Paul Johnson on proposed transfer changes: 'I think it's nuts'

[dressedcheeseside]

I don’t have problem with the current arrangement. As much as we like to pretend these kids are students, the vast majority are not. Letting them transfer Willy nilly and the whole ugly ball of wax that goes with it, namely coaches poaching each other’s rosters, moves the game more towards the NFL than it already is.

 

[iceeater1969]

Would the Hill veto or slow play most transfers.?
.easy to go hard to come?

 

[RonJohn]

This is one of those “unintended consequences” deals. At first blush of course anyone should be allowed to transfer whenever they want to who ever will have them without penalty. But, as my earlier post stated, I think that would result in a free for all mess. The administration of it alone would be a nightmare: al, Uga, factory X would all hire extra staff to deal with it, ncaa would have to police whatever the rules are, more compliance on the schools part, etc.

Bke1984 nailed it for me. Anyone can transfer already.

The ideas that I posted are intended to prevent the schools from recruiting. Such as not allowing any intervention by the athletic department in the transfer application. If the student-athlete can actually be admitted as a transfer student based on his academic record, why should the NCAA intervene?

My ideas are not well thought out and conclusive, but the general idea is that the NCAA should put limits on the member schools, their athletic programs, and their athletic personnel. The rules now are wacky. In the Big12 a walk-on player who transfers to another school has to sit out a year even if he is still a walk-on at the second school. For the NCAA, if the walk-on was a recruited player, he will have to sit out for a year even if he is still a walk-on at the second school. Some of the arguments are that the player received "free" school and room and board. The walk-ons received non of that. They paid their way. If they walk on at the second school, the athletic department probably had nothing to do with getting them admitted to the second school. That means they are keeping up with their school work. The NCAA is supposed to be about students competing. Why are the rules set up to punish actual students who are trying to play sports? The rules instead should be set up to punish teams who recruit players from other schools, and schools who bypass their transfer admissions processes for athletic reasons. That would be more in line with what the NCAA says they stand for.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I’m truly perplexed by some arguments here. Some of the logic seems to promote free transfer, play immediately, wherever you want, whenever you want.

If that’s your stance I assume you are ready to abolish football scholarships altogether.

 

[RonJohn]

I’m truly perplexed by some arguments here. Some of the logic seems to promote free transfer, play immediately, wherever you want, whenever you want.

If that’s your stance I assume you are ready to abolish football scholarships altogether.

Scholarships? The current rules apply to walk on players also.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[vamosjackets]

• Do not allow the athletic department to change any transfer admissions requirements or processes.(No special admits, not fast tracking).
• Do not allow recruitment of undergraduate players at all. The player would have to first apply and be accepted before the athletic program could talk to him.

I think your first rule just eliminated us from practically ever getting a transfer and did not eliminate any of the possibilities of transfers to the factories.

 

[RonJohn]

I think your first rule just eliminated us from practically ever getting a transfer and did not eliminate any of the possibilities of transfers to the factories.

Possibly. Those ideas are just first impressions and are not fully thought through. I was trying to think of ways to prevent poaching players for athletic reasons by limiting the teams not the individuals. I believe the policies of the NCAA regarding student-athlete transfers shouldn't be built around what helps or hurts any individual team. They should be developed based first on what is best for the student-athletes and then competition.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Scholarships? The current rules apply to walk on players also.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Fine. Free non-scholarship players completely. I’m fine with that.

 

[RonJohn]

Fine. Free non-scholarship players completely. I’m fine with that.

OK, then also take a look at scholarship players. The NCAA and schools insist they are not employees. For actual employees, there are non-compete clauses in some contracts. The legality of non-compete clauses are suspect in most cases in most states. The ones that actually do survive are when an employee takes information, connections, or market power that was gained because of employment at the original employer to the new employer.(A salesman takes client contacts to a competing company, etc.) The NCAA rules even for scholarship players are as aggressive as non-compete clauses that actually can be enforced. Why does the NCAA put such restrictions on non-employees? What are the reasons for the restrictions?

If the reasons are to keep the student-athletes on track to graduate, there are different means they can use. They can make it more difficult to transfer.(No transfer assistance from the athletic department, transfer must be academically valid) They can have rules against recruitment of undergraduate transfers.(Student-athlete must decide where he wants to go, then speak to the team after he transfers)

There would be other restrictions they could put on the schools and teams to accomplish the same stated goals. The NCAA should also consider the past and threatened lawsuits from the players. If they continue to operate as if the athletic departments "own" the student-athletes, the amateur-athleticism arguments don't hold up. My arguments aren't that any player should be able to transfer anywhere as much as they want for championships or playing time. My argument is that they should make rules for the teams and schools, but not restrict in any way actual valid academic transfers. In my opinion waiting a year to play after a transfer is a restriction. If a student makes a valid academic transfer, he probably has the grades and the academic history to graduate on time or close to time. Waiting a year to play will likely mean a loss of a year of eligibility even if he has a RS year left. He will be out of college by the time he could have used an extra year.

