Times are a change'n...NCAA approves no permission transfer rules

[CropDuster507]

It's a job is nothing more than a rationalization to justify unequal treatment. The rules for adults are always different than rules for either kids or people transitioning from kid to adult.

If a student-athlete wants to transfer so be it, let them transfer. If you are going to demand the kid sit a year, then by golly just apply the sit a year rule across the board. If a coach wants to transfer from the employment of one school to another, by golly so be it. Let him/her transfer. Just sit a year.

Exactly this. Kids should know what they're getting into, being an NCAA athlete, as should coaches. If you sign, if you decide to agree to be apart of that team under those guidelines, then do it, but be aware that you will be held accountable to your agreement.

I just took a new teaching job. My prior job pushed me to sign a contract about a month prior. They do this so that teachers don't jump ship to the public schools with better contracts/benefits. I told my principal that I was in the running to get a teaching job at the school I coach at. She let me know that according to the contract, there would be a buy-out amount, but that they try to take everything into consideration.

Fact of the matter is, I jumped ship. I have to pay that buy-out. I do this because THEY are supplying me a place to earn a salary. I signed on for that, and that buy-out was insurance that I would have somewhere to teach next year.

Free will is great, but when you sign on for something, there should be a level of accountability. Nobody is entitled to the opportunity to compete in the NCAA. Don't like it? Go Greco. Go the OTC. Or just be a regular student.

 

[dunkej01]

Exactly this. Kids should know what they're getting into, being an NCAA athlete, as should coaches. If you sign, if you decide to agree to be apart of that team under those guidelines, then do it, but be aware that you will be held accountable to your agreement.

I just took a new teaching job. My prior job pushed me to sign a contract about a month prior. They do this so that teachers don't jump ship to the public schools with better contracts/benefits. I told my principal that I was in the running to get a teaching job at the school I coach at. She let me know that according to the contract, there would be a buy-out amount, but that they try to take everything into consideration.

Fact of the matter is, I jumped ship. I have to pay that buy-out. I do this because THEY are supplying me a place to earn a salary. I signed on for that, and that buy-out was insurance that I would have somewhere to teach next year.

Free will is great, but when you sign on for something, there should be a level of accountability. Nobody is entitled to the opportunity to compete in the NCAA. Don't like it? Go Greco. Go the OTC. Or just be a regular student.

I agree with what you say wholeheartedly. A civil world can only exist but on the basis of the contracts/laws we sign/agree too.

However, the whole college athlete thing twists me up BIGLY because the dollar amounts these schools make off of these kids skills is just so disproportionate to what the athlete gets on a dollar to dollar basis. Even the kid on the worst team is contributing to the brand of that school that helps them sell things and rake in donations. no athletes, no donations, no sales, no big time schools.

the answers will only come after the apocalypse resets the playing field. its just got to big to find a real solution at this time in my opinion.

 

[manatree]

If a student-athlete should sit a year then so should an under contract coach.
If a coach is not required to sit, then the student-athlete should not be.

If a school terminates a coach before the contract expires, does the school's program have to sit out a year?

 

[manatree]

from my prior post: "i'm all for letting kids transfer to their hearts content, but sit a year. if they're transferring for scholastic reasons then they shouldn't mind sitting. if they're transferring for sports reasons, make there be some penalty for not honoring a commitment."

Given that most student athletes are not on full scholarship, sitting a year for any reason adds a significant amount of debt.

 

[manatree]

Fact of the matter is, I jumped ship. I have to pay that buy-out. I do this because THEY are supplying me a place to earn a salary. I signed on for that, and that buy-out was insurance that I would have somewhere to teach next year.

Did you sind that contract when you were in high school? Was the pay from that contract so small that you had to take out loans in order to be able to simply attend your job? You're not even comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to lug nuts.

 

[CropDuster507]

Did you sind that contract when you were in high school? Was the pay from that contract so small that you had to take out loans in order to be able to simply attend your job? You're not even comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to lug nuts.

Most kids are signing when they're roughly 18. What age are you allowed to hold people accountable to their word? Do we wait until they're 22/23? When do we prepare them for things like contract signings of the future?
I'm just saying that if you're NOT going to honor that commitment, you simply pay a buy-out of sitting out a year of athletic competition. You can still go to school and get an education. Nobody is making you sit out of school, which is what a college is made for. You're free to transfer, just follow the set rule in-place.

 

[nitlion6]

If a school terminates a coach before the contract expires, does the school's program have to sit out a year?

The school is responsible for meeting the outstanding financial obligation.

 

[manatree]

I'm just saying that if you're NOT going to honor that commitment, you simply pay a buy-out of sitting out a year of athletic competition. You can still go to school and get an education. Nobody is making you sit out of school, which is what a college is made for. You're free to transfer, just follow the set rule in-place.

The vast majority of student athletes are not on full scholarship and already paying a lot of money for the opportunity to attend school and bust their hump in their sport. In my opinion, asking them to pay a buy out if they want to go somewhere else is absurd.

 

[CropDuster507]

The vast majority of student athletes are not on full scholarship and already paying a lot of money for the opportunity to attend school and bust their hump in their sport. In my opinion, asking them to pay a buy out if they want to go somewhere else is absurd.

I understand that very few (I'd honestly guess less than 50 in entire D1) are on full scholarship. Nobody forced them to sign a letter of intent. Nobody forced them to accept 30% tuition +books. They chose to do that.

I will say that coaching changes and program drops are a major wrench in the deal.

I think there should be some sort of middle ground between "Wild West, go wherever you want whenever you want" and "Thou Shall Not Pass".

 

[Dogwelder]

... because the dollar amounts these schools make off of these kids skills is just so disproportionate to what the athlete gets on a dollar to dollar basis ...

It's true that many if not most D1 schools take in way more money in basketball and football than they give out in scholarships. Are you saying that schools generally have the same experience with wrestling, too? (And that's before we even talk about travel costs, coach and staff salaries, etc.)

 

[Dogwelder]

... Nobody forced them to sign a letter of intent. Nobody forced them to accept 30% tuition +books. They chose to do that ...

If the clause "they chose to do that" were always an inherently good and relevant argument, then it would exonerate the status quo in The Grapes of Wrath. As in: "nobody forced these Okies to sign on to work for starvation wages and perpetual debt servitude to the company towns".

While the principle of "honor the contract" is interesting in its own right as an abstract sentiment, it misses the point here.

The actual issue here is that the status quo was not offering kids an adequate set of choices, just as the dust-bowl refugees did not have an adequate set of choices, and so now we have a conversation about altering the system to provide a better, more humane set of choices for the kids. In particular, the better choices would come from saying, “we designate this type of contract term as being unenforceable because it is against our values as a group.” We do this sometimes, with minimum-wage laws, with noncompete-agreement laws, etc.

 

[Lyons212]

Given that most student athletes are not on full scholarship, sitting a year for any reason adds a significant amount of debt.

Taking on additional debt is a choice made by the kid/parents. No harm if a kid decided to forego their final year of eligibility and get on with there life to avoid more debt especially if they graduated. Decisions like this, is why too many people graduate from college with large amounts of debt.

If you agree to play college sports and take scholarship money, you are agreeing to abide by the various rules governing them.

When it comes to football and basketball players raising lots of money for the school, keep in mind that many of these players never receive quality playing time. How does that factor into the money they raised.

Life many things in life, the answer and situation is complicated.

 

[RoarLions1]

This can't become a conversation just about money, or all of the non-revenue sports lose, and eventually go away. This is way too complicated for that. The NCAA puts on 90 Championships, across 3 Divisions each year, for example, and only 5 of the 90 take in more money than they cost to run. The same could be said for the balance sheet at each school, there will be a few revenue sports supporting many non-revenue sports (that's over-simplified too) for the income/expenses of running sports programs. The impact of those facts have been felt long before now.

Back to the transfer rule...after thinking it through for several days, it's my opinion that the net impact won't be that significant over time.

 

[matter7172]

Taking on additional debt is a choice made by the kid/parents. No harm if a kid decided to forego their final year of eligibility and get on with there life to avoid more debt especially if they graduated. Decisions like this, is why too many people graduate from college with large amounts of debt.

If you agree to play college sports and take scholarship money, you are agreeing to abide by the various rules governing them.

One of the metrics my alma mater uses for demonstrating the relative value of the education there is the comparatively higher percentage of students completing their degree in 4 years. With the high costs of college these days, it's a metric not to be ignored by parents and students.

 

[Lyons212]

This can't become a conversation just about money, or all of the non-revenue sports lose, and eventually go away. This is way too complicated for that. The NCAA puts on 90 Championships, across 3 Divisions each year, for example, and only 5 of the 90 take in more money than they cost to run. The same could be said for the balance sheet at each school, there will be a few revenue sports supporting many non-revenue sports (that's over-simplified too) for the income/expenses of running sports programs. The impact of those facts have been felt long before now.

Back to the transfer rule...after thinking it through for several days, it's my opinion that the net impact won't be that significant over time.

The money part of the discussion cannot be ignored. One reason why I am not really sympathetic towards the college football and basketball players and the revenue they bring to the AD is that much of that money is used to fund sports such as wrestling that are revenue drains on the AD.

I get that it is unfair that coaches such as James Franklin make $5 mil plus a year, and schools like Texas A&M and Clemson have no issue sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into facility upgrades. OTOH, that money is used to attract elite football players and provide the best opportunity to develop them...all those players come into PSU, Clemson, Bama etc with a goal of playing on Sunday and all its riches.

Most of them are not viewing going to college and playing football as an ends to a means to get a college education.

 

[nitlion6]

Exactly this. Kids should know what they're getting into, being an NCAA athlete, as should coaches. If you sign, if you decide to agree to be apart of that team under those guidelines, then do it, but be aware that you will be held accountable to your agreement.

I just took a new teaching job. My prior job pushed me to sign a contract about a month prior. They do this so that teachers don't jump ship to the public schools with better contracts/benefits. I told my principal that I was in the running to get a teaching job at the school I coach at. She let me know that according to the contract, there would be a buy-out amount, but that they try to take everything into consideration.

