Your thoughts on the transfer system?

[smokey_wasp]

They are compensated. Don't like that t, then go to a pro league.

They are not compensated to the level that justifies a no compete clause. Want to prohibit McDonald's workers from leaving for Burger King, too? Harsh, man.

 

[GTpdm]

They are not compensated to the level that justifies a no compete clause. Want to prohibit McDonald's workers from leaving for Burger King, too? Harsh, man.

I’m sorry, perhaps I missed something. How did this conversation become something about (u)GA graduates?

 

[awbuzz]

Wait...a scholarship athlete with no other compensation should be subject to a non-compete agreement?

You want to subject a 17 year old to a four year non compete? Even a 1 year non compete?

I doubt many if any academic scholarships claw back money or restrict a student from transferring elsewhere other than ending payments.

Why should an athlete have more constraints, other than fans want their entertainment and coaches want control?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Current system is a 1 year max non-compete.

You do recognize that they get a monthly stipend, amount depends up the school, that is above the tuition, fees, books, meal plan and housing allotment they already receive. And that is above the board.

Make all Scholarships 4 (5 if red shirted) or 1 year.

If you are given a 1 year, then you're free to leave at the end of that year just like the current system allows teams to "process" players. Got the 4 year deal, then if you decide to leave you can't play a year.

If you recall, the big push back against the 4 years schollies are the 'football" factory schools that want to be able to process players out.

 

[slugboy]

Current system is a 1 year max non-compete.

You do recognize that they get a monthly stipend, amount depends up the school, that is above the tuition, fees, books, meal plan and housing allotment they already receive. And that is above the board.

Make all Scholarships 4 (5 if red shirted) or 1 year.

If you are given a 1 year, then you're free to leave at the end of that year just like the current system allows teams to "process" players. Got the 4 year deal, then if you decide to leave you can't play a year.

If you recall, the big push back against the 4 years schollies are the 'football" factory schools that want to be able to process players out.

Students on academic scholarship also get room and board and extra benefits. If the NCAA and schools are going to call athletic scholarships “scholarships”, then treating athletes differently shows that to be a fiction.

If you’re a great bioengineering student, you don’t have to go to a transfer portal to transfer to Yale. It’s your life and your business.

Non competes are for for profit businesses, and even there they are often rejected by courts as unreasonable and unenforceable, and that’s a situation where the signee is of age and might have resources to fight. This is amateur athletics, where the students aren’t in a fair bargaining position, and we can’t flip in the same paragraph to say they’re amateurs and then turn around and say they’re highly valuable resources who should be restricted but not paid what the market will bear.

I’m not even saying I’d support a non compete if players were paid (I wouldn’t), but certainly not if they’re not paid market rates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[okiemon]

Ever hear of a non compete clause?

The current sit-for-a-year rule is really not the same as a non-compete in industry, which prevents an employee (if it’s enforceable, which it often is not) from going to work for a competitor of the employer. If you want to make this a non-compete, just say the transferring player cannot play against the team from which he transfers for a year. If a player transfers from Clemson to GT, he has to ride the pines when GT plays Clemson the next year. Make it two years if you want to make it more stringent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BurdellJacket]

I'm okay either way, but IF they want to make a player wait to play, then the school they left shouldnt be allowed to fill that 'ship for the same amount of time. Cant hold the kids hostage while the coaches and schools can go about with little to no restriction.

P

This is not a real quid pro quo. If the SA is unable to fulfill his commitment, and possibly even transfer to a different school every year and to the new school which may have a better future or to which he may have more assurance of playing, why should the school he has left be penalized in not being able to fill his open space.

Also, if there is no penalty of sitting out or other, there actually is no commitment by the student athlete at all. The rich schools will get richer and the poor will absolutely get even poorer. GT Most likely being among the poor.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Non-compete clauses are for high paying jobs. Sounds like you are in favor of paying the players.

Not always. Many IT jobs that are entry level have non-compete clauses these days because the employee gains access to proprietary company information.

 

[orientalnc]

Currently, all NCAA grants in aid, or scholarships, are for one year. They are subject to the NCAA rule book which the athlete agrees to when he signs the grant papers. That is where the transfer rules are found. It is interesting that an athlete signs the "contract" which binds him to the school athletic team for one year, but the school has ways to void the grant up until the SA enrolls. Another interesting point is that the rule book can change during the contract period and the SA is bound by the changes.

 

[Milwaukee]

 

[TechPreacher]

Why not put the weight of the dilemma on the school by keeping all scholarships on the books for 4 years? Then the coaches would have to weigh the risk vs reward for the players that are there only for football instead of being student athletes. Is it worth it to sign a blue chipper that might leave early if it costs an empty scholarship for a few years?

 

[RonJohn]

When the NCAA and NCAA schools show a commitment to the players, the might get one back from the players. The NCAA and the NCAA schools are the reason that college hoops are in the condition they are in now. AAU coaches and systems only have as much power as they do because of the way that the NCAA and the NCAA schools conduct themselves.

If NCAA basketball and football programs recruit athletes who are interested in an education, and interested specifically in an education from their school, there won't be anywhere near as much issue with athletes transferring.

