Sounds like trying to get a genie back in the lamp...

Gwmayhem wrote:

Worth keeping in mind that this is very different than what is presently taking place. Starting in 2021-22, if you would like to transfer a second time, you will need to sit out a season.  This was not the case in either of the past two off-seasons.  Jair Bolden, as an example, was able to play for Butler right away despite this being his second transfer.  With the new rule, if JNJ decided he wanted to transfer up after playing for Delaware, he would need to sit out a year first.  

I think this is a good thing for the sport but would be curious to ask whether anyone feels players should have unlimited freedom to change schools, annually if they wish, without ever having to sit out a season/

I think players should be able to change schools annually, if they wish, without having to sit out a season.  That's start with the obvious--this would be "bad for the sport," at least as we know it.  But I don't care.  If a kid doesn't like his teammates, he's supposed to just stick it out during his prime years of making friends, or have to sit out a year?  He thinks the academics isn't what he was promised?  Out a year!  Homesick?  Out a year!  Broke up with your girlfriend?  Out a year!  Have a drug addiction and need to be closer to family?  Out a year!  Coach doesn't live up to expectations?  Out a year!

Other than for the "good of the sport" I see no reason for it.  Yes, it takes away continuity.  It also may make it more difficult  to win?  I sure hope teams can find ways to want to keep their players, rather than complaining that the players want to leave.  
 

Danj, would your answer be different if the players were paid?  It does seem like you are firmly of the belief that because the players aren't paid and the NCAA and college administrators are making boatloads off of their sweat, the players are entitled to most everything else.  I am not criticizing this stance but I am curious to know whether you would still be behind players being allowed to transfer annually, without penalty (sitting out a season), if they were earning salaries or stipends in addition to their scholarships?

Gwmayhem wrote:

Danj, would your answer be different if the players were paid?  It does seem like you are firmly of the belief that because the players aren't paid and the NCAA and college administrators are making boatloads off of their sweat, the players are entitled to most everything else.  I am not criticizing this stance but I am curious to know whether you would still be behind players being allowed to transfer annually, without penalty (sitting out a season), if they were earning salaries or stipends in addition to their scholarships?

The answer is almost certainly, yes.  The players are not allowed to negotiate their "deals."  They are required to sign a year-to-year scholarship that the school can terminate.  In exchange,  they get to play basketball, get a place to live, food, and an education.  This is the same at every school.  The deal is the same everywhere.  The player does not get a say.  If the players signed a contract that they could negotiate, and they agreed to stay for longer, I'd have no issue.  If the players got paid to stay longer, and chose to accept that compensation, I'd have no issue.  

A few things based on your two responses.

1) While the year-to-year scholarship which schools may terminate is technically true, the fact is that it's extremely rare for a school to do this.  You are correct on this point in the literal sense, but I do feel it's important to view issues from a practical sense.  The vast, vast majority of college athletes on scholarship will never have their scholarships rescinded.  Yes there are exceptions but those are very much in the minority.

2) The player does not get a say if he chooses to play college basketball.  He is also allowed to bypass college and play professionally overseas or in the G-League if he is talented enough to do so.

3) You are either forgetting or choosing not to acknowledge that college players receive scholarships.  This might be the sole avenue that a player would ever have the opportunity to attend college in some cases.  While some will not take academics seriously at all, there are plenty who will.  No, it's not cash in their pockets, but it is a potentially invaluable perk based on one's interest in becoming more educated coupled with one's ability to afford college.

4) I hope you realize that the majority of college basketball players will never make a living from playing the game.  Domestically or internationally.  You may not like that the NCAA is a governing body for amateur athletics but because it is, there's no way we can refer to college basketball in its present form as a job or the start of a career.  By this logic, why not consider AAU ball to be the start of a career?  Or high school?  Or elementary school for that matter?  A line has to be drawn and at least for the moment, you have not started a basketball career until you have either finished or bypassed college.  This really isn't an opinion.

5) Why do other kids get to transfer without restriction but basketball and football players do not?  This does go back to the scholarship.  I believe a walk-on can transfer and play right away at another school.  He can do this for four straight years if he'd like.  I have to believe the intent WAS that transfers would disrupt the continuity of teams, which in turn might impact the quality of play.  Also, while there are both up- and down-transfers, I would think that the NCAA was concerned about up-transfers and specifically, larger programs cherry picking players from smaller programs.  Therefore, they created a disincentive to the player who wanted to transfer.  We now know though that times have changed and the new rule will allow anyone to transfer one time without incurring any penalty.  If the NCAA were allow players an unlimited number of transfers without ever having to sit out, then their thinking would go back to their original concerns.  Am not suggesting you have to agree with this or even like where the NCAA is coming from about this, but I would hope you could understand that free agency for every college player, every season, without any penalties, would carry a great deal of problems.

Last edited by Gwmayhem (4/29/2021 4:05 pm)

BC, a friend of mine retired from work and spent countless numbers of hours learning to become a recreational pilot.  Spending a lot of time partaking in something does not necessarily constitute a career.  Just like taking classes in college, playing college basketball might be preparing some for a career, but most of us are not getting paid to take classes (brutally, it's very much the opposite).  And while you are entitled to believe that a scholarship is not enough in the form of compensation, I would hope you can acknowledge that the scholarship is in fact compensation.   

Tuition is compensation.
Room and board is compensation.
Meals are compensation.
Professional coaching is compensation.
TV exposure is compensation.
A college degree is compensation.
Soon, likeness will be compensation.
I'm as pro-union as anyone but people who say scholarship athletes aren't compensated are ridiculous. They are compensated. If they want to get paid, they are saying they do not want to be amateur athletes and benefit from any of the above. They want to make a paycheck by being a professional.
Nothing wrong with that. Move along and let us know how it goes.
 

I have always said that some walking around money would be appropriate.  Enough to date someone to diner and a movie once a month, plus a couple of half-smokes a week - whatever that amount is these days.  And if someone makes money off of their likenesses - some of that too (not many GW players in that category).   Plus NCAA waivers seemed a bit arbitary to me.  So it's not clear to me that making a player sit out a year is fair.  That's all I've said - several times, why make a big deal out of it?  You're free to disagree.