Fact of the matter is, I jumped ship. I have to pay that buy-out. I do this because THEY are supplying me a place to earn a salary. I signed on for that, and that buy-out was insurance that I would have somewhere to teach next year.

Free will is great, but when you sign on for something, there should be a level of accountability. Nobody is entitled to the opportunity to compete in the NCAA. Don't like it? Go Greco. Go the OTC. Or just be a regular student.

The post you responded to is not my position. I was simply pointing out the transfer rules for adults and student-athletes has never been equal and if the "sit a year" rule was applied to the grown ups the "unfairness" or "vindictive meanness" or even possibly "unlawfulness" would be a little easier to see.

If a kid sees a better opportunity at another school, why punish him for transfering?

Like I posted above though there should be some type of punishment for any coach from other programs contacting other school's student-athlete.
The kid should be allowed to transfer without penalty, however I do not believe other schools' athletic departments should be allowed to talk to others' student-athletes.
The kid should either withdraw and be re-recruited or transfer and the day classes start discuss scholarship money.

 

[El-Jefe]

I get that it is unfair that coaches such as James Franklin make $5 mil plus a year, and schools like Texas A&M and Clemson have no issue sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into facility upgrades. OTOH, that money is used to attract elite football players and provide the best opportunity to develop them...

Wrong. That is a secondary benefit but not what the money is used for.

The money is used to attract elite alumni to donate heavily back to their alma mater.

 

[Lyons212]

Wrong. That is a secondary benefit but not what the money is used for.

The money is used to attract elite alumni to donate heavily back to their alma mater.

Actually it is both. Invest in money in the football program to hopefully get elite recruits and on-field success which will attract more donors to the school. Ultimately the facility upgrades for football have two goals, win and reap the subsequent rewards University wide.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

Did you sind that contract when you were in high school? Was the pay from that contract so small that you had to take out loans in order to be able to simply attend your job? You're not even comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to lug nuts.

The last time I checked 18 year old kids can defend our country. If they can sign a contract with the US military and take a bullet for you and me, or more likely have a leg blown off, I think they are more than adequately prepared to stand by a commitment they have made to a school, coach and teammates.

Then of course those who were born after 1980 have been trained since kindergarten to melt at room temperature. The word Commitment hardly has meaning.

 

[manatree]

The last time I checked 18 year old kids can defend our country. If they can sign a contract with the US military and take a bullet for you and me, or more likely have a leg blown off, I think they are more than adequately prepared to stand by a commitment they have made to a school, coach and teammates.

Then of course those who were born after 1980 have been trained since kindergarten to melt at room temperature. The word Commitment hardly has meaning.

The last time I checked, college athletics are not military maneuvers. That's not even comparing apples to lug nuts, it's comparing apples to dark matter. You can puff your chest and pontificate about the need for these snowflakes to learn to ein commitments all you want, it still won't change the fact that requiring partial scholarship athletes to sit out a year if they want to go elsewhere was always a bull crap rule.

Even for full scholarship athletes it was a ridiculous rule given that their scholarships were only one year deals for the schools but the athlete has to sign on for four.

 

[nitlion6]

The last time I checked 18 year old kids can defend our country. If they can sign a contract with the US military and take a bullet for you and me, or more likely have a leg blown off, I think they are more than adequately prepared to stand by a commitment they have made to a school, coach and teammates.

Then of course those who were born after 1980 have been trained since kindergarten to melt at room temperature. The word Commitment hardly has meaning.

50 percent divorce rate, a changed view on commitment regardless of self versus commitment and well being of self didn't start happening with those born after 1980.

 

[dropster45]

50 percent divorce rate, a changed view on commitment regardless of self versus commitment and well being of self didn't start happening with those born after 1980.

Not arguing with your narrative on a fundamental basis, but as a matter of fact divorce rates have never been at 50%. 30.8% is the actual number based on census data through 2009.

 

[Dogwelder]

... You can ... pontificate about the need for ... commitments all you want, it still won't change the fact that <sitting> was always a bull crap rule.

That’s it in a nutshell.

Imagine this: most members of a functional legislature are debating “would this be a better law, or would that be a better law?” And a couple of legislators keep interjecting with “PEOPLE SHOULD FOLLOW THE LAW!”

Uh, how does that platitude relate to the actual question of which law is better?

 

[nitlion6]

Not arguing with your narrative on a fundamental basis, but as a matter of fact divorce rates have never been at 50%. 30.8% is the actual number based on census data through 2009.

You forced an interesting read. Apparently the divorce rate peaked in 1980 at around 40 percent.

 

[a_mshaffer]

The last time I checked 18 year old kids can defend our country. If they can sign a contract with the US military and take a bullet for you and me, or more likely have a leg blown off, I think they are more than adequately prepared to stand by a commitment they have made to a school, coach and teammates.

Then of course those who were born after 1980 have been trained since kindergarten to melt at room temperature. The word Commitment hardly has meaning.

but they're not allowed to buy a beer!