Major Change Proposed In NCAA Transfer Rules

[hallcity]

No penalty for first transfer. (https://usc.247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121/Amp)l

[BD80]

No penalty for first transfer. (https://usc.247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121/Amp)l

calipari will be all over that rule change. They better have clear-cut rules about tampering with players at other schools.

[dukelifer]

calipari will be all over that rule change. They better have clear-cut rules about tampering with players at other schools.

A new kind of one and done

[BigWayne]

The only potential restrictions are that student-athletes would be asked to meet a minimum GPA

I can see this GPA being a bit higher than the one required to be eligible to play and that athletes at a certain university will magically always have a GPA between the two numbers.

[UrinalCake]

I think the coaches who REALLY don't want this to happen are guys at bottom of the major conferences, as well as the mid-major schools. Imagine - you already have to recruit against the big boys and hope when you're lucky enough to sign a decent prospect that he doesn't blow up during his senior year of high school and decommit. Then once he's actually at your school, now you have to worry about every opponent coming in and talking your player into coming and playing for them instead.

As much a K and Cal might worry about losing players who aren't getting enough playing time, the flip side is they could go around hand-picking the best players across the country who have exceeded expectations and then "recruit" them to come play for a top program and have a better shot at the NBA.

[sagegrouse]

Here's my instant analysis. Players outside the five-star range will pick a school where they are sure to get playing time -- and then move after one year. Could have some benefits to schools in the bottom half of Division I.

Kindly,
Sge Grouse
'Nah! I'm just blathering. Oh well, there is a fine line between "insight" and "nonsense'

[LasVegas]

I'm all for this. But I would also add that a player isn't allowed to play immediately if they have played over a predetermined mpg threshold. Like 20, for example. Also, no mid season transfers.

And if the head coach leaves, players should be able to go and play immediately wherever they want.

[WiJoe]

a*inine.

[Duke95]

Excellent. Let the players go where they feel maximizes their own benefit, just like coaches do.

Of course, for those who don't like this, there's a simple solution. Treat the players like employees and pay them, then you can sign them to a contract. Problem solved.

[ChillinDuke]

Excellent. Let the players go where they feel maximizes their own benefit, just like coaches do.

Of course, for those who don't like this, there's a simple solution. Treat the players like employees and pay them, then you can sign them to a contract. Problem solved.

For those that don't like this, I will point out that there are a variety of other solutions and not just this "simple solution" outlined above.

Sorry Duke95 to be a bit direct, but I just don't like posts that are designed to create a polarizing atmosphere, especially amongst our own compadres around here. The situation has plenty of shades and spectrum in terms of how to make this work. It's not binary.

- Chillin

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Excellent. Let the players go where they feel maximizes their own benefit, just like coaches do.

Of course, for those who don't like this, there's a simple solution. Treat the players like employees and pay them, then you can sign them to a contract. Problem solved.

Counter point - one more nail in the coffin of the "student athlete," and another step towards "minor league sports."

Probably still makes more sense than the farcical "grad transfer rule" or the strange rules that are seemingly randomly upheld about what makes someone immediately eligible.

[Indoor66]

For those that don't like this, I will point out that there are a variety of other solutions and not just this "simple solution" outlined above.

Sorry Duke95 to be a bit direct, but I just don't like posts that are designed to create a polarizing atmosphere, especially amongst our own compadres around here. The situation has plenty of shades and spectrum in terms of how to make this work. It's not binary.

- Chillin

But Chillin, hasn't the whole world become binary? Seems so to an old guy like me. Discussion is dead. Either love or hate - no middle ground of just mild disagreement or mild dislike. Love or hate. Agree with me or be a hater.

[BD80]

... hasn't the whole world become binary? ...

no.

.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

no.

.

Blah blah. Spread love...

[ChillinDuke]

But Chillin, hasn't the whole world become binary? Seems so to an old guy like me. Discussion is dead. Either love or hate - no middle ground of just mild disagreement or mild dislike. Love or hate. Agree with me or be a hater.

Exactly. #like

I refuse to surround myself with people that openly want to create (or don't even realize that they are creating) binary, polarizing debates as opposed to honest, interested, reasoned discussions. In real life and in virtual life. Not sure which of the two DBR is, but I certainly surround myself with you people. So I'd like to think that my refusal is intact when I sign on here (and it, by and large, seems to be).

[Apologies again to Duke95 whose post is getting dragged into this sidebar.]

- Chillin

[hudlow]

Is the proposal a means to soften the blow on current *NC athletes when the hammer comes down?

[sagegrouse]

Is the proposal a means to soften the blow on current *NC athletes when the hammer comes down?

If a school is banned from post-season, don't athletes get waivers to transfer and play immediately?

[hudlow]

If a school is banned from post-season, don't athletes get waivers to transfer and play immediately?

That, Sir I can't answer. But if they can, it's a pretty cushy benefit for a student/athlete...

[UrinalCake]

If a school is banned from post-season, don't athletes get waivers to transfer and play immediately?

