Transfer rule changes on the horizon?

[HornsRuleU]

Dennis Dodd of CBS says NCAA is considering Big 12* proposal to allow athletes to follow their head coach without restriction for pretty much any reason:

• if he's fired
• if he moves
• post-season ban

* Written by faculty athletic representatives (whatever that means) at Baylor and Iowa State.

The main issue I see with it is that it could allow for a "Miami Heat" move. A coach could take his best players with him to another program that lacks just those players to be a contender.

Coaches could be targeted as replacements, not just for their own merits, but for the athletes currently at that school. It could lead to more coaching turnover. (Notice the schools that want this to occur.)

It could trend to allowing the same thing if a position coach moves, with the same weaknesses.

It just seems to be more ammunition against school loyalty, which is already suffering.

Dodd article is here. (link)

 

[ekal48]

What's wrong with if you transfer you sit a year. That's it, everybody knows and no exceptions.

BTW, High School also.

 

[Iitbhorn3]

Here is a different way to look at it.
Coach leaves for another place - student can move to any school except with the coach. Current 1 year penalty applies
Coach resigns / retires / fired- current rules apply. If coach is fired for performance, school cannot restrict transfer destinations.
Bans / Probations - unrestricted movement allowed. Year loss is discretionary. A blanket rule would not be good.

 

[ekal48]

Here is a different way to look at it.
Coach leaves for another place - student can move to any school except with the coach. Current 1 year penalty applies
Coach resigns / retires / fired- current rules apply. If coach is fired for performance, school cannot restrict transfer destinations.
Bans / Probations - unrestricted movement allowed. Year loss is discretionary. A blanket rule would not be good.

I get part of what you are saying.

I'm not a fan of zero tolerance, there are going to have to be some things that are exceptions and reviewed by, whoopee, the NCAA.

But one year seems workable. I should have added I don't think the school should need to grant a release or restrict where the player goes, unless the coach didn't complete term of his contract then player could't follow coach like you stated.

 

[Steve-O-Matic]

I'm a big fan of the graduate transfer policy that the NCAA instituted several years ago, but I'm vehemently opposed to this absurd proposal, which would be completely contradictory to the NCAA's carefully-crafted portrayal of the players as "student-athletes," and which would further pivot them into commodities even more than they already are. This would also render completely meaningless the pitch from coaches and administrators of the virtues of the 4-year experience and a degree from the university as life-preparing assets during the high school recruiting process. If this policy had been in place last year, Texas very easily could have lost well over half of its roster overnight after Charlie Strong's termination, ensuring a completely uncompetitive product on the field for years to come, and negating any ability to entice Tom Herman or any other halfway decent head coach to come to Austin. This would be a completely one-sided rule which would provide an exclusively-athletic benefit to the players, and a colossal detriment to any institution that makes a coaching change or loses their head coach to another job unwillingly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current state which already allows voluntary freedom of movement, but with the proper check-and-balance of the player having to sit out one season upon doing so (and while still maintaining that year of eligibility).

 

[clob94]

@Steve-O-Matic

Esteban, while I comprehend and appreciate everything you're trying to say here, allow me first to add some perspective.

We need to stop using the term "student athlete" when we talk about the big 2/3 in college sports. Football, basketball and (sometimes but rare) baseball are the only money makers in college sports. I can assure you, the NCAA loves to trumpet the tagline of "student athletes", but it only really applies to all women's sports, tennis, track, swimming etc. When you talk about the big 2/3, the NCAA will, out of one side of its mouth, use the term student athlete, while from the other corner of its mouth, sing the song of the O'Jays---- for the love of money----- sing it with me now

Money money money muuuuuuuunay!

The literal billions of dollars flowing into the coffers of the NCAA and the universities says simply one thing-- we want you here as a student, if only to profit from you as an athlete. Jaded as fvck, right? The spirit of the student athlete is gone (in the money making sports) so why not blow the full load and open sh!t up to free agency?

 

[ryan_sublett]

I don’treally have a problem with the rule. Although I’d like to see a couple tweaks. I think you should get one free transfer. After that the same rules should apply as do now, and I’d keep the grad transfer rule in place. Not sure you want to create what would amount to a free agent market every year, so there has to be some kind of limitations.

I don’t think you’d have to many cases of coaches poaching players. There really isn’t much stopping that now other than the sitout rule, and you don’t see much now. I guess the school can restrict you, but many don’t.

There isn’t much school loyalty now. Guys are signing to play for the coach. We may not like to admit it, but they are. I mean Herman is a great recruiter everyone says that, but in the same breath we don’t admit that guys are really playing fora coach and not so much the University. I don’t see a rule change changing much.

 

[Steve-O-Matic]

clob94,

While I don't disagree with anything you said in your first paragraph above, your final summation in the last sentence of your post is tantamount to saying, "Heroin dealers and identity thieves are already making big money from their crimes so why not just legalize heroin and identity theft?" Sorry, but this is a patently absurd proposal by the Big 12, and the profit margins of major college sports are not a justification for it. In fact that's not even a related subject.

 

[clob94]

clob94,

While I don't disagree with anything you said in your first paragraph above, your final summation in the last sentence of your post is tantamount to saying, "Heroin dealers and identity thieves are already making big money from their crimes so why not just legalize heroin and identity theft?" Sorry, but this is a patently absurd proposal by the Big 12, and the profit margins of major college sports are not a justification for it. In fact that's not even a related subject.

I concede unto you that while my first paragraph was factually argumentative, my second paragraph was a poorly tabulated attempt at the art of tongues pressed to cheeks. The absurdity that is profits being procured by institutions now in the name of college sports is very thinly veiled by the "spirit" in which these games are played.

Seeing both the ugly and beautiful side of college football was a blessing for me. The ugly side is, 90% of the time, you are a commodity to the university and coaches. However, as a player, you learn to live with that sword of Damocles constantly balanced above your head. You do this knowing that you'll be able to savor those beautiful moments of joy and elation. Emotionally, it's a pretty even trade. Financially however, it's blatantly one sided.

 

[TX1972]

@Steve-O-Matic

Esteban, while I comprehend and appreciate everything you're trying to say here, allow me first to add some perspective.

We need to stop using the term "student athlete" when we talk about the big 2/3 in college sports. Football, basketball and (sometimes but rare) baseball are the only money makers in college sports. I can assure you, the NCAA loves to trumpet the tagline of "student athletes", but it only really applies to all women's sports, tennis, track, swimming etc. When you talk about the big 2/3, the NCAA will, out of one side of its mouth, use the term student athlete, while from the other corner of its mouth, sing the song of the O'Jays---- for the love of money----- sing it with me now

Money money money muuuuuuuunay!

The literal billions of dollars flowing into the coffers of the NCAA and the universities says simply one thing-- we want you here as a student, if only to profit from you as an athlete. Jaded as fvck, right? The spirit of the student athlete is gone (in the money making sports) so why not blow the full load and open sh!t up to free agency?

Title IX was not as onerous before Bill Clinton became president. Hillary got him to attack Brown's system of no scholarships, but aid to any students who want to participate in sports. You see, many more boys than girls WANT to participate in sports. That leads to disproportionate representation. We can't have that.