 

[awbuzz]

IMO these arguments are silly. The NCAA doesn't restrict kids from transferring and they do not restrict the destination school from putting the kid on scholarship immediately. What they restrict is the kid from playing immediately. I think it's a very fair rule that actually forces the kids to weigh out what is important to them. If it's truly for academic purposes then I don't think they'd think twice about making the switch and losing the year...if it's purely for the athletic aspect then they weight out whether its worth it for them to sit out a year to play elsewhere. You can already go down a division and play immediately...doesn't happen as much in basketball, but we've seen it in football a few times over the last few years.

I do think this is going to cause the factory schools to pull from the rest of D1. Under the radar players that turn out to be studs are going to switch to the bigger schools for the chance to win titles. If you don't have to sit out then why the hell not...it's going to look like the grad transfer stuff from the last several years.

I wouldn't be opposed to making them sit out a year, but retain the year of eligibility...i.e. you sit out next year but then you can play an extra year at the end of your career...maybe as a one-time thing. Maybe that doesn't punish the kid, but still preserves the intent of the NCAA's current rule.

This.

Decisions DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Even decisions by those that are made by 17, 18 or 19 year's old "kids".
No one forces them NOT to move.
They can move, but having to sit out a year shouldn't matter. It's just part of the follow on decision making process. I.e. a "card that has been dealt", so play the hand the way you want. They have an opportunity for an all expenses paid education. The $80 K - $100 K (they were on HOPE) I paid for two kid's undergrad education (including housing), was worth it knowing that they were being given "options" in their future lives.
If a kid wants to change their degree and move, so be it. Good luck and God Bless.
No one is removing their all expenses paid education, i.e. scholarship. They just need to consider if it if "worth it" to make the move even if they have to "sit" a year.

 

[awbuzz]

I don’t have problem with the current arrangement. As much as we like to pretend these kids are students, the vast majority are not. Letting them transfer Willy nilly and the whole ugly ball of wax that goes with it, namely coaches poaching each other’s rosters, moves the game more towards the NFL than it already is.

Let them transfer to the NFL Development League so they can play immediately! Oh Sh!t, they haven't opened that up yet.

 

[bke1984]

In my opinion waiting a year to play after a transfer is a restriction. If a student makes a valid academic transfer, he probably has the grades and the academic history to graduate on time or close to time. Waiting a year to play will likely mean a loss of a year of eligibility even if he has a RS year left. He will be out of college by the time he could have used an extra year.

Or he could (and should) go to grad school...an added benefit of a post graduate degree for free. The scenario I suggested actually benefits the players even more than immediate eligibility.

...but again, even under the current rules, if it's really about the education then why does losing the year matter? The kid still transfers to where they want to be and still gets the free education.

 

[RonJohn]

Or he could (and should) go to grad school...an added benefit of a post graduate degree for free. The scenario I suggested actually benefits the players even more than immediate eligibility.

...but again, even under the current rules, if it's really about the education then why does losing the year matter? The kid still transfers to where they want to be and still gets the free education.

Why should a kid go to grad school? I would say if that is what he wants to do, he should. What about if he has a good job opportunity in a career that is what he has been aspiring to? Should he delay that opportunity solely to play football for another year? The kids should do what is in their best interest, whether that includes another year of sports or not. It seems to me that many NCAA football fans live vicariously as the players and believe that playing NCAA football is the most important thing that a person could ever do in life. It simply isn't. Many things in life are more important.(Spouses, children, career, etc) The graduates should make their own decisions about what is important to them.

Also, please answer my larger question. Why should the NCAA have rules about transfers aimed at the student-athletes instead of having rules aimed at the NCAA members and teams? They could accomplish the same goals, probably even more effectively if they set the rules up that way.

 

[bke1984]

Why should a kid go to grad school? I would say if that is what he wants to do, he should. What about if he has a good job opportunity in a career that is what he has been aspiring to? Should he delay that opportunity solely to play football for another year? The kids should do what is in their best interest, whether that includes another year of sports or not. It seems to me that many NCAA football fans live vicariously as the players and believe that playing NCAA football is the most important thing that a person could ever do in life. It simply isn't. Many things in life are more important.(Spouses, children, career, etc) The graduates should make their own decisions about what is important to them.

Also, please answer my larger question. Why should the NCAA have rules about transfers aimed at the student-athletes instead of having rules aimed at the NCAA members and teams? They could accomplish the same goals, probably even more effectively if they set the rules up that way.

Well, generally speaking, grad school pays huge dividends. It's going to set you up for better opportunities in the long run than a sole undergrad degree. But set the grad school argument aside for a second and remember that it's not four years of college that earns you a degree...it's having the appropriate credit hours as defined by the university to earn the degree. How often can you switch schools and degrees your Sr. year and still actually have enough credits to earn a degree? ...rarely...so you're probably going to be in the undergrad program for another year anyhow...

