Jay Bilas criticizes restrictions on Sirk's transfer

[dragoneye776]

I just came across this article and saw that there wasn't a thread discussing it yet.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2017/06/qa-espns-jay-bilas-criticizes-duke-footballs-restrictions-on-former-quarterback-thomas-sirks-transfer

Does anyone have more information on the matter? Can anyone comment more on Cutcliffe's reasoning?

[OldPhiKap]

I just came across this article and saw that there wasn't a thread discussing it yet.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2017/06/qa-espns-jay-bilas-criticizes-duke-footballs-restrictions-on-former-quarterback-thomas-sirks-transfer

Does anyone have more information on the matter? Can anyone comment more on Cutcliffe's reasoning?

Can't speak for Cut. But most coaches don't mind a transfer, so long as they don't go to a competing team in the league or on the schedule. Seems fair to me, but Jay as a former player has a different perspective than an interested fan such as yours truly.

Isn't Thomas going to ECU? Not sure what the problem is that Jay is raising.

I will add that Jay's basic argument is -- what is the big deal if it just affects one game because the oppositions n now has an unfair insight into the player's former school? In basketball, I can see that. In football, that is just a crazy statement. The biggest difference between NCAA basketball and football is, one loss means little in basketball whereas one loss in football can be catastrophic. There is a big difference between Rasheed going to Maryland or Silent G going to Syracuse, and our former QB going to a team we are already scheduled to play next year.

I like Jay, and I get his point that the players don't get paid so they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do. But that is not realistic. The schools invest in the players, too.

[cato]

I will add that Jay's basic argument is -- what is the big deal if it just affects one game because the oppositions n now has an unfair insight into the player's former school?


I don't think that's Jay's argument. I think his argument is: there are no restrictions on what schools coaches and other staff members can go to, so why should there be restrictions on athletes?

[Richard Berg]

Can't speak for Cut. But most coaches don't mind a transfer, so long as they don't go to a competing team in the league or on the schedule. Seems fair to me, but Jay as a former player has a different perspective than an interested fan such as yours truly.

Isn't Thomas going to ECU? Not sure what the problem is that Jay is raising.

I will add that Jay's basic argument is -- what is the big deal if it just affects one game because the oppositions n now has an unfair insight into the player's former school? In basketball, I can see that. In football, that is just a crazy statement. The biggest difference between NCAA basketball and football is, one loss means little in basketball whereas one loss in football can be catastrophic. There is a big difference between Rasheed going to Maryland or Silent G going to Syracuse, and our former QB going to a team we are already scheduled to play next year.

I like Jay, and I get his point that the players don't get paid so they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do. But that is not realistic. The schools invest in the players, too.
So if an NFL team waives a player, do you think he should be prohibited from signing with a division rival?

[CDu]

So if an NFL team waives a player, do you think he should be prohibited from signing with a division rival?

Totally different scenarios. If a college dismisses a player, they have no control. Just like in your scenario. Totally different than if a player chooses to leave of his own accord.

[Richard Berg]

Your argument rested on the mechanics of the sport (short season, importance of designed plays). If it's really about competitive fairness on the field, then the circumstances for leaving (graduation vs contract expiration) are irrelevant.

[CDu]

Your argument rested on the mechanics of the sport (short season, importance of designed plays). If it's really about competitive fairness on the field, then the circumstances for leaving (graduation vs contract expiration) are irrelevant.

It was not "my" argument.

But yes, it is still relevant. By choosing to dismiss/waive/cut the player, the team is actively foregoing the right to prevent him or her from choosing where else to go. When the player leaves on his/her own against the team's desires, that is quite different. And in that scenario, I can see why competitive fairness is an argument.

[Henderson]

This general discussion comes up at least once per year here.

It seems reasonable me to say to a player, "You committed to us; we invested in you; so you can't go to a rival and take the playbook in your head with you."

But how long is the commitment? If the school retains the right to jettison the player by not renewing his scholly and cutting him from the team at the end of a year, the lack of commitment should be reciprocal. In other words, it seems reasonable for a student-athlete to say, "You disclosed your playbook but didn't commit to me for Year 5, so it's not my problem that you disclosed your playbook to me."

I don't find coaches' contracts particularly relevant in the discussion. Those are arms length individually-negotiated transactions in which the university can bargain for a non-compete or not. Student arrangements with universities are in a different world of analysis.

[Wander]

It seems reasonable me to say to a player, "You committed to us; we invested in you; so you can't go to a rival and take the playbook in your head with you."


Does Kansas State football have 35 rivals?

[Troublemaker]

dragoneye776, I'm going to attempt to answer your questions below.



