Gwmayhem wrote:

Credit Rob Dauster with this proposed solution.

First transfer....everyone gets one without sitting out a year

Graduated college with eligibility left?  gets to transfer a second time without sitting out a year

Head coach got fired?  gets to transfer a second time without sitting out a year

All other second transfers?  must sit out a year.

The NCAA should get out of the waiver business once and for all.
 

I believe this is nothing new. This is essentially where the NABC and D1 coaches are at. No discretion ... objective facts only. Take the NCAA out of the equation.

I might go one step farther and so would some of the LM and MM coaches I know. I might make the first transfer sit a year. This would largely prevent NIL poaching and make the discretionary first year transfer a thoughtful one. This was the old rule years ago. This would enable a student-athlete to get the automatic grad transfer year on the back-end provided they made proper progress towards graduation. The lone exception to this would be if the coach departs.

The theory would be to choose a school wisely because you never know how basketball is going to work. In the case of the coach leaving that would not be the player's fault. If we are in the education business then we need to stop emulating pro sports. If you want to go pro, go pro. Otherwise, become a student-athlete with emphasis on the student not athlete.
 

I think a sit-free transfer in case of sanctions against a school would also make a lot of sense.  Rare, but needed if they're going to stick to a black and white rule.

Different idea—if a player wants to transfer, let them. Don’t hinder where they can go, or why. Don’t make them sit out. Let them go. If they leave because of money, so be it. That’s capitalism. Surely we have not made coaches sit a year between jobs for more money or prestige. If they leave because their parents are ill, so be it. If they leave just because they feel like it, so be it. Wanna stop it? Sign them to contracts that actually monetarily compensate them for their time and efforts. As long as each school is providing the same “compensation,” why shouldn’t the player get to choose where they go?

GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

Different idea—if a player wants to transfer, let them. Don’t hinder where they can go, or why. Don’t make them sit out. Let them go. If they leave because of money, so be it. That’s capitalism. Surely we have not made coaches sit a year between jobs for more money or prestige. If they leave because their parents are ill, so be it. If they leave just because they feel like it, so be it. Wanna stop it? Sign them to contracts that actually monetarily compensate them for their time and efforts. As long as each school is providing the same “compensation,” why shouldn’t the player get to choose where they go?

Despite the fact that this would ruin collegiate sports, is counter to the notion of student-athlete and we all know that each school is not able to provide the same "compensation", I'll play. Under your scenario since it's unlimited freedom and compensation for players like the pros, would coaches be allowed to cut players who don't perform like the pros? And if so can they do this midseason or at any point?

Seems to me if you want this to be like the pros then let's make it like the pros. 

Let's start with the fact that it is "counter to the notion of student-athlete." I disagree. "College athletes" are the only undergraduate students that have restrictions placed on their ability to transfer. A research assistant in a lab can transfer without sitting out a year because the research is more interesting (or they'll get compensated better) at another school. If we really want to treat them as students--rather than pawns in a game to make the viewing experience (and revenue experience) better for others, we'd allow them to transfer for any reason they choose, to attend whatever school they choose, and to continue to act in a manner that allows them to pursue their passions. Your version of "student athlete" focuses on the fact that they are there to serve the "school" in a role, in exchange for getting to be a student. I'd prefer that they actually have the autonomy other students have.

I agree with you--each school cannot provide the same "compensation." There are two ways to rectify this. Allow capitalism to take over, and allow the schools that can pay people to pay them. Let the students profit where they can. Does this "kill" college athletics as we know it? Maybe. But is that so bad, given that college athletics has long been a way for "adults" to profit off of "student-athletes?" The NBA isn't dead, and they pay their people. So, let's let the cream rise to the top, and let the chips fall where they fall.

The second option, which I'm sure you'll love, is to allow the "student-athletes" to create a union. Let's make a salary cap so that students can be compensated on an equal playing field, and level it. Let's let students separately make money marketing, as they do in professional sports. I know that "student athletes" only constitute a singular group when you want them to, but why not let them unionize? Let's set ground rules--negotiated ground rules--so players can get paid?

As to your last point, you miss a  bunch of nuance. Very rarely can players be cut without being paid what they are owed. But, playing the game out, if the ground rules are the players can be paid and risk getting cut mid-season, so be it. If that's the deal negotiated, that's the deal negotiated. Again, that's capitalism. I suspect, as with most pro sports, the players would negotiate at least a year-long guarantee, such that they would be paid (and allowed to be students) through the academic year, regardless of whether they are cut by the team. This, of course, would obligate the player to fulfill his/her own obligations under the contract, as well. So, the player would not be able to leave mid-year, if the player signed a contract committing for the year.

The problem is we, as fans, like college sports. We don't want to lose the entertainment of it. We want to root for our schools. But we also want to root for the schools with players who play on our terms. I'd prefer a little more freedom to the players. If that ruins my viewing experience, that's too bad. But at least rich people won't be able to take advantage of poor people anymore. 

danjsport wrote:

GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

Different idea—if a player wants to transfer, let them. Don’t hinder where they can go, or why. Don’t make them sit out. Let them go. If they leave because of money, so be it. That’s capitalism. Surely we have not made coaches sit a year between jobs for more money or prestige. If they leave because their parents are ill, so be it. If they leave just because they feel like it, so be it. Wanna stop it? Sign them to contracts that actually monetarily compensate them for their time and efforts. As long as each school is providing the same “compensation,” why shouldn’t the player get to choose where they go?

Despite the fact that this would ruin collegiate sports, is counter to the notion of student-athlete and we all know that each school is not able to provide the same "compensation", I'll play. Under your scenario since it's unlimited freedom and compensation for players like the pros, would coaches be allowed to cut players who don't perform like the pros? And if so can they do this midseason or at any point?

Seems to me if you want this to be like the pros then let's make it like the pros. 

Let's start with the fact that it is "counter to the notion of student-athlete." I disagree. "College athletes" are the only undergraduate students that have restrictions placed on their ability to transfer. A research assistant in a lab can transfer without sitting out a year because the research is more interesting (or they'll get compensated better) at another school. If we really want to treat them as students--rather than pawns in a game to make the viewing experience (and revenue experience) better for others, we'd allow them to transfer for any reason they choose, to attend whatever school they choose, and to continue to act in a manner that allows them to pursue their passions. Your version of "student athlete" focuses on the fact that they are there to serve the "school" in a role, in exchange for getting to be a student. I'd prefer that they actually have the autonomy other students have.

I agree with you--each school cannot provide the same "compensation." There are two ways to rectify this. Allow capitalism to take over, and allow the schools that can pay people to pay them. Let the students profit where they can. Does this "kill" college athletics as we know it? Maybe. But is that so bad, given that college athletics has long been a way for "adults" to profit off of "student-athletes?" The NBA isn't dead, and they pay their people. So, let's let the cream rise to the top, and let the chips fall where they fall.

The second option, which I'm sure you'll love, is to allow the "student-athletes" to create a union. Let's make a salary cap so that students can be compensated on an equal playing field, and level it. Let's let students separately make money marketing, as they do in professional sports. I know that "student athletes" only constitute a singular group when you want them to, but why not let them unionize? Let's set ground rules--negotiated ground rules--so players can get paid?

As to your last point, you miss a  bunch of nuance. Very rarely can players be cut without being paid what they are owed. But, playing the game out, if the ground rules are the players can be paid and risk getting cut mid-season, so be it. If that's the deal negotiated, that's the deal negotiated. Again, that's capitalism. I suspect, as with most pro sports, the players would negotiate at least a year-long guarantee, such that they would be paid (and allowed to be students) through the academic year, regardless of whether they are cut by the team. This, of course, would obligate the player to fulfill his/her own obligations under the contract, as well. So, the player would not be able to leave mid-year, if the player signed a contract committing for the year.