And no, the NCAA cannot accomplish these goals by settings rules and regulations for member institutions. Hell, they can't even force schools to make the kids take real classes...looking at you uGA (basketball scandal from years back) and UNC...how are they now going to let the schools decide who can and cannot transfer free of penalty?

Yes, many things in life are more important than football. This is why the eligibility piece of this shouldn't matter all that much...make the decision about school based on your long term goals...not your short term goals. If you get to play football one less year because of it then so be it.

 

[RonJohn]

Well, generally speaking, grad school pays huge dividends. It's going to set you up for better opportunities in the long run than a sole undergrad degree. But set the grad school argument aside for a second and remember that it's not four years of college that earns you a degree...it's having the appropriate credit hours as defined by the university to earn the degree. How often can you switch schools and degrees your Sr. year and still actually have enough credits to earn a degree? ...rarely...so you're probably going to be in the undergrad program for another year anyhow...

And no, the NCAA cannot accomplish these goals by settings rules and regulations for member institutions. Hell, they can't even force schools to make the kids take real classes...looking at you uGA (basketball scandal from years back) and UNC...how are they now going to let the schools decide who can and cannot transfer free of penalty?

Yes, many things in life are more important than football. This is why the eligibility piece of this shouldn't matter all that much...make the decision about school based on your long term goals...not your short term goals. If you get to play football one less year because of it then so be it.

Grad school can pay dividends. Telling someone they must attend grad school(even if tuition and books are paid for) isn't the place of the NCAA or fans. The NCAA rules require you to make at least 20% progress towards your degree, at least last time I looked at them. If someone transfers more than one or two times, he would not be eligible anyway because of existing NCAA academic rules. To the last paragraph, taking away a year of eligibility from an honest to goodness student-athlete who decided they wanted to study computer science instead of agriculture does not make sense. The regulations on the student-athlete treat all transfers as equal.

What are the goals of the transfer rules? Are they to tie the student-athlete to the school that he chose while in high school? If so as I said those rules are more strict than employment laws. Employees can sue companies if they collude to prevent poaching. The current NCAA rules are set up more like highly restrictive and probably illegal employment regulations than regulations to promote academics and sports competition. They are acting exactly like the players who want to sue them portray them. The NCAA can definitely have rules for the schools and teams to accomplish those goals. They could make harsh penalties for violating those rules.(Modify transfer requirements for a player transfer and: lose 10% of scholarships for 5 years, vacate every win in which that player was at the school whether he played or not, 5 year show cause for the athletic department personnel who worked to get the transfer approved.) Would the NCAA enforce the rules effectively? They don't now. That is still no reason to penalize an actual student-athlete who makes a valid transfer for a valid reason.

 

[knoxjacket]

This thread makes it clear that the “student-athlete” crap bandied about on this board is just that.

The opposition to the rule has nothing to do with the SA’s best interest and everything to do with fans being worried it will negatively impact our competitiveness.

 

[lv20gt]

They don't now. That is still no reason to penalize an actual student-athlete who makes a valid transfer for a valid reason.

It's a cost, not a penalty. The cost of a transfer is to sit a year. "But regular students ...". These aren't regular students. They don't go through regular student admissions The changes should be no longer blocking schools, but also make every transfer type, grad transfers included, require a year of sitting out. That way they aren't limited in any way in comparison to other students, and it only hurts those that are looking to transfer just for athletic reasons.

 

[RonJohn]

This thread makes it clear that the “student-athlete” crap bandied about on this board is just that.

The opposition to the rule has nothing to do with the SA’s best interest and everything to do with fans being worried it will negatively impact our competitiveness.

Which is the reason I am proposing having rules that limit the teams and schools instead of the student-athletes. In general, I believe the NCAA should operate more like their charter says they do and less like an oppressive pseudo-employer. However, I am getting a lot of pushback against setting rules for the teams instead of the kids.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Which is the reason I am proposing having rules that limit the teams and schools instead of the student-athletes. In general, I believe the NCAA should operate more like their charter says they do and less like an oppressive pseudo-employer. However, I am getting a lot of pushback against setting rules for the teams instead of the kids.

Seems you are arguing for a change in semantics. You oppose a rule that says player x must sit a year upon transferring. But would favor saying school x can not play any player who hasn’t been enrolled for one year or is a first time enrollee out of high school.

The wording is different but the result is the same. Silly semantics.

 

[RonJohn]

Seems you are arguing for a change in semantics. You oppose a rule that says player x must sit a year upon transferring. But would favor saying school x can not play any player who hasn’t been enrolled for one year or is a first time enrollee out of high school.

The wording is different but the result is the same. Silly semantics.

No, I am saying there should be rules that prevent teams from poaching and that prevent schools from bypassing normal transfer policies. If a student athlete is able to legitimately transfer without help from the team, he should be able to play without sitting out a year.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk