Immediate eligibility for transfers under consideration by the NCAA

[BleedGopher]

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...or-transfers-under-consideration-by-the-ncaa/

Go Gophers!!

 

[Dr.Don]

That will be one way of opening up "Amateur Free Agency".

 

[GophersInIowa]

Dear God, what a mess that would be. They're not attacking the biggest problem in my opinion. Coaches bailing after a year or two and not honoring their contract. There should be more penalty for a coach leaving before their contract is expired.

All this would do is hurt those players who are committed to a school and program.

 

[Killjoy]

Dear God, what a mess that would be. They're not attacking the biggest problem in my opinion. Coaches bailing after a year or two and not honoring their contract. There should be more penalty for a coach leaving before their contract is expired.

All this would do is hurt those players who are committed to a school and program.

I find these people lack of understanding as to what the implications would be if these ideas were implemented very scary. Or maybe some of them do understand and don't care. The rich will have a field day with this. Haven't we learned anything from the Yankees and professional basketball?

 

[GopherInPittsburgh]

I feel as if this would remove the incentive to stay at a school. For example: If a championship-caliber team like Alabama has a void at RB, and all they need to get over the hump is a proven RB, would I put it past them to illegaly contact a kid who is a great RB at a school that has no shot at a title? No at all.

 

[To Be Named Later]

This would be an absolute mess. I find it interesting that this is being considered as a way to "simplify" things. Maybe they are just interested in spending more money on all of the investigations into illegal recruiting that would inevitably result. Terrible, terrible idea.

 

[calminnfan]

Though I can understand some points in giving players the option of transferring free and clear, yet I can't help but see this as a breeding ground for prima donnas.

 

[50PoundHead]

I have to echo what many have said. This would be an absolute disaster.

 

[station19]

I have to echo what many have said. This would be an absolute disaster.

+19

 

[Sportsfan24]

I'm going to have to completely disagree with the majority. If coaches can go from one program to another without NCAA folding, players transferring would have even a lesser impact.

First off you must understand that the coaches will still hold the power over who is welcome to their program and who gets a scholarship. The current system is absolutely one sided, players sign a letter of intent that guarantees them nothing but locks them into a commitment with the school. Scholarships are not guaranteed but players can't leave without getting a release.

The fact is the majority of players that want to transfer is do to lack of playing time. Another fact is few schools will be willing to upset their program by bringing in players with less than 4 years to
play. We already know that players lose out on playing for a multitude of reasons that is out of the players control, why not give them some control over their playing career?

The fear among coaches is they would lose some control over the players. The fewer the player options the more control for the coach. You ask me it's pretty selfish of them. They want all the freedom and money they can get for themselves....for the players? Not so much.

If it were allowed you would have 2 or 3 proven big name players transferring each year. You would have 2 or 3 unproven former big name recruits transferring each season. And there would be dozens of middle of the road players or unproven players who decide to transfer because they are sitting behind other players at their current school. In the latter example the result could be parity, schools could no longer stock pile talent.

 

[Ole]

I'd be more for a change in the rules for "releasing players", making it impossible to ban players from transferring to different schools you don't like/compete with.
If a kid leaves he should be able to go where he wants, especially if he is willing to sit out a year to transfer. Which i think is a good deterrent for willy nilly transferring.
Maybe even add in a clause making kids who move back to their home state immediately eligible to help with culture shock/homesickness/family support issues.

I'd remove the release from scholarship limits, keep the 1 year sit out period, and maybe add in a 3 year period for coaches to stay with their contracts unless removed or face a one year sit out period. Basically if a coach pays his dues and builds something he can reap rewards after year 3, but it would keep coaches from jumping in year 1 or 2 like some have recently.

A little out of the box thinking would do everyone in the NCAA good.

 

[To Be Named Later]

I'm going to have to completely disagree with the majority. If coaches can go from one program to another without NCAA folding, players transferring would have even a lesser impact.

First off you must understand that the coaches will still hold the power over who is welcome to their program and who gets a scholarship. The current system is absolutely one sided, players sign a letter of intent that guarantees them nothing but locks them into a commitment with the school. Scholarships are not guaranteed but players can't leave without getting a release.