Only if the postseason ban covers the remaining length of their eligibility. So if it's a one-year ban then juniors are allowed to transfer without penalty, but freshmen and sophomores cannot. If it's a two-year ban then sophomores and juniors can transfer without penalty, etc.

I remember when the Penn State sanctions were handed down, it included a four year postseason ban which was significant because it meant that everyone could transfer immediately.

[Skitzle]

Is the proposal a means to soften the blow on current *NC athletes when the hammer comes down?

Huckleberry's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comment involving UNC cheating reaches 1.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I have mixed feelings about this proposal. On one hand, I really hate the professionalization of college sports and this is going to just move things further in that direction, as there will be the potential chaos of annual free agency, poaching of players, etc. On the other hand, regular students are allowed to transfer and coaches are free to come and go as they please, so why shouldn't athletes, particularly since there are a lot of exceptions to the rules (I actually like the grad transfer rule as it rewards kids who get their degrees).

The potential GPA requirements are a decent start to limiting the potential chaos caused by this but are really easy to work around. One potential idea I had was to create a limit on the number of incoming transfers a school can take over a certain time period - say four every four years, or something like that? This way the student-athletes will still be free to transfer, but coaches won't be able to make a living out of poaching other school's players. If a kid wants to go to a school badly enough and the school has exhausted its limit, they can still grad transfer (which wouldn't count against the limit) or transfer under the old rules where they would sit out a year (which also wouldn't count). I'm sure there are plenty of holes in this proposal (and the free markets types here will hate it) but it is a start...

[flyingdutchdevil]

Guaranteed, this will lead to mid-majors becoming less and less competitive. Amazing sophomore/junior mid-major players will transfer to Big 6 teams and 5-star busts will transfer to other Big 6 teams. I really don't see mediocre players on Big 6 teams dropping down to mid-majors but rather transferring horizontally.

This is great for Big 6 teams and even better for elite schools who need a certain role (like a PG for Duke last year). Not great for mid-majors and hence David vs Goliath. Tournament upsets will become more infrequent and the S16 will be filled with Big 6 teams (moreso than they are now).

Also, you cannot put restrictions and regulations against college player recruiting. Coach K can easily whisper in an elite opponent's ear, "I would love to see you in Duke blue next year" during the handshake. I mean, there are countless ways in which teams can recruit these players under the radar.

This is a great idea on the surface, but it will easily turn into a madhouse.

[Indoor66]

Guaranteed, this will lead to mid-majors becoming less and less competitive. Amazing sophomore/junior mid-major players will transfer to Big 6 teams and 5-star busts will transfer to other Big 6 teams. I really don't see mediocre players on Big 6 teams dropping down to mid-majors but rather transferring horizontally.

This is great for Big 6 teams and even better for elite schools who need a certain role (like a PG for Duke last year). Not great for mid-majors and hence David vs Goliath. Tournament upsets will become more infrequent and the S16 will be filled with Big 6 teams (moreso than they are now).

Also, you cannot put restrictions and regulations against college player recruiting. Coach K can easily whisper in an elite opponent's ear, "I would love to see you in Duke blue next year" during the handshake. I mean, there are countless ways in which teams can recruit these players under the radar.

This is a great idea on the surface, but it will easily turn into a madhouse.

I agree with you FDD. Again, like the pay issue, we want to change the system to benefit a few stars to the detriment of the entire sport. The world does hot work well when operated on the decisions of whim and caprice. Part of growing is living with consequence of decisions. Choosing a school is big decision that these kids agonize over for a long period after being recruited. Schools go to a great deal of effort and expense to recruit them. There needs to be a real incentive for the youthful student athlete to abide by his decision and realize that the world does not revolve around him. Also, aren't schools entitled to benefit from some reverse pressure on the issue of transfer? They take the risk on these kids. We all know that not all of them work out and the schools lose. It is not solely about these individual pampered kids getting just what they want. That is not how the world works and that lesson is part of the college experience.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I agree with you FDD. Again, like the pay issue, we want to change the system to benefit a few stars to the detriment of the entire sport. The world does hot work well when operated on the decisions of whim and caprice. Part of growing is living with consequence of decisions. Choosing a school is big decision that these kids agonize over for a long period after being recruited. Schools go to a great deal of effort and expense to recruit them. There needs to be a real incentive for the youthful student athlete to abide by his decision and realize that the world does not revolve around him. Also, aren't schools entitled to benefit from some reverse pressure on the issue of transfer? They take the risk on these kids. We all know that not all of them work out and the schools lose. It is not solely about these individual pampered kids getting just what they want. That is not how the world works and that lesson is part of the college experience.

On this thread, I agree with you. I fear for Gonzagas, the Butlers, even... NC State. UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke can come sniping your players once they have proven themselves for a season.

How about mid season transfers? What happens on down the pipe, as players move up to Gonzaga, Butler, etc?

Opens up the flood gates.

[hallcity]

I think what we'll see if this passes is more stratification. Players are going to transfer to more prominent programs to get more exposure. Players are going to transfer to less prominent programs to get more playing time. This both helps and hurts every school in unpredictable ways. Some years you'll like it. Some years you'll hate it.

By the way, I think Steph Curry would have transferred to Duke if this rule had been in effect when he was at Davidson.

[CameronBlue]

Huckleberry's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comment involving UNC cheating reaches 1.

assessintopicality?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think what we'll see if this passes is more stratification. Players are going to transfer to more prominent programs to get more exposure. Players are going to transfer to less prominent programs to get more playing time. This both helps and hurts every school in unpredictable ways. Some years you'll like it. Some years you'll hate it.

By the way, I think Steph Curry would have transferred to Duke if this rule had been in effect when he was at Davidson.

Not sure if you can play the what if game here. Maybe Quinn Cook transfers somewhere else after his sophmore campaign. Perhaps Rasheed transfers before his senior year. Maybe Marshall transfers down to get more playing time and doesn't end up blossoming.

Too many variables, but I would like to go on record saying it is a bad move.

[swood1000]

Coach K sees some problems with it.


Some coaches call it problematic. Duke's Mike Krzyzewski said players who go pro after one season add to the instability that the sport has experienced in recent years.

"What it has produced is one-and-done for kids who are not going pro, the amount of transfers we have in basketball. There are over 450 transfers. Kids don't stick to the school that they pick and they want instant gratification," Krzyzewski wrote via email. "It's not just those elite players that might be able to go after one year. There's just the mentality out there that if you don't achieve after one year, maybe you should go someplace else. For the one-and-done guys it's the NBA, but for the other kids, it's another school." http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-basketball

Another problem: how do you guarantee that a program will even be able to field a team? A few top players don’t have their demands met by the coach and so announce they’re leaving. A sense of ill will takes over among the remaining players so they decide to transfer. This gets magnified in the media so nobody wants to transfer in.

[swood1000]

This could also result in many/most of the top players negotiating with the coach through an agent while in college. In exchange for not entertaining offers from other teams, not promoting instability within the team, etc., they would be guaranteed certain playing time, certain practice conditions, certain living and travel conditions (though they’d have to be careful here), etc. Legally binding contracts governing these things could become the norm. The agent would not receive a fee for his services during college in exchange for the right to represent the athlete when/if he goes pro.

Edit: in fact, what would stop coaches from requiring entering athletes to sign a contract up front that abrogates the right to transfer in exchange for certain concessions from the school? (The NCAA could forbid this.)

[BigWayne]

I agree with you FDD. Again, like the pay issue, we want to change the system to benefit a few stars to the detriment of the entire sport. The world does hot work well when operated on the decisions of whim and caprice. Part of growing is living with consequence of decisions. Choosing a school is big decision that these kids agonize over for a long period after being recruited. Schools go to a great deal of effort and expense to recruit them. There needs to be a real incentive for the youthful student athlete to abide by his decision and realize that the world does not revolve around him. Also, aren't schools entitled to benefit from some reverse pressure on the issue of transfer? They take the risk on these kids. We all know that not all of them work out and the schools lose. It is not solely about these individual pampered kids getting just what they want. That is not how the world works and that lesson is part of the college experience.

Changing the transfer rule will end up forcing other changes. The one I see most affected is the "contract" with the athlete for a scholarship. Currently, the standard NCAA LOI is a very one sided contract where the athlete gives up a lot of rights in exchange for the freshman year scholarship. Some schools have professed to guarantee 4 year scholarships, but I am not sure how those contracts are written. I expect that getting a 4 year guaranteed scholarship might force you to give up transfer rights.

[royalblue]

I guess the Coaches will need to not be so hard players as they can jump to another school even easier with this in place.
Can they go to another school every year if they like?

[Duke95]

On this thread, I agree with you. I fear for Gonzagas, the Butlers, even... NC State. UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke can come sniping your players once they have proven themselves for a season.

How about mid season transfers? What happens on down the pipe, as players move up to Gonzaga, Butler, etc?

Opens up the flood gates.

Another name for "flood gates" is free market. Players would be able to move freely to maximize their own best interests. Maybe they'll move from Butler to Kentucky or vice versa, to get more playing time.
This is exactly what coaches do.

[Duke95]

Edit: in fact, what would stop coaches from requiring entering athletes to sign a contract up front that abrogates the right to transfer in exchange for certain concessions from the school? (The NCAA could forbid this.)

Coach 1: You have to sign a contract with me.
Coach 2: You don't have to sign anything with me and I'll give you everything Coach 1 promised.

[madscavenger]

i can see it now: a coach jumps ship and takes his entire team with him to say, LIU. Or, maybe he just threatens to in exchange for new practice facilities and a weekly team meal at Ruths' Chris.

And, not that the obvious needs to be pointed out (but i'll do it anyway), immediate transfer raises the Spectre of drool from the Rams Club flooding Franklin Street.