The problem is we, as fans, like college sports. We don't want to lose the entertainment of it. We want to root for our schools. But we also want to root for the schools with players who play on our terms. I'd prefer a little more freedom to the players. If that ruins my viewing experience, that's too bad. But at least rich people won't be able to take advantage of poor people anymore. 

1. It's not my notion of student-athlete. It is the fundamental compact of a scholarship that pays tuition, room and board (an education) in exchange for the opportunity to play and compete on that institution's team. There is consideration here. Whether you feel it is ample or not, the fact remains that they are receiving consideration that most students do not receive. Naturally, there should be strings attached to that compensation. It is not a giveaway. If you want them to have autonomy, decline the scholarship. Then they can transfer however many times they wish.

2. You are focused on two sports primarily football and men's basketball - what happens to all the other sports and scholarship opportunities when college athletics implodes? 

3. No matter the salary cap you establish there will be a fair number of schools who will not be able to participate. That means loss of net scholarships and opportunities for athletes. How do you think Division 3 was created? If you look back most of those schools played big-time athletics (then) but could not meet the financial obligations of the scholarship era.

4. You are forgetting that the current scholarship is a contract. We already have that. That is what protects the student-athlete from being cut on a whim.

When you tell me the rich people are taking advantage of the poor people by providing in most cases a scholarship now worth $250,000-$300,000 over four years that most cannot receive, I find that amazing. The people who are being taken advantage of by academic institutions are those in the middle class who make too much money to get a full financial aid scholarship and must take loans to pay for their education, all because they can't dribble a basketball tackle.
 

Last edited by GWRising (9/15/2023 12:27 pm)

The way I see it, the pandemic created the transfer frenzy when NCAA made changes to their policies. As in many facets of American life there was a green light to enjoy poor health, work remotely, get free money and malinger big time. It spilled over into athletics.  The coaching merry go round didn’t help. The rewritten policies were abused and now they go back to their original intent.  Oh the days when we knew what red-shirt meant and abided by it.
Cutting somebody mid year isn’t new.  It’s the equivalent of sitting somebodies ass down before shipping them to Butler or Minnesota.
With NIL, conference realignment, transfer rules, etc there is a lot yet to unfold.
The coaching side of it is also intriguing.  There were provisions to help the player deal with the surprise exit of a coach they believed in. That’s where I lose it with coaches.  They broke their commitment and should pay an exit fee to the school and athletes for turning the program on its ear. (figured I’d throw that one in since we’re making new policies.)
I’m confident that in the current climate our team will flourish.  CC is committed to this group and has pressed the right buttons so far.  We’ll know for sure in the coming season.  Hoping that the grad students set a great example for the freshman and that all are on same page.  Play for the love of the game! Develop meaningful relationships and contacts. Go to class! Have fun! Ignore all the background noise and greed.

I’m not sure I can add anything of value to this discussion other than I never wanted and rarely got involved 
with “Life Goals” as opposed to “Therapy Goals”.Transferring is a life goal -learning to deal with your anxiety 
is a therapy goal.Learning to self-soothe is a profound accomplishment for many of us-including me.
Based on what is publicly known at this time it seems to me Joe would benefit from "seeing " someone 
twice a week.

 

Last edited by GW69 (9/16/2023 4:00 pm)

Danj, it's very interesting to me that you continue to state your position despite the fact that NIL is upon us and is a reality.  I'll have to assume that NIL isn't enough in and of itself to satisfy you.

So, I don't believe that anyone would put up an argument that head coaches in revenue producing sports, athletic directors and administrators, and other "adults" are being overpaid.  One can say that we are all worth what the market is willing to pay us, and that's true in many instances.  Here, there is simply too much television money rolling into these universities to be able to justify many of these salaries.  And this is unacceptable to you after considering that none of this money is making its way to the athletes.  I get where you're coming from.