The fact is the majority of players that want to transfer is do to lack of playing time. Another fact is few schools will be willing to upset their program by bringing in players with less than 4 years to
play. We already know that players lose out on playing for a multitude of reasons that is out of the players control, why not give them some control over their playing career?

The fear among coaches is they would lose some control over the players. The fewer the player options the more control for the coach. You ask me it's pretty selfish of them. They want all the freedom and money they can get for themselves....for the players? Not so much.

If it were allowed you would have 2 or 3 proven big name players transferring each year. You would have 2 or 3 unproven former big name recruits transferring each season. And there would be dozens of middle of the road players or unproven players who decide to transfer because they are sitting behind other players at their current school. In the latter example the result could be parity, schools could no longer stock pile talent.

So you don't there could be some unheralded kid out of high school who starts performing well at a lesser-known school before *magically* getting a scholarship at a bigger school? I would argue that parity would be lost because the big schools could cherry pick great players every year. It would be like getting Juco players but with far fewer question marks. Anyone who thinks that schools would not actively pursue (albeit in a clandestine way) good players from other schools is fooling himself.

Remember the uproar over Wisconsin getting Russell Wilson? He was the exception, and the only valid reason people gave for why it was ok was that he had already graduated. The uproar would be way, way worse.

People like college football because there is a sense of continuity. Free agency (not paying the players) would change all that.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I'm going to have to completely disagree with the majority. If coaches can go from one program to another without NCAA folding, players transferring would have even a lesser impact.

Yeah, I just don't agree with much of this. There are certain examples where it would be a good thing, but overwhelmingly, I think it would be very bad. It's essentially saying that the coaches leaving all the time is getting out of control, so let's just let players do that too and make it even more out of control. They're not addressing the issue in my opinion.

First off you must understand that the coaches will still hold the power over who is welcome to their program and who gets a scholarship. The current system is absolutely one sided, players sign a letter of intent that guarantees them nothing but locks them into a commitment with the school. Scholarships are not guaranteed but players can't leave without getting a release.

I agree that it's an issue. One quick way of changing that is to go away with having to get a release.

The fact is the majority of players that want to transfer is do to lack of playing time.

That's true in the current system. But if this change is made, I don't think that will be the case anymore. Many will transfer for other reasons, including team's success.

Another fact is few schools will be willing to upset their program by bringing in players with less than 4 years to play.

I disagree, I think many schools would be more than happy to bring in a proven player from another program to fill a void.

We already know that players lose out on playing for a multitude of reasons that is out of the players control, why not give them some control over their playing career?

How do they not have some control as is now? If a kid wants to transfer, they can transfer.

The fear among coaches is they would lose some control over the players. The fewer the player options the more control for the coach. You ask me it's pretty selfish of them. They want all the freedom and money they can get for themselves....for the players? Not so much.

Again, I agree. We need to address this "freedom" of the coaches.

If it were allowed you would have 2 or 3 proven big name players transferring each year. You would have 2 or 3 unproven former big name recruits transferring each season. And there would be dozens of middle of the road players or unproven players who decide to transfer because they are sitting behind other players at their current school. In the latter example the result could be parity, schools could no longer stock pile talent.

You'd have more than 2 or 3. Heck, the way it's going now, we already have that many (if not more) big names transferring without having to sit out a year (like Wilson did). It would be much more if sophomores and juniors could leave without having to sit out a year.

In some regards it may help parity, but in others, it would hurt it. For instance, a very good SO RB emerges at Indiana. He knows the team isn't going to be very successful the next two years, and that Virginia Tech has a very good team, but not a great RB so he transfers there. Situations like that would happen, and I think it would happen more than you think.

 

[wait!what?]

Just the NCAAs way of trying to stay relevant.
The trajectory started by the schools in 2011 doesn't include a governing body (the NCAA). If the NCAA is able to muddy the waters it will give them (the NCAA) more viability.

 

[station19]

If it were allowed you would have 2 or 3 proven big name players transferring each year. You would have 2 or 3 unproven former big name recruits transferring each season. And there would be dozens of middle of the road players or unproven players who decide to transfer because they are sitting behind other players at their current school. In the latter example the result could be parity, schools could no longer stock pile talent.