[ChillinDuke]

Coach 1: You have to sign a contract with me.
Coach 2: You don't have to sign anything with me and I'll give you everything Coach 1 promised.

These examples mean nothing in a vacuum.

Coach 1 would need to have something of value that would allow him to mandate his recruit signing a contract. E.g. - 1000 wins. Otherwise, practically speaking, he'd never out-recruit Coach 2.

- Chillin

[swood1000]

Another name for "flood gates" is free market. Players would be able to move freely to maximize their own best interests. Maybe they'll move from Butler to Kentucky or vice versa, to get more playing time.
This is exactly what coaches do.
OK but the reason for transfer restrictions in professional basketball is that without them there would not be parity among the teams and there couldn’t be an economically successful league. Do you propose just to ignore that dynamic? How would you handle the problem of schools suddenly finding themselves unable to even field a team, or suddenly stripped down so far that they can give nobody in their league any competition?

[RPS]

a*inine.
I totally disagree.

The current system is heavily stacked in favor of the schools and against the players. Coaches can leave seemingly at will (despite long-term contracts). Coaches lie *all the time* to recruits to induce commitments. School scholarship commitments are year-to-year and may legally be pulled for any or no reason. Players routinely work 40 hours per week at their "jobs" (and despite NCAA hours restrictions that are routinely gotten around, easily) without pay beyond the scholarship and with very little leverage if things go south. Any student can transfer. Only athletes cannot transfer without restrictions (to be clear, non-football, baseball, hockey and basketball athletes get one "free" transfer without sitting out a year).

The proposed rule change is hardly sufficient, but it is certainly necessary.

DISCLOSURE: One of my sons was a D1 athlete so I am biased.

[swood1000]

Coach 1: You have to sign a contract with me.
Coach 2: You don't have to sign anything with me and I'll give you everything Coach 1 promised.
Well, we have a form of that already. Kids want playing time but other factors sometimes prevail:

Coach 1: sign with us and you’ll be a starter freshman year
Coach 2: sign with us and you’ll be coming off the bench freshman year but you’ll be playing for Duke and I can see no reason, if you progress the way I expect you will, that you won’t be starting as a sophomore.

Furthermore, if the recruit saw any problems with the school he wouldn’t be signing with them in the first place. He’s fully expecting a happy marriage. Why not agree not to transfer (or agree to sit out a year if he transfers)? From his perspective in high school he has no inkling of the difficulties and points of contention that will appear after he joins the team. It’s like people getting married. They look at the divorce statistics but they just don’t see how that could apply to them. They are advised that entering into a premarital agreement is the pragmatic thing to do but they are utterly out of touch with the forces that will soon lead them to wish they had taken a different course.

I expect that there would be many coaches who would be willing to sacrifice the occasional prospect (none of them at the one and done level, since I assume that transfers would not be permitted mid-season) in exchange for the team stability that this would bring. Without it, they have to tiptoe lightly and not command but perhaps suggest that the player change his ways.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Well, we have a form of that already. Kids want playing time but other factors sometimes prevail:

Coach 1: sign with us and you’ll be a starter freshman year
Coach 2: sign with us and you’ll be coming off the bench freshman year but you’ll be playing for Duke and I can see no reason, if you progress the way I expect you will, that you won’t be starting as a sophomore.

Furthermore, if the recruit saw any problems with the school he wouldn’t be signing with them in the first place. He’s fully expecting a happy marriage. Why not agree not to transfer (or agree to sit out a year if he transfers)? From his perspective in high school he has no inkling of the difficulties and points of contention that will appear after he joins the team. It’s like people getting married. They look at the divorce statistics but they just don’t see how that could apply to them. They are advised that entering into a premarital agreement is the pragmatic thing to do but they are utterly out of touch with the forces that will soon lead them to wish they had taken a different course.

I expect that there would be many coaches who would be willing to sacrifice the occasional prospect (none of them at the one and done level, since I assume that transfers would not be permitted mid-season) in exchange for the team stability that this would bring. Without it, they have to tiptoe lightly and not command but perhaps suggest that the player change his ways.

What does Coach 3 tell Bolden?

[Ian]

I don't have a problem with this rule change as long as it precluded mid-season transfers. That if you transfer in the middle of the season you cannot play until the next season.

[arnie]

I totally disagree.

The current system is heavily stacked in favor of the schools and against the players. Coaches can leave seemingly at will (despite long-term contracts). Coaches lie *all the time* to recruits to induce commitments. School scholarship commitments are year-to-year and may legally be pulled for any or no reason. Players routinely work 40 hours per week at their "jobs" (and despite NCAA hours restrictions that are routinely gotten around, easily) without pay beyond the scholarship and with very little leverage if things go south. Any student can transfer. Only athletes cannot transfer without restrictions (to be clear, non-football, baseball, hockey and basketball athletes get one "free" transfer without sitting out a year).

The proposed rule change is hardly sufficient, but it is certainly necessary.