Does anyone have more information on the matter?
This post probably helps:

From GoDuke when announcing Sirk's transfer (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=211505890):

Duke will grant Sirk an eligibility transfer release to include all schools except members of the Atlantic Coast Conference, Army West Point, Baylor, N.C. Central and Northwestern.





Can anyone comment more on Cutcliffe's reasoning?
Looking at the list of schools, the following post is likely relevant:

http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=22666&SPID=1843

Duke restricted Sirk from transferring to any of our competitors for the upcoming season minus our bowl opponent (hopefully). Seems pretty reasonable to me that you wouldn't want to face your former starting quarterback on the field, let alone the insights he would bring to an opposing team.

Seems like it is less of an impact for basketball due to schedule size but the same argument would apply.

[Richard Berg]

If we're to take the NCAA's "student-athlete" marketing at face value, then a student's own choice of academic institution must come before concerns of athletic parity, surely?

[53n206]

If we're to take the NCAA's "student-athlete" marketing at face value, then a student's own choice of academic institution must come before concerns of athletic parity, surely?

Absolutely. Are we not talking about academics?

[OldPhiKap]

If we're to take the NCAA's "student-athlete" marketing at face value, then a student's own choice of academic institution must come before concerns of athletic parity, surely?

Yeah, but -- does a graduate athlete decide that he wants go to a particular school to get a grad degree, and by the way may play sports in his or her last year of eligibility?

In most cases, it seems to me that the decision to transfer -- er, get a grad degree at a different school with a year of eligibility -- is driven by athletics and not academics.

[Troublemaker]

Yeah, but -- does a graduate athlete decide that he wants go to a particular school to get a grad degree, and by the way may play sports in his or her last year of eligibility?

In most cases, it seems to me that the decision to transfer -- er, get a grad degree at a different school with a year of eligibility -- is driven by athletics and not academics.

Correct, and the school's decision to accept the graduate athlete is also driven by athletics.

I'm not taking a side here (yet), but to be clear, Duke's transfer block on ACC schools obviously would not prevent Thomas Sirk from applying to (for example) Wake Forest grad school, getting accepted, applying for a student loan, and paying his own way for his grad school education at Wake. He just wouldn't be able to play football for Wake next year, whether that's right or wrong.

[Olympic Fan]

I just came across this article and saw that there wasn't a thread discussing it yet.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2017/06/qa-espns-jay-bilas-criticizes-duke-footballs-restrictions-on-former-quarterback-thomas-sirks-transfer

Does anyone have more information on the matter? Can anyone comment more on Cutcliffe's reasoning?

We discussed this in another thread about a week ago. Bilas was using the Duke-Sirk situation to beat up Pitt for not releasing Cameron Johnson to UNC.

Bilas was using the Duke situation for impact -- the fact is, the process of restricting transfers within a conference has been a long-standing and widespread practice. As I pointed out in another thread, Dean Smith did it when Clifford Rozier wanted to transfer to FSU ...but it happens all the time. Cut preventing Sirk from playing for as Duke opponent is the norm, not an exception to the rule.

And I think it's a good idea.

I'm sorry, but I don't want to see widespread free agency in college basketball after every season, which is what some of you seem to be advocating ... I think there should be restrictions on transfers -- especially the one-year wait. And that should be applied to grad transfers too.

Pitt has the right -- according to the NCAA -- to prevent Cam Johnson from getting scholarship money next year at UNC. But they have relented and have said that Johnson can be on scholarship next year at UNC ... he just can't play for the Tar Heels until he sits out a year. He can play for the Cheats in 2018-19.

PS Defending transfer restrictions doesn't mean that the system can't be abused. The situation at Kansas State seems to be such a case. The football player wants to transfer and asked approval to transfer to one of 35 schools -- none on K-State's schedule in the next three years. Snydet blocked his transfers then apparently violated federal law when he told reporters that the kid had twice flunked drug tests (which are supposed to be confidential). Now that's going too far -- but if Snyder had said the kid couldn't transfer to another Big 8 team, I'd be in his corner.

[Ichabod Drain]

Pitt has the right -- according to the NCAA -- to prevent Cam Johnson from getting scholarship money next year at UNC. But they have relented and have said that Johnson can be on scholarship next year at UNC ... he just can't play for the Tar Heels until he sits out a year. He can play for the Cheats in 2018-19.



I believe this is incorrect from statements made yesterday. Because he is a grad transfer, Pitt can either block him completely from a school or there will be no restrictions. Since Pitt already granted him release to transfer to UNC then he should have no restrictions. Pitts misinterpretation of the rules should not be held up by the NCAA and most likely will not.