If you want parity, lower the number of scholarships to 65.

 

[Sportsfan24]

So you don't there could be some unheralded kid out of high school who starts performing well at a lesser-known school before *magically* getting a scholarship at a bigger school? I would argue that parity would be lost because the big schools could cherry pick great players every year. It would be like getting Juco players but with far fewer question marks. Anyone who thinks that schools would not actively pursue (albeit in a clandestine way) good players from other schools is fooling himself.

Remember the uproar over Wisconsin getting Russell Wilson? He was the exception, and the only
valid reason people gave for why it was ok was that he had already graduated. The uproar would
be way, way worse.

People like college football because there is a sense of continuity. Free agency (not paying the
players) would change all that.

Great counter points

I would only add that Russell Wilson transferred because his previous coach basicly kicked him off
the team.

So it's okay to cherry pick coaches? Sure, coaches can improve their situations but not
The players? Recruitment cycles and class balancing is to important to bring in players with less than 4 years to learn a system and then compete. You also must take into account that productive players will not be in a hurry to go from the known to the unknown. A player that has been succcesfull in one program is not guaranteed to be successful in another. For every Russell Wilson there are 15 Mitch Mustains.

There is only a sense of continuity in college football because the players are taken advantage of, everyone else associated gets rich or enjoys freedoms the players don't. I am completely for the players and coaches being treated the same. Limited player movement, limited coaches movement. Players are student athletes? Coaches should be compensated like University employees.

 

[Sportsfan24]

If you want parity, lower the number of scholarships to 65.

Agreed, but you would also have to make over signing and pulling scholarships illegal.As long as they exist some schools and conferences who behave unethical will have an advantage.

 

[Nate]

So coaches could leave a program for a new one and then take players with them? Great idea!

 

[dpodoll68]

Why do people always try to make some sort of equivalency between players and coaches? Coaches are fully grown adults. They are in this for a career. Players are barely legal adults, and are exercising an option that is far better than any available to 99.999% of 18 year olds across the world. If they don't like the free education, food, clothing, weight training, etc., etc., (or the opportunity to earn those privileges in the case of walk-ons) they are free to pursue other avenues in life. Why does no one try to draw an equivalency between medical doctors and ditch diggers? The ditch digger should stamp his feet and demand that he be paid a half-million dollar salary like the doctor, right? No, the doctor put in his time and earned the salary he is getting. The coach is an adult and has likely put in decades to get to where he is. The player has every opportunity to earn that seven-figure paycheck the instant he graduates from college. No one is stopping him.

Further, like every other avenue in life, players are at the bottom of the totem pole and are essentially chattel. Because of this, they have very little leverage and should be thankful for the privileges they do get. They are free to complain about their lack of leverage and make attempts to earn more, just as the people with the real power (i.e., coaches and administrators) are free to exercise the control they do have. I don't complain and whine because my boss earns more money and has more authority and more leverage than I do. That's the way the world works. Since college is supposed to be a preparation for real life, it's a good life lesson for players. They don't get to stamp their feet and get what they want if everything isn't perfect. It's called being an adult and dealing with the world as it is rather than what you want it to be.

 

[corcoran1]

I don't have any problem with SF24s complaints about coaches, but as long as the SEC exists, or OSU for that matter, this rule is a bad idea. If they want to establish a rule that a kid can transfer with immediate eligibillty to a team that won fewer games last year, I might buy it.

 

[Sportsfan24]

Why do people always try to make some sort of equivalency between players and coaches? Coaches are fully grown adults. They are in this for a career. Players are barely legal adults, and are exercising an option that is far better than any available to 99.999% of 18 year olds across the world. If they don't like the free education, food, clothing, weight training, etc., etc., (or the opportunity to earn those privileges in the case of walk-ons) they are free to pursue other avenues in life. Why does no one try to draw an equivalency between medical
doctors and ditch diggers? The ditch digger should stamp his feet and demand that he be paid a
half-million dollar salary like the doctor, right? No, the doctor put in his time and earned the
salary he is getting. The coach is an adult and has likely put in decades to get to where he is.
The player has every opportunity to earn that seven-figure paycheck the instant he graduates
from college. No one is stopping him.