DISCLOSURE: One of my sons was a D1 athlete so I am biased.

Interesting perspective. Do you feel the system cheated you and your son? Also, if the proposed rule change is hardly sufficient, how much further should the NCAA go to make it fair?

[mgtr]

Maybe Arnie is really Jay Bilas in disguise!:D

[arnie]

Maybe Arnie is really Jay Bilas in disguise!:D

Ha Ha - I'm a huge critic of Bilas and don't weigh over 170.😎

I'm not agreeing with the poster, just curious about his perspective.

[Duke95]

OK but the reason for transfer restrictions in professional basketball is that without them there would not be parity among the teams and there couldn’t be an economically successful league. Do you propose just to ignore that dynamic? How would you handle the problem of schools suddenly finding themselves unable to even field a team, or suddenly stripped down so far that they can give nobody in their league any competition?

No, that's not the reason for transfer restrictions in the pros. The pros have contracts. They're employees. Those "transfer restrictions" contractually-based. And there isn't "parity" in the pros either. Seriously, now.

There are already schools that cannot give anyone any competition. As far as not being able to field a team, that's not realistic. The supply is far greater than the demand.

[fidel]

Chaos is a ladder.

[throatybeard]

Furthermore, if the recruit saw any problems with the school he wouldn’t be signing with them in the first place. He’s fully expecting a happy marriage. Why not agree not to transfer (or agree to sit out a year if he transfers)? From his perspective in high school he has no inkling of the difficulties and points of contention that will appear after he joins the team. It’s like people getting married. They look at the divorce statistics but they just don’t see how that could apply to them. They are advised that entering into a premarital agreement is the pragmatic thing to do but they are utterly out of touch with the forces that will soon lead them to wish they had taken a different course.

Damn, that post got real, fast.

[UrinalCake]

What would everyone think of this rule if a huge asterisk was added on which is that players are not allowed to transfer within their conference without penalty? This would greatly reduce the chances of tampering with players, since conference opponents play each other more often and are more familiar with each other. We would not be taking away a player's right to move, we would simply be limiting it.

To take things a step further, what if a player was not allowed to transfer to any school that was on their current team's schedule the previous season? Now we've virtually eliminated the notion of a coach whispering to an opposing player in the handshake line. Think about how many times we've played some scrub opponent in Cameron in the out of conference season, and our opponent gets blown out but one or two players on their team looks great and we're all thinking how nice it would have been to have recruited that player and to have them on our team. If transfers were completely allowed without restriction, that scenario could become reality. And maybe opposing coaches would stop scheduling games in Cameron because they're worried the players would get a taste for playing in front of an amazing crowd, would find out that they can compete on the court, and would be gone.

[Duke95]

Damn, that post got real, fast.

Yeah, I'm not sure if that was a post or a confession.

[Duke95]

i can see it now: a coach jumps ship and takes his entire team with him to say, LIU. Or, maybe he just threatens to in exchange for new practice facilities and a weekly team meal at Ruths' Chris.


This could be addressed with non-solicitation agreements.

[Neals384]

This could also result in many/most of the top players negotiating with the coach through an agent while in college. In exchange for not entertaining offers from other teams, not promoting instability within the team, etc., they would be guaranteed certain playing time, certain practice conditions, certain living and travel conditions (though they’d have to be careful here), etc. Legally binding contracts governing these things could become the norm. The agent would not receive a fee for his services during college in exchange for the right to represent the athlete when/if he goes pro.

Edit: in fact, what would stop coaches from requiring entering athletes to sign a contract up front that abrogates the right to transfer in exchange for certain concessions from the school? (The NCAA could forbid this.)

Add to the list of guarantees:
rental car
unlimited pizza
live in coach's home

[dudog84]

Guaranteed, this will lead to mid-majors becoming less and less competitive. Amazing sophomore/junior mid-major players will transfer to Big 6 teams and 5-star busts will transfer to other Big 6 teams. I really don't see mediocre players on Big 6 teams dropping down to mid-majors but rather transferring horizontally.

This is great for Big 6 teams and even better for elite schools who need a certain role (like a PG for Duke last year). Not great for mid-majors and hence David vs Goliath. Tournament upsets will become more infrequent and the S16 will be filled with Big 6 teams (moreso than they are now).

Also, you cannot put restrictions and regulations against college player recruiting. Coach K can easily whisper in an elite opponent's ear, "I would love to see you in Duke blue next year" during the handshake. I mean, there are countless ways in which teams can recruit these players under the radar.

This is a great idea on the surface, but it will easily turn into a madhouse.

And that is the only reason this is being considered. Let's face it, they call the shots.