I don't want free agency in college sports either but it really doesn't matter what you or I want. It's about what's fair. If the NCAA wants to continue to operate under the façade that the student comes first in "student-athlete" and the players are just amateur then they should treat them as students and amateurs. Any other student can leave go wherever they want and do whatever they want at another school, if they're just amateurs and students why should athletes be any different?

[bob blue devil]

If we're to take the NCAA's "student-athlete" marketing at face value, then a student's own choice of academic institution must come before concerns of athletic parity, surely?

just to play devil's advocate (since I agree, let the kid go where he wants), sirk is free to attend any academic institution that will have him. at question is whether he can play football at that institution.

[Olympic Fan]

I believe this is incorrect from statements made yesterday. Because he is a grad transfer, Pitt can either block him completely from a school or there will be no restrictions. Since Pitt already granted him release to transfer to UNC then he should have no restrictions. Pitts misinterpretation of the rules should not be held up by the NCAA and most likely will not.


I was told yesterday by an ACC official that the NCAA riles give Pitt the right to do exactly what they are doing.

[Ichabod Drain]

I was told yesterday by an ACC official that the NCAA riles give Pitt the right to do exactly what they are doing.

Interesting, this would appear to go against the NCAA rules. I'd put money on him playing at UNC next year though.

[NSDukeFan]

Interesting, this would appear to go against the NCAA rules. I'd put money on him playing at UNC next year though.

Why would NCAA rules concern UNC? Neither their rules nor ethical ones concern them.

[Wander]

I'm sorry, but I don't want to see widespread free agency in college basketball after every season, which is what some of you seem to be advocating ... I think there should be restrictions on transfers -- especially the one-year wait. And that should be applied to grad transfers too.


I'm not against that, but then the restrictions should just be consistent. I see no reason why schools should be allowed to pick and choose what specific universities kids can transfer to and have the restriction lifted. It needlessly allows abuse.

[FadedTackyShirt]

The grad school rule is well intentioned, but poorly executed and disproportionally hurts stronger academic schools with high standards for athletes.

If you recruit excellent student-athletes, they probably graduate in four years. If they've redshirt, they have remaining eligibility. If they don't project as contributors or are unable to be admitted to meaningful grad schools at their undergrad school, why care/put restrictions on where they go?

Best of luck to Sirk, but he's not likely to become a pro football player or significantly jump start a non-football career via his second grad degree.

The situation is even worse for Duke hoops. Ivies are four and done no matter what. Many would likely be admissible to meaningful Duke grad programs, but may not be able to contribute on the court. An experienced player, even as a practice player, might be more valuable than someone who's 9-13 in the rotation and transfers after a year or two.

[El_Diablo]

I'm not against that, but then the restrictions should just be consistent. I see no reason why schools should be allowed to pick and choose what specific universities kids can transfer to and have the restriction lifted. It needlessly allows abuse.

There is a blanket rule: everyone sits for one year and then can play out the remainder of his eligibility afterwards. Exceptions permit the one year sitting period to be waived in some cases (e.g., for a graduate transfer that earns his degree and obtains a release from his prior school).

But just because most schools are generous in granting that release* does not make the exception the rule. If Johnson wants to go to UNC, he can, and Pitt can do nothing to stop him. If Johnson wants to go to UNC and get a waiver to play immediately, he can only do so if Pitt releases him. That is the rule that was in place before he agreed to accept financial aid from Pitt, and is what Pitt told him would apply when said he was transferring. If he wants to be at UNC, he can definitely go to UNC, but he simply has to follow the rules that are in place and sit for a year before suiting up against his former team.

*Probably because most players do not want to transfer to a conference rival.

[Ichabod Drain]

There is a blanket rule: everyone sits for one year and then can play out the remainder of his eligibility afterwards. Exceptions permit the one year sitting period to be waived in some cases (e.g., for a graduate transfer that earns his degree and obtains a release from his prior school).

But just because most schools are generous in granting that release* does not make the exception the rule. If Johnson wants to go to UNC, he can, and Pitt can do nothing to stop him. If Johnson wants to go to UNC and get a waiver to play immediately, he can only do so if Pitt releases him. That is the rule that was in place before he agreed to accept financial aid from Pitt, and is what Pitt told him would apply when said he was transferring. If he wants to be at UNC, he can definitely go to UNC, but he simply has to follow the rules that are in place and sit for a year before suiting up against his former team.

*Probably because most players do not want to transfer to a conference rival.