EDIT: BTW, Tubby wasn't as "committed" when offered more money from other colleges as a coach. This clip sounds more like whinning that he is about to get fired because the kids won't do what he says than an attempt to teach a life lesson to the players.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Why not put the weight of the dilemma on the school by keeping all scholarships on the books for 4 years? Then the coaches would have to weigh the risk vs reward for the players that are there only for football instead of being student athletes. Is it worth it to sign a blue chipper that might leave early if it costs an empty scholarship for a few years?

The imbalance of coaches being able to leave but players having to sit out is the problem here. If the school was on the hook for 4 years, then the player should have to be as well. Problem is there isn't a reasonable way to force a kid to stay in school if they want to leave, can't make grades or whatever.

My opinion is that we need the NBA to be able to take kids out of high school. Let the phenom kids who only masquerade at "school" go straightaway. It doesn't do anyone a service to make the fake it. For the kids who want to come for a year or two for development are the ones who will have trouble then, but this problem is large.

 

[Wreckaholic]

Problem now is that the system is biased too much in the way of the schools. Schools only (until recently) had to commit for 1 year. The coach can leave whenever for wherever they want. The schools/coaches can also "process" players to make room for better candidates and at the same time retain control over where the kids can go and whether or not they have to sit.

You want to make a kid sit for a year, then you cant fill his scholarship for a year. You want to limit where he can go, that is another year penalty. Let the kid go where he wants and play right away then you can fill his scholarship.

Frankly they should just blow up the whole system. Take away non-profit status. If they want to remain non-profit then they need to go back to the concept of student athletes. Have a standardized test that shows progression in basic academics. SA has to pass each year to play. IF they dont pass they remain on scholly but dont burn a year of eligibility. Schools will be invested in getting their players a true education and the players will be invested in making the most of their scholarship.

 

[RonJohn]

The imbalance of coaches being able to leave but players having to sit out is the problem here. If the school was on the hook for 4 years, then the player should have to be as well. Problem is there isn't a reasonable way to force a kid to stay in school if they want to leave, can't make grades or whatever.

Or maybe if the school was on the hook for 4 years, they would try to recruit students who are interested in their school and are also good athletes.

 

[IM79]

Take away non-profit status.

This, if the players start getting paid, take away non-profit status for the bowl game organizations, the NCAA, the school athletic departments, everybody. And make the players start playing taxes on the bag man money they get. Cause you know even if they get paid, the bag men will still be making offers of more cash under the table.

 

[TechPreacher]

Or maybe if the school was on the hook for 4 years, they would try to recruit students who are interested in their school and are also good athletes.

Yes. This is exactly my point. Force the school to decide who they want to hand scholarships to. Then, either the prima donnas get left in the cold, or the Techs of the world catch up to the factories once they are sufficiently self-probated.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Or maybe if the school was on the hook for 4 years, they would try to recruit students who are interested in their school and are also good athletes.

Hey man, you can look at my posting history I’m on record as being the guy who wishes school athletics would go back to being about school before athletics.

It’s just not reasonable to say there is a mechanism to force a kid to stay in school. If you can’t do that, than the 4 year commitment is a non viable option in my mind.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TechPreacher]

Hey man, you can look at my posting history I’m on record as being the guy who wishes school athletics would go back to being about school before athletics.

It’s just not reasonable to say there is a mechanism to force a kid to stay in school. If you can’t do that, than the 4 year commitment is a non viable option in my mind.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, a player can't be forced to stay, which is why this plan would work. There are kids who are high probability to stay, and there are kids who are high probability to leave. Coaches know the difference during recruitment.

Therefore, let the coaches/schools bear the burden of deciding their recruiting strategy. If Alabama wants 85 5*s, then fine. They know they will lose many of them after 3 years. Can they still win with 78 scholarship players one year? I don't know, but let them decide if it was worth it.

Then, during that year, another school has the opportunity to sign those 5*s that would automatically go to Alabama, unless that school deems it too high risk. At some point the recruited talent gets spread thinner across more schools, either by choice of omission or by self-probation. Either way, the field is more level than it is today.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Yes, a player can't be forced to stay, which is why this plan would work. There are kids who are high probability to stay, and there are kids who are high probability to leave. Coaches know the difference during recruitment.

Therefore, let the coaches/schools bear the burden of deciding their recruiting strategy. If Alabama wants 85 5*s, then fine. They know they will lose many of them after 3 years. Can they still win with 78 scholarship players one year? I don't know, but let them decide if it was worth it.

Then, during that year, another school has the opportunity to sign those 5*s that would automatically go to Alabama, unless that school deems it too high risk. At some point the recruited talent gets spread thinner across more schools, either by choice of omission or by self-probation. Either way, the field is more level than it is today.

So what happens if a kid can’t handle the workload or decides they want to study a different major not offered by the school they are at? Do we keep them from transferring to follow their educational goals? If not how do you regulate that system? If so, how is that progressing is closer to a school first mentality?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Animal02]

So what happens if a kid can’t handle the workload or decides they want to study a different major not offered by the school they are at? Do we keep them from transferring to follow their educational goals? If not how do you regulate that system? If so, how is that progressing is closer to a school first mentality?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the very least, if they make a kid sit a year transferring to a different school, schools should be forced to"sit on" a scholarship for a year , especially if they decide to pull one mid stream.