[gep]

I've always had this question about transfers... especially now with the proposal for not sitting out a year. Lots of talk about players that improve a lot in one year will transfer. Transfer to where? Places like Duke, Kansas, Kentucky... maybe most Big 6 conference teams... generally have a full roster every year. What do these schools do? Not give a scholarship to a "lesser" player to allow the transferring player in? Kick off a "lesser" player to get this new transfer? Seems like the assumption is that all "higher up" teams always have space for these transfers... :confused: I can see where a team has a need... but I would think that's the exception rather than the rule...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

What do these schools do? Not give a scholarship to a "lesser" player to allow the transferring player in? Kick off a "lesser" player to get this new transfer?

Nick Saban says hello.

I have had a change of heart. After a long chat with a neighbor about this, I have come around.

Any other student can transfer to their heart's content. They can follow academics, a girlfriend, geography, or whims. Just because a kid is an athlete, why should they be more restricted?

My concerns about this proposal are an attempt to protect the game over the individual athletes. It is a worry about fewer tournament upsets and mid-major programs, over the happiness and well-being of a 19 year old kid. In retrospect, that doesn't sit well with me.

We have heard for years that "coaches can leave whenever they want and screw over their players." If we are really interested in protecting the players, well, here you go.

My personal reservations about how this reflects the professionalization of the game, or how the NCAA looks more and more like an NBA minor league are still legitimate points, but continuing to make the player the lowest and most powerless person in the room is not a fair solution.

TV money, mega-conferences, coaches salaries - those are not going anywhere no matter how much I stamp my foot. This rule simply is a tiny re-adjustment of a bit of athlete leverage.

Do I still worry that players will leave in a huff if Coach comes down hard on them after two bad conference games? Is it possible that mid-major teams will see their rosters become upwardly mobile after a season or two? Do players get to jump ship behind a coach that quits a top-tier team? Yes to all these. But at the end of the day, removing a barrier in an overly-paternalistic system that limits where a 19 year old kid wants to go to school feels like the "right" move.

Ask yourself this questions: were there any limitations on where you could transfer schools, given academic interest and ability? Does it make sense to limit those possibilities, just because you excel at sports?

I don't like a lot (most) of the changes to college basketball over the last two decades, and I would lovw to rewrite a lot of NCAA, ACC, and NBA guidelines to protect the sport I grew up with. But the genie is out of the bottle, and allowing free transfers is one of the more "fair" results to be produced.

I will now take questions for ten minutes.

[Indoor66]

Nick Saban says hello.

I have had a change of heart. After a long chat with a neighbor about this, I have come around.

Any other student can transfer to their heart's content. They can follow academics, a girlfriend, geography, or whims. Just because a kid is an athlete, why should they be more restricted?

My concerns about this proposal are an attempt to protect the game over the individual athletes. It is a worry about fewer tournament upsets and mid-major programs, over the happiness and well-being of a 19 year old kid. In retrospect, that doesn't sit well with me.

We have heard for years that "coaches can leave whenever they want and screw over their players." If we are really interested in protecting the players, well, here you go.

My personal reservations about how this reflects the professionalization of the game, or how the NCAA looks more and more like an NBA minor league are still legitimate points, but continuing to make the player the lowest and most powerless person in the room is not a fair solution.

TV money, mega-conferences, coaches salaries - those are not going anywhere no matter how much I stamp my foot. This rule simply is a tiny re-adjustment of a bit of athlete leverage.

Do I still worry that players will leave in a huff if Coach comes down hard on them after two bad conference games? Is it possible that mid-major teams will see their rosters become upwardly mobile after a season or two? Do players get to jump ship behind a coach that quits a top-tier team? Yes to all these. But at the end of the day, removing a barrier in an overly-paternalistic system that limits where a 19 year old kid wants to go to school feels like the "right" move.

Ask yourself this questions: were there any limitations on where you could transfer schools, given academic interest and ability? Does it make sense to limit those possibilities, just because you excel at sports?

I don't like a lot (most) of the changes to college basketball over the last two decades, and I would lovw to rewrite a lot of NCAA, ACC, and NBA guidelines to protect the sport I grew up with. But the genie is out of the bottle, and allowing free transfers is one of the more "fair" results to be produced.

I will now take questions for ten minutes.

My answer is: no there are no limits on me.

But I did not receive an agreement to receive room, board, books, much travel, training facilities and trainers, medical care, tutoring, coaching, clothing in exchange for practicing for and playing a game that I desire to play.

Back to my apples and oranges response.

[mgtr]

As long as mid-season transfers are prohibited, I favor the change, with one modificiation -- each student-athlete is limited to one "free" transfer. After that is used up, the old rules apply. Some kids always see the grass as greener anywhere but where they are.

[camion]

If you liked one-and-done for the top players you should love this. This seems to be pointing at having one-and-done apply to not just the top few players in a class, but every player. Go to college for a year in a sport and then see what the offers are. Of course like the present one-and-done to the NBA this will probably only be a real consideration for the top players at any level.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My answer is: no there are no limits on me.

But I did not receive an agreement to receive room, board, books, much travel, training facilities and trainers, medical care, tutoring, coaching, clothing in exchange for practicing for and playing a game that I desire to play.

Back to my apples and oranges response.

Students on academic scholarships are not bound to a four year agreement. If you leave your college early for another school and can negotiate a new scholarship with a new school, who am I to say it shouldn't be allowed?

[Indoor66]

Students on academic scholarships are not bound to a four year agreement. If you leave your college early for another school and can negotiate a new scholarship with a new school, who am I to say it shouldn't be allowed?

My academic scholarship also does not involve me into an activity that has costs and expenses that are paid for directly, in part at least, by my participation/performance in the field. Again, apples and oranges.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My academic scholarship also does not involve me into an activity that has costs and expenses that are paid for directly, in part at least, by my participation/performance in the field. Again, apples and oranges.

Yes, apples and oranges. So you have said.

Do you sign a four year contract? If not, can you leave early for the NBA? How about transferring to another school and not participating in a sport?

So, if your response to these rhetorical questions is what I imagine it is, what you are opposed to is having the player appear on another basketball court. Doesn't that seem a little petty, when weighed against a 19 year old's right to self-determination?

[grad_devil]

As long as mid-season transfers are prohibited, I favor the change, with one modificiation [sic]-- each student-athlete is limited to one "free" transfer. After that is used up, the old rules apply. Some kids always see the grass as greener anywhere but where they are.

I work with athletics at a Division II school, and this has been the case for as long as I've been here. It's called the One-Time Transfer Exception. If you're academically eligible to compete the next year for school 1, you can transfer to school 2 and play without doing a year in residence. It can only be used once (obfuscated in the name, I know), and our conference has a bylaw prohibiting the use of the One-Time Transfer Exception in-conference. There is, however, an established appeals process and these have been granted in certain cases, but they're rare.

The one caveat is that the school has the right to refuse to release the student (needed to use the exception) to certain schools. Our AD typically tells the student-athlete that "there are 300+ Division II schools, and we'll grant the release to all except the other 11 in our conference". Sometimes coaches attempt to deny the release (for illegitimate reasons) to certain schools, but a committee I chair of non-athletics employees (faculty) hears appeals from the students in these cases. We (almost) always grant the appeal, unless there was some sort of subterfuge on behalf of the student.

Of course, this affects Division II much differently than it would Division I. With transfer rates already so high in DI MBB, I can't imagine how much more they would skyrocket.

[Indoor66]

Yes, apples and oranges. So you have said.

Do you sign a four year contract? If not, can you leave early for the NBA? How about transferring to another school and not participating in a sport?

So, if your response to these rhetorical questions is what I imagine it is, what you are opposed to is having the player appear on another basketball court. Doesn't that seem a little petty, when weighed against a 19 year old's right to self-determination?

No, actually, it does not. Life is not determined by me, me, me when you VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to become part of a larger enterprise. All such decisions require a commitment. Ending those commitments has consequences. You seem to argue that the issue of consequences should be born by the party willing to meet its commitment.

Transferring and not playing the sport is a different issue. One can always do that. An athletic scholarship is not a contract of involuntary servitude.

[davekay1971]

Damn, that post got real, fast.

And should have had a trigger warning :D

[Matches]

Transferring and not playing the sport is a different issue. One can always do that. An athletic scholarship is not a contract of involuntary servitude.

This is an excellent point that often seems to get lost in these discussions. Athletes can already transfer, without penalty, whenever they want, to whatever school will have them, just like non-athletes. They just aren't eligible to play sports right away.

I'm all for putting power in the hands of the players and making sure they have the freedom to chase their bliss, but it's not unreasonable to attach conditions to the acceptance of a full scholarship to a university. Completely unfettered movement between teams = chaos - it's bad for the sport.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No, actually, it does not. Life is not determined by me, me, me when you VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to become part of a larger enterprise. All such decisions require a commitment. Ending those commitments has consequences. You seem to argue that the issue of consequences should be born by the party willing to meet its commitment.

Transferring and not playing the sport is a different issue. One can always do that. An athletic scholarship is not a contract of involuntary servitude.

Nick Saban pulls scholarships from under performing players. If you sign a four year contract binding both parties, I am fine with transfer restrictions. Otherwise, it smacks of a paternalistic system where someone else "knows what is best." A system that made sense when there were billions of dollars made on the backs of players, and where Hoosiers-like coaches built men up by putting them on the bench to build character. Those days aren't coming back.

Money is being made by the bucket load. And the only way it makes sense anymore from the perspective of a D1 revenue program student athlete is if they are on national television every week to taut their draft status or if they are making their most of a four year education that they can parlay into a tidy career. There literally must be an economic payoff for these kids down the line to even look at the current situation with a straight face and say "yup, this is okay."

<insert capital letters, snark, and apples and oranges>

I miss the old four year players, the idea of coaches establishing programs after years of struggling, the round robin in the ACC, etc. I also miss gas prices being under a dollar and leaving my front door unlocked at night.

[ChillinDuke]

Nick Saban says hello.

I have had a change of heart. After a long chat with a neighbor about this, I have come around.