Further, like every other avenue in life, players are at the bottom of the totem pole and are
essentially chattel. Because of this, they have very little leverage and should be thankful for the
privileges they do get. They are free to complain about their lack of leverage and make attempts
to earn more, just as the people with the real power (i.e., coaches and administrators) are free to exercise the control they do have. I don't complain and whine because my boss earns more
money and has more authority and more leverage than I do. That's the way the world works.
Since college is supposed to be a preparation for real life, it's a good life lesson for players. They
don't get to stamp their feet and get what they want if everything isn't perfect. It's called being
an adult and dealing with the world as it is rather than what you want it to be.

You do realize that 18 year olds are adults? You also realize that the majority of football players
who are on the field are 21 or above

I also hate to break it to you....but I'm sure whatever profession you are in you are not as
relevant to its success as college players are to football. I'm sure your likeness or name is not used to promote your business. I know I could be wrong but I doubt I could pick up a corporate or trade magazine and find them talking about you? Maybe there's a blog or 30 were they are talking specifically about you or your coworkers?

I'm only partially joking. Here's is the deal, there is no comparison between "real" life and college athletes in revenue producing sports. If you don't like digging a ditch for one employer you are free to go dig one for another. Which by the way is a terrible analogy. These athletes put as much time if not more to become college athletes than doctors do to become doctors and.....it's easier to become a doctor than a d1 athlete in a revenue producing sport. In my opinion they need to
remain more on the side of amateur athlete than pro, but I get annoyed when folks want them to do so for their own selfish reasons. With fans it's normally this is how we like it. With coaches and
administrators it's a way to maintain control over their multimillion enterprise. If you don't like how college football changes you do know you are free to go watch high school or your local park board team right?

Your boss earns more? Maybe he should. If it was all about Jerry Kill why didn't we win this year? Answer...because we didn't have the PLAYERS required to win.

 

[Sportsfan24]

So coaches could leave a program for a new one and then take players with them? Great idea!

That would be terrible...how about this. Players are allowed to transfer and become eligible right away but coaches must get releases from their players, they are forced sit a year and they can not get paid if they take a job at another school in the same conference.

 

[Tee09]

You do realize that 18 year olds are adults? You also realize that the majority of football players
who are on the field are 21 or above

I also hate to break it to you....but I'm sure whatever profession you are in you are not as
relevant to its success as college players are to football. I'm sure your likeness or name is not used to promote your business. I know I could be wrong but I doubt I could pick up a corporate or trade magazine and find them talking about you? Maybe there's a blog or 30 were they are talking specifically about you or your coworkers?

I'm only partially joking. Here's is the deal, there is no comparison between "real" life and college athletes in revenue producing sports. If you don't like digging a ditch for one employer you are free to go dig one for another. Which by the way is a terrible analogy. These athletes put as much time if not more to become college athletes than doctors do to become doctors and.....it's easier to become a doctor than a d1 athlete in a revenue producing sport. In my opinion they need to
remain more on the side of amateur athlete than pro, but I get annoyed when folks want them to do so for their own selfish reasons. With fans it's normally this is how we like it. With coaches and
administrators it's a way to maintain control over their multimillion enterprise. If you don't like how college football changes you do know you are free to go watch high school or your local park board team right?

Your boss earns more? Maybe he should. If it was all about Jerry Kill why didn't we win this year? Answer...because we didn't have the PLAYERS required to win.

There's nothing "hard" about being born an athletic freak. At this level, that's what these guys are. No amount of hard work will let me be as fast as Kim or as big as Ed Olson or as athletic and huge at the same time as Rashede hageman. It's a lottery. There are plenty of guys who have worked hard to become fundamentally better football players who aren't blessed with the athletic ability that some of the Gophers are. Hard work will make you better, sure, but there is a threshold based entirely on the talent you are born with.

Loyalty to college football teams is not about the players. It's about the school you went to or the state you're from. Nobody became a Gopher fan because they had Eric Decker, but Gopher fans love him because he was one of us.