This is where I'm confused. So the rule states graduate transfers, like Cam Johnson, are immediately eligible where they transfer to. But the school can restrict where they transfer to (the former school has to grant them permission to receive financial aid from the other institution). From what was put out by Cam yesterday Pitt granted him permission to transfer to UNC and receive financial aid, but is trying to make him sit out a year like a normal transfer (non-graduate). To me it would seem if they granted him permission to receive financial aid from UNC then that in turn grants him the ability to play at UNC next season since he is a graduate.

ETA: Maybe the school has this power but I feel like it would have come up before now. As this is the first time I've seen a school try and make a grad transfer sit out a year.

[El_Diablo]

This is where I'm confused. So the rule states graduate transfers, like Cam Johnson, are immediately eligible where they transfer to. But the school can restrict where they transfer to (the former school has to grant them permission to receive financial aid from the other institution). From what was put out by Cam yesterday Pitt granted him permission to transfer to UNC and receive financial aid, but is trying to make him sit out a year like a normal transfer (non-graduate). To me it would seem if they granted him permission to receive financial aid from UNC then that in turn grants him the ability to play at UNC next season since he is a graduate.

I think the rule is that graduate transfers are immediately eligible if released by the former school (which is usually just a formality because the player is not going to a conference rival), and Pitt has not granted release in that respect. I read about it a month ago or so, so I may be remembering it incorrectly.

[Ichabod Drain]

I think the rule is that graduate transfers are immediately eligible if released by the former school (which is usually just a formality because the player is not going to a conference rival), and Pitt has not granted release in that respect. I read about it a month ago or so, so I may be remembering it incorrectly.

I am interested in this so I pulled up the actual NCAA rule book and I believe you are probably correct. This first section is on eligibility for graduate transfers.



14.6.1 One-Time Transfer Exception. A graduate student who is enrolled in a graduate or professional
school of an institution other than the institution from which he or she previously received a baccalaureate degree
may participate in intercollegiate athletics if the student fulfills the conditions of the one-time transfer exception
set forth in Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10 and has eligibility remaining per Bylaw 12.8. A graduate student who does not
meet the one-time transfer exception due to the restrictions of Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10-(a) shall qualify for this exception,
provided: (Adopted: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96, Revised: 4/27/06, 1/6/07 effective 8/1/07, 4/28/11 effective 8/1/11,
7/31/14)
(a) The student fulfills the remaining conditions of Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10;
(b) The student has at least one season of competition remaining; and
(c) The student’s previous institution did not renew his or her athletically related financial aid for the following
academic year.

This next section is what part (a) refers to above.


(d) If the student is transferring from an NCAA or NAIA member institution, the student’s previous
institution shall certify in writing that it has no objection to the student being granted an exception
to the transfer-residence requirement. If an institution receives a written request for a release from a
student-athlete, the institution shall grant or deny the request within seven business days. If the institution
fails to respond to the student-athlete’s written request within seven business days, the release
shall be granted by default and the institution shall provide a written release to the student-athlete.

I think Pitts letter granting him permission to obtain financial aid clearly objected to him obtaining eligibility to play immediately. Does this mean any school could block a grad transfer from playing immediately?

[Acymetric]

I am interested in this so I pulled up the actual NCAA rule book and I believe you are probably correct. This first section is on eligibility for graduate transfers.




This next section is what part (a) refers to above.



I think Pitts letter granting him permission to obtain financial aid clearly objected to him obtaining eligibility to play immediately. Does this mean any school could block a grad transfer from playing immediately?

This is because it is an intra-conference transfer. ACC rules for transferring within the conference are no competition/financial aid for one year, and loss of that year's eligibility. The ACC may consider a waiver granted by the NCAA (grad transfer waiver in this case) but is not required to. Sounds like Pitt is asking that the ACC not waive their transfer rule regardless of the NCAA policy (the ACC is not the only conference with additional restrictions on transfers).

So no, Pitt can only make this objection because he is transferring within the conference as I understand it.

[Olympic Fan]

This is because it is an intra-conference transfer. ACC rules for transferring within the conference are no competition/financial aid for one year, and loss of that year's eligibility. The ACC may consider a waiver granted by the NCAA (grad transfer waiver in this case) but is not required to. Sounds like Pitt is asking that the ACC not waive their transfer rule regardless of the NCAA policy (the ACC is not the only conference with additional restrictions on transfers).

So no, Pitt can only make this objection because he is transferring within the conference as I understand it.

That's not what I was told by an ACC official. He said the conference has strict rules about undergraduates transferring within the conference, but no such restrictions for graduate transfers.

He said Pitt was invoking an NCAA rule and that they DO have the right to restrict Johnson from playing next year.

[Acymetric]

That's not what I was told by an ACC official. He said the conference has strict rules about undergraduates transferring within the conference, but no such restrictions for graduate transfers.