At the same time, schools do invest in college athletics.  They hire professionals to build or renovate stadiums and arenas, and then manage these facilities.  They hire coaches who they believe will deliver successful results, and who are almost always fired when they do not.  They bank on the fact that students, fans, and alumni will buy tickets and watch games both in person and on tv/streaming.  If any of these things turn out to be failures, it's the school and its athletic department that is at risk.  Scholarships are not reduced in "down" years.  And yes, scholarships do and should count for quite a bit.

To recap, I can't argue that some coach/administrator salaries aren't inflated, or that it would be nice if some of that money went directly to the athletes.  At the same time, I would also point out that most of these people aren't getting rich off the backs of these athletes.  Or if you feel they are, is this much different than professional coaches/managers and sports administrators earning nice paychecks based on the work of the athletes?
 

danjsport wrote:

GWrising- just because your notion matches up with the "fundamental compact" of a scholarship, does not mean it is not your notion. Nor does it mean it has to be the only notion. The notion is outdated. I agree that there is "consideration." It is just not negotiated consideration, and the players have no choice but to join the system, if they would like to play (whether it be for the education, the opportunity to play pro ball, or some combination). The system is rigged to force them to make money for others, while they get "compensated," these are NOT negotiated contracts. Take it or leave it is all they get.

What happens to the other sports when college sports implodes. I'm not sure. But I'm sure that a bunch of folks making money off the backs of two sports isn't the way it should happen. It's amazing how college sports is the time when you believe socialism should happen (so long as the admins can make money).

I agree- there will be lost scholarships. That's how the world works. If a university has to actually pay its labor force for the money it is bringing in, it will have to make decisions about who it can pay and who it can't. Maybe they could just offer Caputo a law degree instead of money. After all, it's great compensation! They could even give him a tutor!

Lastly, the fact that college education has been bloated and pushed out middle class people is a completely separate conversation. I agree (it's also why it's not really fair to say these kids are getting an 80k a year education). 


 

You seem to put very little value on receiving a college education. The idea that someone is "forced" to play for a free college education is mind-boggling given the differences in future earnings for those with degrees versus those without. 99% of these college athletes even in the marquee sports will never make enough money in their sport to not have to rely on their degree for a job. Yes, we are "forcing" people to get an education that will benefit them far beyond the context of that particular institution lol.

What also is a constant theme in your posts is that you love to count everyone else's money. This isn't socialism. Sorry wrong place. The idea that because some people make a lot of money when they are fortunate enough to get one of a very few head coaching positions or perhaps an AD position that college student-athletes are being exploited is nonsense. First of all, do you have any idea what most of these same people earned for a good portion of their work life while toiling as assistants etc.? Not much. For example, the vast majority of D1 assistant basketball coaches make less than six figures. Second, where do you think all this money earned by athletics goes at the big time schools? There aren't shareholders who pocket the money - it goes back into the University for buildings, scholarships and other things (faculty positions) that enhance the educational experience for students including non-student athletes. Finally, you completely discount the value of sports in providing a great student life experience for non-student athletes. Many students who are not athletes will choose a school precisely because athletics is a big part of the social scene. It costs money to create that environment.

Further, what you fail to realize is most institutions do not make any money on sports. Outside of the P5 plus a few ... net revenues are negative. Your solution would be to effectively eliminate scholarship sports for most schools. In essence, just like socialism, there will be the few rich and everyone else will be worse off. Sounds like a lose-lose for almost everyone except the 1% who will become pros. You have the socialism argument backwards.

Not sure I follow all this “socialism” tit for tat-but on almost every other point I totally agree with Rising.
For me this NIL stuff is already a bridge too far.Maybe I’m not a nice person-but for me a full scholarship 
Is an equitable trade off for the student -athletes labor.Frankly I don’t care how much money the 
institutions make -as long as they use it wisely.If a student -athlete  comes here without a "free education"
that is their choice Danjsport.

Last edited by GW69 (9/18/2023 1:52 pm)