My work in the past couple years made our research group ~1.1 million dollars, but I get paid a small fraction of that, and probably about half what my boss makes. He has the experience, and the group has the resources. I couldn't do my job without their stuff, and interaction with my boss and learning from his experience makes me better at what I do than I would be by myself. They also took a chance that I would be a huge flop and waste their money.

If playing college football in exchange for a scholarship is such a burden, you don't have to do it. 99% of gopher fans would give their left nut to pay to play hockey, basketball, or football for the Gophers for just one game.

 

[dpodoll68]

These athletes put as much time if not more to become college athletes than doctors do to become doctors and.....it's easier to become a doctor than a d1 athlete in a revenue producing sport.

You make some good points, but this is just silly. In modern medicine, doctors study/work after HS for 13-15 years (depending on specialty), often working 80-hr weeks, before they can even begin earning a decent salary. They are also accumulating massive debts they will likely spend a decade or more paying off, while the scholarship athlete is accumulating zero. My sister-in-law is a Navy surgeon. She is only making ~$60-70 k and could be making 3-4 times that in the private sector while not owing 14 years of service to the military, but that is the trade-off she made in exchange for having zero student loan debt. That is a conscious choice she made based on a cost-benefit analysis. She is not being fairly compensated for her work by capitalist standards. Neither are elite college players. But no one held a gun to their head. This is the system in which they chose to participate.

Coaches also generally work 20 or more years, at minimum, before they get their big shot. Jerry Kill was a working coach for almost 3 decades before he got his. He started out making next-to-nothing. That's the thing that gets ignored in this. Big-time Division I major college head coaches in football and basketball get paid large salaries, but there are only ~120 of them in existence. Between Division I and Division II, there are seas of coaches (head and assistant) who are working for pauper's wages, often having had to work for decades to do so, while the athletes who play for them have to work hard for 4-5 years to get tons of free benefits that pay now and well into the future. It's just not a valid comparison. I agree that the athletes, especially the elite ones, are the straw that stirs the drink. They are free to find another avenue that pays them as much or more as a free college education + numerous other benefits.

 

[To Be Named Later]

Great counter points

I would only add that Russell Wilson transferred because his previous coach basicly kicked him off
the team.

So it's okay to cherry pick coaches? Sure, coaches can improve their situations but not
The players? Recruitment cycles and class balancing is to important to bring in players with less than 4 years to learn a system and then compete. You also must take into account that productive players will not be in a hurry to go from the known to the unknown. A player that has been succcesfull in one program is not guaranteed to be successful in another. For every Russell Wilson there are 15 Mitch Mustains.

There is only a sense of continuity in college football because the players are taken advantage of, everyone else associated gets rich or enjoys freedoms the players don't. I am completely for the players and coaches being treated the same. Limited player movement, limited coaches movement. Players are student athletes? Coaches should be compensated like University employees.

You and I differ in our opinion because I view coaches and players as apples and oranges. There is no comparison, mostly because, as one other poster pointed out, it isn't like the coaches just graduated from high school and jumped into high-paying jobs. They worked for it and earned it, the same way 10-year NFL vets work for it and earn it. I have absolutely no problem with with coaches moving along because it is their jobs. They put in the time and earned the ability to do that. If players don't like their situations, they are absolutely free to move but know the penalty. Coaches also have penalties in the form of buyout clauses.

As for your point about them being compensated like university employees, I will say that they ARE compensated like university employees. If other university employees are upset about their compensation, I would suggest to them that they should find a way to bring in millions of dollars of revenue to a school. Maybe rather than being professors or janitors, they should have been highly successful football coaches. They made a choice. I, for example, am a teacher. I made a choice. I could have made more money doing something else, but I chose to do something I love.

As for the kids, I will cheer like crazy for Shabazz this fall, but would he have gotten into the U without football? No chance. For someone like him to then gripe about not being able to transfer (not that he is; I am just using him as an example) would be, in my mind, absolutely ridiculous. He, like everyone else, knew what he was getting into. If he didn't, it is his own fault for not finding out.

 

[dpodoll68]

TBNL, you are a great poster. You really need to post more. I just wanted to say that.