He said Pitt was invoking an NCAA rule and that they DO have the right to restrict Johnson from playing next year.

Yep, consider my post "retracted", I went and dug a little deeper for the actual ACC bylaws (rather than a summary) and there is a clear exception for grad transfers.

[Ichabod Drain]

This is because it is an intra-conference transfer. ACC rules for transferring within the conference are no competition/financial aid for one year, and loss of that year's eligibility. The ACC may consider a waiver granted by the NCAA (grad transfer waiver in this case) but is not required to. Sounds like Pitt is asking that the ACC not waive their transfer rule regardless of the NCAA policy (the ACC is not the only conference with additional restrictions on transfers).

So no, Pitt can only make this objection because he is transferring within the conference as I understand it.


This is from an ACC manual from 2013 (only one I could find)



a. GRADUATION EXCEPTION. A student-athlete who receives a baccalaureate degree at one member institution and
who has been admitted into a graduate degree program at another member institution may transfer to another member
institution without being subject to the intra-conference transfer rule. NCAA transfer regulations would apply. (Revised:
February 2006)


So I do not believe that is the issue.


That's not what I was told by an ACC official. He said the conference has strict rules about undergraduates transferring within the conference, but no such restrictions for graduate transfers.

He said Pitt was invoking an NCAA rule and that they DO have the right to restrict Johnson from playing next year.

Yea this is how I see it now. But to my understanding that could allow any grad transfer to have to sit out a year if their former school felt inclined to do so.

[El_Diablo]

Yea this is how I see it now. But to my understanding that could allow any grad transfer to have to sit out a year if their former school felt inclined to do so.

It's probably not worth the effort/blowback for most schools, because the outgoing player typically (a) is not trying to play for a conference rival, and (b) does not have more than one year of eligibility left anyway. For many players, the player is also (c) changing the level of competition (either moving down to get some playing time that will not be available at his current school, or moving up from a mid-major to a major) such that the current school does not really have much prospect of facing him ever again anyway, and (d) is leaving on good terms.

For Johnson, (a) through (c) do not apply. Not sure about (d).

[Ichabod Drain]

It's probably not worth the effort/blowback for most schools, because the outgoing player typically (a) is not trying to play for a conference rival, and (b) does not have more than one year of eligibility left anyway. For many players, the player is also (c) changing the level of competition (either moving down to get some playing time that will not be available at his current school, or moving up from a mid-major to a major) such that the current school does not really have much prospect of facing him ever again anyway, and (d) is leaving on good terms.

For Johnson, (a) through (c) do not apply. Not sure about (d).

Oh I agree, I'm just curious what the letter of the law actually allows. FWIW GT was one of the final schools Obi was considering so it appears K and Duke granted a full release to him, including the ACC.

[COYS]

Oh I agree, I'm just curious what the letter of the law actually allows. FWIW GT was one of the final schools Obi was considering so it appears K and Duke granted a full release to him, including the ACC.

K had no problem with Gbinije transferring to Syracuse even though he knew the Orange would be joining the ACC and Duke would face him for two seasons. Personally, I prefer K's approach of allowing a transfer to go anywhere without restriction.

[El_Diablo]

K had no problem with Gbinije transferring to Syracuse even though he knew the Orange would be joining the ACC and Duke would face him for two seasons. Personally, I prefer K's approach of allowing a transfer to go anywhere without restriction.

Gbinije sat out for a year. That's all Pitt is asking Johnson to do for UNC.

[Ichabod Drain]

Gbinije sat out for a year. That's all Pitt is asking Johnson to do for UNC.

Gbinije wasn't a grad transfer though. Even if Duke had wanted to allow him to play immediately he would not have been able to due to the NCAA rule.

[ChillinDuke]

I am never (or at least hardly ever) in favor of a rule or a system of rules that allows for intentional manipulation and/or gamesmanship at the expense of someone. For me, it's that simple. I can't subscribe to a system that could devolve into anarchy. Here in this instance or anywhere.

The fact that, in theory, a high school senior can commit to a school with the sole intention of learning that school's secrets (playbook, recruiting pitch, travel plans, game prep, etc, etc, etc), graduate in 2 years (or redshirt and graduate in 3), and turn around and commit to that school's arch rival with 2 remaining years of eligibility left in what amounts to an intentional attempt at subversion is a nonstarter for me.

Does my theoretical example happen in practice? Not that I'm aware of. But with Cam Johnson we're about as close to my example as I can remember - clearly Cam's situation doesn't appear malicious or intentional, but in theory it could be. And the theory is enough for me to believe it must be disallowed - at least insofar as there must be a significant restriction or disincentive to engaging in this sort of behavior. A one-year sit-out requirement (at the school's option of enforcing) seems to me a totally reasonable, effective, and significant restriction.

