when players that under-perform are no longer on scholarship to get an education. I very much believe the free-market solution is a bad solution.
i would only point out that non-compete clauses in contracts are extremely common, to the point that jimmy john's (jimmy john's!!!) has non-competes for its sandwich makers:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/22/news/jimmy-johns-non-compete/index.html
i think you can make a case that signing a letter of intent and agreeing to accept a scholarship is a form of a non-compete.
i would also point out that i have literally zero legal insight or knowledge, so this may be utter gibberish on my part.
Lots of employers make their employees sign non-competes, and most employees (a) don't read them, and (b) assume that they are actually enforceable. But courts take a very restrictive (and increasingly more restrictive as time goes by) view of what is actually enforceable. Basically, a non-compete has to be limited to prevent UNFAIR competition, not ANY competition. If you are taking your working knowledge of trade secrets and other stuff to go work for a competitor next door, your employer can limit THAT. But if you know that the Number Five is the best sandwich, yor boss can't tell you shit.
The reason people are pissed at JJ's isn't because they are suing people who go to work at Subway. It's because they are making their employees THINK it is a breach of contract for them to go work at Subway. No court in the world would ever actually allow this to be enforced, but its a heavy-handed way for JJ's to "incentivize" their people to stay.
It's also a trick to prevent other employers from hiring you. A potential employer might ask "do you have any non-competes?" And if the applicant says "yeah, it says that I can't can peaches anywhere else for years," a risk-averse employer might think that even though it's unlikely that the other peach canning company will sue, and almost impossible for them to WIN, it's not worth the risk or hassle.
for going to work for a competitor. The previous employer prevailed in only one case and person elected to return and continue working for them. However the legal process which in a couple of cases went on for several months was very draining and difficult for the new employer and the person to handle.
It is not necessary for the restriction to be enforceable if the threat of suit is sufficient to influence the decisions of the person of perspective employers.
...again, i don't know diddly, but the mere existence of non-competes tells me that it's not as cut and dried as "your boss can't tell you shit." that and the fact that there is apparently some legislation being underway to end it outright tells me that there's at least some enforceability.
i don't think it's a huge stretch to say that signing a letter of intent and / or accepting a scholarship to a member school should limit your free agency somewhat.
note that i'm not arguing whether the entire loi / scholarship system (or for that matter the mere existence of the ncaa as a 'governing' body) is valid in the first place.
I prefer to have rooted for Denard Robinson all four years he played at Michigan rather than seeing him go elsewhere as soon as Rich Rod was let go.
As a fan, of course that's true. But in making and enforcing these rules, the NCAA's blatantly putting school and fan interests over those of the players.
Would Denard have had more success playing for non-Borgesian OC? Almost certainly. (Remember the "al borges denard fusion cuisine is not made to order" MGoBlog tag?)
The NCAA says that it's committed to "The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences." Making a young man forgo a year of that avocation just because he decided he'd rather go to a different academic, social and/or athletic experience puts the lie to that statement in my mind.
March 18th, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^
March 18th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
So will this affect Jake Rudock's decision? /sad face
March 18th, 2015 at 12:26 PM ^
Ruddock is graduating, so not really a "transfer" - should still be immediately eligible
March 18th, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^
March 18th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^
I was surprised Bryn got the immediate hardship eligibility. Somehow MSU was able to bootstrap an eye injury to his sister with his being a father (not a new father btw)--the latter not particularly rare among college athletes.
March 18th, 2015 at 12:33 PM ^
If the NCAA were really "thinking of the children" to paraphrase Helen Lovejoy they should have taken this the other way. Players can transfer without sitting out a year if:
Head coach leaves, primary recruiter leaves, position coach leaves.
Playing time, family issues/close to home, etc could still go before an appeal process. This would encourage ADs ensure coaching loyalty and making the right hire and would make the coaches more beholden to the program rather than able to jump ship for any reason.
Coaches can go anywhere, why not their players?
March 18th, 2015 at 12:55 PM ^
The players should have the same economic rights as coaches. Period, full stop.
Should that apply to only football players, or to, like, wrestlers and swimmers too?
Of course the market value of the men's basketball and football players is, and would likely continue to be, substantially higher than that of wrestlers and swimmers. But the college sports cartel victimizes some "Olympic Sport" athletes too (particularly by quashing their ability to receive third-party endorsement opportunities).
True, there are Olympic-sport athletes who could make some money getting endorsements. Thing of it is, most of them do, because they leave. That might be 1 in every 1,000 Olympic sport participants if we're being really generous. It's probably more like 1 in 10,000.
The system as it is now "screws" about 2% of its athletes, who could do better on the free market, in exchange for giving the other 98% an opportunity they wouldn't have. The more free-market college sports become, the more money will flow from the 98% to the 2%. Since this is a zero-sum game, that's a problem. I'm OK with the "victimization" of those poor exploited 2%, who have to delay (not sacrifice) their payoff, a situation, I might add, which they chose freely.
who receive a GIA now would do better if the compensation cap were destroyed, and the benefits go to administrators, coaches, and third parties. The actual cost to the institution of enrolling Olympic Sport athletes is much lower than the sticker price of tuition. Hundreds of institutions that do not have massively profitable football and men's basketball programs still field Olympic Sport programs, they just don't have as much bloat.
Theft is theft. The institutions don't disgorge the benefits they steal from revenue athletes upon graduation. Many revenue athletes who would be better off without the compensation cap do not end up receiving a payout after their eligibility expires.
"Choose freely" is not a defense to an antitrust violation. It means college sports aren't slavery. That's an awfully low bar.
"Less bloat" is not the reason those institutions can field Olympic sports teams. Massive subsidization tends to be the reason, or else the athlete pays their own way.
"Most revenue sport athletes" still covers a very small sliver of collegiate athletes. Revenue sports are football and men's basketball - the rest at best break even, and only when talking about big-time deals like lacrosse at Syracuse or hockey at Michigan. And even then, most revenue sport athletes really wouldn't do any better. Backups are pretty damn interchangeable.
Also, the actual cost to the institution of enrolling an athlete - any athlete - is MORE than the sticker price of tuition. Universities are nonprofits; tuition is basically the university's cost of operation, minus donations and state subsidies, amortized across the student body. Athletes require special facilities and services, all paid for by the athletic department. Even an athlete who pays their own way 100% gets more out of it than the average student, because of the extra access to facilities and services.
Comments