Also, you bring up a great point I had been thinking about earlier. Coaches have greater freedom of movement, but they almost always pay a heavy financial penalty for the privilege. If players want the same freedom of movement, let's make the stakes the same. If player X wants to leave Minnesota and transfer to Alabama to play immediately, his 1, 2, or 3 year tuition bill is due in full and immediately. As soon as the full amount is remitted, he is free to transfer wherever he wants. Sounds fair, right?

 

[To Be Named Later]

TBNL, you are a great poster. You really need to post more. I just wanted to say that.

Also, you bring up a great point I had been thinking about earlier. Coaches have greater freedom of movement, but they almost always pay a heavy financial penalty for the privilege. If players want the same freedom of movement, let's make the stakes the same. If player X wants to leave Minnesota and transfer to Alabama to play immediately, his 1, 2, or 3 year tuition bill is due in full and immediately. As soon as the full amount is remitted, he is free to transfer wherever he wants. Sounds fair, right?

Right back at you.

 

[Sportsfan24]

You and I differ in our opinion because I view coaches and players as apples and oranges. There is no comparison, mostly because, as one other poster pointed out, it isn't like the coaches just graduated from high school and jumped into high-paying jobs. They worked for it and earned it, the same way 10-year NFL vets work for it and earn it. I have absolutely no problem with with coaches moving along because it is their jobs. They put in the time and earned the ability to do that. If players don't like their situations, they are absolutely
free to move but know the penalty. Coaches also have penalties in the form of buyout clauses.

As for your point about them being compensated like university employees, I will say that they ARE compensated like university employees. If other university employees are upset about their
compensation, I would suggest to them that they should find a way to bring in millions of dollars of revenue to a school. Maybe rather than being professors or janitors, they should have been highly
successful football coaches. They made a choice. I, for example, am a teacher. I made a choice.
I could have made more money doing something else, but I chose to do something I love.

As for the kids, I will cheer like crazy for Shabazz this fall, but would he have gotten into the U
without football? No chance. For someone like him to then gripe about not being able to transfer
(not that he is; I am just using him as an example) would be, in my mind, absolutely ridiculous.
He, like everyone else, knew what he was getting into. If he didn't, it is his own fault for not
finding out.

That fact you actually believe coaches pay their own buy out clauses pretty much saids it all.

I'm glad you had no say on the civil rights movement..."look here honey, you knew when you took this job you were gonna be paid less than the fellas, if you don't like it quit."

For the record the school hiring the coach (usually a booster) picks up the clause for the old ball coach. Oh...somebody should tell Lance Kiffin, Bret Bielima and Pat Fitzgerald it takes 30 years or maybe you guys meant from birth?

 

[To Be Named Later]

That fact you actually believe coaches pay their own buy out clauses pretty much saids it all.

I'm glad you had no say on the civil rights movement..."look here honey, you knew when you took this job you were gonna be paid less than the fellas, if you don't like it quit."

For the record the school hiring the coach (usually a booster) picks up the clause for the old ball coach. Oh...somebody should tell Lance Kiffin, Bret Bielima and Pat Fitzgerald it takes 30 years or maybe you guys meant from birth?

You are equating getting a free education & job opportunities to the civil rights movement? Wow. You are so far gone on this that it isn't worth discussing.

Please remind me where I said they paid their own buyout clauses, since I don't remember ever writing that. How about this: the school that the kid transfers to would have to pay back that kid's scholarship money to the school he is leaving. Would that make it equal enough to you?

Your bias on this issue because of your son is clouding your judgment. Face the facts: the players are in no way oppressed. They get a free education, free room and board, and FAR more job opportunities when leaving college than the average student. In return, they play football (something they say they love and the majority of college football players do for free). Seems like a pretty good deal.

Your son chose to go to Minnesota rather than take a scholarship at another school. Unlike the civil rights case that you so ridiculously compared this to (where the woman had no other options and was actually being oppressed), your son DID have another option and did not have to pay for school.

My god. When people invoke the civil rights movement when discussing college athletics, it makes me sick. Get over yourself.

 

[matt]

You are equating getting a free education & job opportunities to the civil rights movement? Wow. You are so far gone on this that it isn't worth discussing.

Yup, I stopped reading after that. That's ridiculous. And please don't try to argue that it isn't ridiculous, just admit that it was a horrible comparison.