Gaming the system, any system, needs to be properly disincented IMO. Allowing Cam to play immediately, in theory, allows for significant gamesmanship. It may be unlikely, it may be ridiculous, but it's possible. And for that reason, I'm out.

- Chillin

[Hingeknocker]

I am never (or at least hardly ever) in favor of a rule or a system of rules that allows for intentional manipulation and/or gamesmanship at the expense of someone. For me, it's that simple. I can't subscribe to a system that could devolve into anarchy. Here in this instance or anywhere.

The fact that, in theory, a high school senior can commit to a school with the sole intention of learning that school's secrets (playbook, recruiting pitch, travel plans, game prep, etc, etc, etc), graduate in 2 years (or redshirt and graduate in 3), and turn around and commit to that school's arch rival with 2 remaining years of eligibility left in what amounts to an intentional attempt at subversion is a nonstarter for me.

Does my theoretical example happen in practice? Not that I'm aware of. But with Cam Johnson we're about as close to my example as I can remember - clearly Cam's situation doesn't appear malicious or intentional, but in theory it could be. And the theory is enough for me to believe it must be disallowed - at least insofar as there must be a significant restriction or disincentive to engaging in this sort of behavior. A one-year sit-out requirement (at the school's option of enforcing) seems to me a totally reasonable, effective, and significant restriction.

Gaming the system, any system, needs to be properly disincented IMO. Allowing Cam to play immediately, in theory, allows for significant gamesmanship. It may be unlikely, it may be ridiculous, but it's possible. And for that reason, I'm out.

- Chillin

Do you think there should be similar restrictions on coaches moving intraconference? And if so, what concessions from their employers would you expect coaches to ask for in return?

Also: I can't neglect mentioning that you seem to care more about the hypothetical damage done to Pitt, compared to the actual damage being done to Cam Johnson.

[Ichabod Drain]

I am never (or at least hardly ever) in favor of a rule or a system of rules that allows for intentional manipulation and/or gamesmanship at the expense of someone. For me, it's that simple. I can't subscribe to a system that could devolve into anarchy. Here in this instance or anywhere.

The fact that, in theory, a high school senior can commit to a school with the sole intention of learning that school's secrets (playbook, recruiting pitch, travel plans, game prep, etc, etc, etc), graduate in 2 years (or redshirt and graduate in 3), and turn around and commit to that school's arch rival with 2 remaining years of eligibility left in what amounts to an intentional attempt at subversion is a nonstarter for me.

Does my theoretical example happen in practice? Not that I'm aware of. But with Cam Johnson we're about as close to my example as I can remember - clearly Cam's situation doesn't appear malicious or intentional, but in theory it could be. And the theory is enough for me to believe it must be disallowed - at least insofar as there must be a significant restriction or disincentive to engaging in this sort of behavior. A one-year sit-out requirement (at the school's option of enforcing) seems to me a totally reasonable, effective, and significant restriction.

Gaming the system, any system, needs to be properly disincented IMO. Allowing Cam to play immediately, in theory, allows for significant gamesmanship. It may be unlikely, it may be ridiculous, but it's possible. And for that reason, I'm out.

- Chillin

All of the info you said a player could steal is pretty common knowledge and could be obtained by scouting, making some phone calls, and just having general knowledge of the coach and program. Not to mention a school could just hire one of the other schools assistants coaches if they wanted it that bad and the coach could start immediately without sitting out a year. Heck UNC could hire Cam Johnson for a role in their basketball program today if they wanted.

Also this is amateur athletics so none of this should matter that much right? NCAA treats this like a professional organization when they want to and an amateur organization when they want to.

[English]

Do you think there should be similar restrictions on coaches moving intraconference? And if so, what concessions from their employers would you expect coaches to ask for in return?

Also: I can't neglect mentioning that you seem to care more about the hypothetical damage done to Pitt, compared to the actual damage being done to Cam Johnson.

I find it endlessly confusing why so many people want to, for some unknown reason, make the false equivalence between a college student-athlete and a college coach. The two are governed by different rules outlined by different agreements and requiring different qualifications. Is that such a convoluted concept?

Unrelated, I'm also curious to hear the what actual damage that is being perpetrated on young Mr. Johnson entails. As mentioned earlier, the rules haven't changed since he passed through the NCAA Clearinghouse and matriculated at Pitt. Pitt isn't blocking his immediate eligibility at any, minus 13, other basketball programs. Nobody ran over his cat.

[Wander]

The fact that, in theory, a high school senior can commit to a school with the sole intention of learning that school's secrets

Using off-the-wall scenarios that don't actually happen is a bad way to set policy in any context.

Several posters have made good arguments for why transfers should have to sit out a year. A few have argued that the policy should be different for students who actually graduate - I don't agree and think it should be the same for everyone, but I respect the argument. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe (not really) there should be a specific different policy for transferring to an in-conference school.

But no one has even attempted to defend the absurdity of schools getting to pick and choose other specific schools where the transfer policy is different. It's totally indefensible and, unlike ChillinDuke's wacky scenario, is something we know occasionally gets abused in real life.

[Ichabod Drain]

As mentioned earlier, the rules haven't changed since he passed through the NCAA Clearinghouse and matriculated at Pitt. Pitt isn't blocking his immediate eligibility at any, minus 13, other basketball programs. Nobody ran over his cat.

The rules haven't changed since he passed through clearinghouse but the coach sure did. I know that's not written down in any financial aid agreement or anything but he was recruited to play for Dixon. Dixon left with no repercussions and Johnson was left there with KEVIN FREAKING STALLINGS. Also just because the rules were in place when he got there doesn't mean the rules are fair.

[Hingeknocker]

I find it endlessly confusing why so many people want to, for some unknown reason, make the false equivalence between a college student-athlete and a college coach. The two are governed by different rules outlined by different agreements and requiring different qualifications. Is that such a convoluted concept?

Unrelated, I'm also curious to hear the what actual damage that is being perpetrated on young Mr. Johnson entails. As mentioned earlier, the rules haven't changed since he passed through the NCAA Clearinghouse and matriculated at Pitt. Pitt isn't blocking his immediate eligibility at any, minus 13, other basketball programs. Nobody ran over his cat.

No, it is not convoluted! But if the worry about state secrets is so great that we must come up with a restrictive set of rules for the players to abide by, why aren't we similarly worried about coaches doing the same thing? If not, why not? Or is it all just part of a century-old elaborate scheme to get labor for cheap?

It seems that you think you have poked a hole in my logic, when you have actually demonstrated exactly my point. The fact that there are different rules and different agreements for the athletes and the coaches, two important groups in a billion-dollar industry, and that only one of these classes bears the brunt of immoral restrictions on movement and income is precisely the juxtaposition I hope to make. I assure you that if the players were able to bargain for and receive fair payment for their services, I would have no problems with other stipulations imposed upon them, such as non-compete clauses (which is basically what you are advocating).

The actual damage done to Cam Johnson and every other player intending to transfer is that there are restrictions and penalties imposed. You throw away the 13 schools where he would wish to transfer as if that were meaningless. It's not. It's damaging to him.

[bob blue devil]

could you imagine the chaos if coaches were allowed to switch between schools without restrictions? we'd having a bidding war for the best coaches and all of a program's hard earned intellectual property would go with him. the big wealthy programs would have an even greater advantage.

[ChillinDuke]

Do you think there should be similar restrictions on coaches moving intraconference? And if so, what concessions from their employers would you expect coaches to ask for in return?

Also: I can't neglect mentioning that you seem to care more about the hypothetical damage done to Pitt, compared to the actual damage being done to Cam Johnson.

Personally, I would be in favor of the bolded, yes. Subject to reasonable allowances.

I disagree with your "Also". In the context of my "wacky" example, Pitt is being wronged directly and solely. Cam, on the other hand, is allowed to go to almost any school, with the exception of (presumably) 14 ACC schools. It's hard for me to see the damage done to Cam being somehow disproportionate to that done to Pitt. Again, in the eyes of my wacky example. There were hundreds of other schools he could have gone to. He also could have turned pro somewhere, or opened a basketball workshop, or probably coached, or gotten a totally unrelated job (he's a graduate after all).

I'm not in favor of unreasonable rules or overly punitive rules. I fail to see those qualities in this rule.

- Chillin

[cato]

I find it endlessly confusing why so many people want to, for some unknown reason, make the false equivalence between a college student-athlete and a college coach. The two are governed by different rules outlined by different agreements and requiring different qualifications. Is that such a convoluted concept?


Perhaps you would be less confused if, instead of assuming false equivalence, you pursuaded us simpler minded folk as to *why* the equivalence is false.

[Ichabod Drain]

That's not what I was told by an ACC official. He said the conference has strict rules about undergraduates transferring within the conference, but no such restrictions for graduate transfers.

He said Pitt was invoking an NCAA rule and that they DO have the right to restrict Johnson from playing next year.

http://http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/forums/1410-basketball/16727817-acc-email-on-cameron-johnson (http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/forums/1410-basketball/16727817-acc-email-on-cameron-johnson)

[cato]

Personally, I would be in favor of the bolded, yes. Subject to reasonable allowances.


Restrictions on coaches moving between schools would be unenforceable in California. This state believes, appropriately so, that people should be free to move between jobs. Restrictions on that freedom must have compelling justification.

So. A prized engineer can leave for a competitor. But she cannot take trade secrets with her. Seems like a good balance to me.

Student athletes, of course, are denied these protections, because they are not deemed to be employees. Just students who, in some cases, make a ridiculous amount of money for their school and, in some cases, their ridiculously well paid coaches.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I am admittedly of two minds here. It does seem absurd that coaches can "transfer" with impunity - even in the wake of scandal and sanctions - while students must sit a year if they can't come up with a compelling story about family hardhip or being a grad student. But that concern is an NCAA rule ancillary to the question of coaches/programs that can limit a student's potential transfer destination.

The only reason I can imagine a coach limiting an athlete's destination is some perceived competitive advantage gained by the program receiving the former player. That feels a bit like a paranoid conspiracy theory that can greatly affect the student-athlete unfairly. Is there any evidence that a middling player from a school has transferred to a rival and brought such a preponderance of institutional knowledge that it pushed their new school over the top? Seems like a stretch to me. Is it conceivable? I guess. Is it likely? Definitely not. Does it justify the regular practice of limiting transfer destinations in revenue sports? Not to me.

If as the managing partner of my company, I under-use an employee and they quit, I can't imagine being bent out of shape if another company in my industry offers them a better situation. And assuming I should have some say in their employment issued based on the possibility that they could carry some industry secrets to their new company seems like overstepping my role.

If you feel your school/team has irreplaceable secrets, maybe come up with a better way of securing your playbook rather than using that as an excuse to limit where a 20 year old kid can continue his education/career.

[sagegrouse]

I am admittedly of two minds here. It does seem absurd that coaches can "transfer" with impunity - even in the wake of scandal and sanctions - while students must sit a year if they can't come up with a compelling story about family hardhip or being a grad student. But that concern is an NCAA rule ancillary to the question of coaches/programs that can limit a student's potential transfer destination.

The only reason I can imagine a coach limiting an athlete's destination is some perceived competitive advantage gained by the program receiving the former player. That feels a bit like a paranoid conspiracy theory that can greatly affect the student-athlete unfairly. Is there any evidence that a middling player from a school has transferred to a rival and brought such a preponderance of institutional knowledge that it pushed their new school over the top? Seems like a stretch to me. Is it conceivable? I guess. Is it likely? Definitely not. Does it justify the regular practice of limiting transfer destinations in revenue sports? Not to me.

If as the managing partner of my company, I under-use an employee and they quit, I can't imagine being bent out of shape if another company in my industry offers them a better situation. And assuming I should have some say in their employment issued based on the possibility that they could carry some industry secrets to their new company seems like overstepping my role.

If you feel your school/team has irreplaceable secrets, maybe come up with a better way of securing your playbook rather than using that as an excuse to limit where a 20 year old kid can continue his education/career.

The NCAA also considers "competitive factors." One such factor. if transfers can change schools at any time, is the reasonable concern among the schools and coaches of a "perpetual recruiting cycle," where a school has to recruit its own players every year, in addition to recruiting high school players two-to-three years ahead of enrollment. Under no-wait transfers, players from various schools may even get together in the summer and decide where they wil play the following season. Although players should have greater rights, this would create chaos (even more chaos) in college hoops. In this light, the requirement to sit out a season seems like a reasonable condition for transfers. It can even be seen as an opportunity for more seasoning by the player with pro ambitions.

There are other ways to protect the investment and franchises that the member schools have created. For example,schools would not be permitted, except under exceptional circumstances, to accept more than one transfer a season. I suppose there are other ideas as well.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The NCAA also considers "competitive factors." One such factor. if transfers can change schools at any time, is the reasonable concern among the schools and coaches of a "perpetual recruiting cycle," where a school has to recruit its own players every year, in addition to recruiting high school players two-to-three years ahead of enrollment. Under no-wait transfers, players from various schools may even get together in the summer and decide where they wil play the following season. Although players should have greater rights, this would create chaos (even more chaos) in college hoops. In this light, the requirement to sit out a season seems like a reasonable condition for transfers. It can even be seen as an opportunity for more seasoning by the player with pro ambitions.

There are other ways to protect the investment and franchises that the member schools have created. For example,schools would not be permitted, except under exceptional circumstances, to accept more than one transfer a season. I suppose there are other ideas as well.

As I say, you can argue the "sit for a year" stipulation by the NCAA - I was more specifically addressing the common practice of limiting a player's destination school.