Any other student can transfer to their heart's content. They can follow academics, a girlfriend, geography, or whims. Just because a kid is an athlete, why should they be more restricted?

My concerns about this proposal are an attempt to protect the game over the individual athletes. It is a worry about fewer tournament upsets and mid-major programs, over the happiness and well-being of a 19 year old kid. In retrospect, that doesn't sit well with me.

We have heard for years that "coaches can leave whenever they want and screw over their players." If we are really interested in protecting the players, well, here you go.

My personal reservations about how this reflects the professionalization of the game, or how the NCAA looks more and more like an NBA minor league are still legitimate points, but continuing to make the player the lowest and most powerless person in the room is not a fair solution.

TV money, mega-conferences, coaches salaries - those are not going anywhere no matter how much I stamp my foot. This rule simply is a tiny re-adjustment of a bit of athlete leverage.

Do I still worry that players will leave in a huff if Coach comes down hard on them after two bad conference games? Is it possible that mid-major teams will see their rosters become upwardly mobile after a season or two? Do players get to jump ship behind a coach that quits a top-tier team? Yes to all these. But at the end of the day, removing a barrier in an overly-paternalistic system that limits where a 19 year old kid wants to go to school feels like the "right" move.

Ask yourself this questions: were there any limitations on where you could transfer schools, given academic interest and ability? Does it make sense to limit those possibilities, just because you excel at sports?

I don't like a lot (most) of the changes to college basketball over the last two decades, and I would lovw to rewrite a lot of NCAA, ACC, and NBA guidelines to protect the sport I grew up with. But the genie is out of the bottle, and allowing free transfers is one of the more "fair" results to be produced.

I will now take questions for ten minutes.

I've been following this thread/conversation, but I wanted to respond to this particular post because it spoke loudest to me.

I admit that, like you, I have been swayed a bit by the prolonged discussion of how to protect/empower players (vs schools/programs). I used to be 90% on the side of the schools/programs. That number has come down over the last few years, and I think I find myself somewhere around 75% at this time. That said, while I'm slowly seeing more of the argument for the players, I haven't been swayed quite as much as you seem to have been by your long neighborly chat.

This whole situation is immensely complex, and I think it's only fair to (yet again) reemphasize the complexities as the conversation continues to be played out by the two+ sides.

In support of the players, I agree with you in a vacuum that players should be as free as anyone else to transfer schools. Allow me to clarify this statement. They should be just as free as any non-athlete to transfer schools AND play a sport at the transferee school. I do believe that is reasonable and fair in a vacuum.

Now stepping out of that vacuum, this dynamic can really hurt a school. And saying (as another poster did) that the supply greatly exceeds the demand so no school would ever have to worry about not even fielding a team, that strikes me as a ridiculous statement. You can't create this "Free Transfer" rule and leave that loophole open for a, say, Auburn to get burned by a Bruce Pearl violation, Pearl runs away in September, and 9 kids transfer out in October. You just can't leave loopholes like that open - even if you believe a mass transfer like that is a black swan event (which I think the probability is significantly higher than black-swan level, albeit still small), you can't blindly create the construct to allow it.

So now in my stream of consciousness, I find myself saying, "OK self, players should be allowed to transfer without penalty. But that creates some theoretical, non-zero-probabilistic issues for the sport itself." So there needs to be a protection in place. I think there are many proposals that would fit as a protection. A few include: (1) Free Transfer rights are only allowed during a set window at a reasonable time of the year (e.g. April or May) to allow the transferor team to figure out a contingency, otherwise the old sit-out rules apply; (2) Free Transfer is limited to 1x per collegiate career to limit the universe of transfers allowed and increase transparency/probability about who is staying where; (3) Free Transfer does not apply within conference, perhaps the old rules apply in conference. And there are others.

I don't see these proposed limits on Free Transfer to be unfair. The athlete is still allowed to transfer at any time (just like any student) and as many times as s/he wants (just like any student) and to any school (just like any student), but if the transferring student doesn't stay within the proposed rules, then s/he must sit out from athletics but can still transfer to the new school at that time.

To me, it's a set of reasonable asks by both sides.

Now the further issues of 4-year commitments, pulling scholarships (e.g. Saban), compensation to players, revenue to schools, schools' much broader academic programs as a whole, small program vs big program, minor league vs amateurism, coaches' ability to leave programs at any time without penalty, and even increasing "me-me-me" mentalities (generally, in the world) are additional dynamics that should (IMHO) be addressed somehow, someway. But these issues are highly complicated and have many, many stakeholders so are not easily fixed.

But the players-program transfer dynamic is one of the simpler dynamics that could theoretically be fixed since it involves a much smaller set of stakeholders. While my stance is still generally pro-school/program (I don't care who is on Duke's team as much as I care about watching Duke play basketball), I do believe that this transfer issue could be improved and with relatively simple solutions and proposals.

- Chillin

[Duke95]

My answer is: no there are no limits on me.

But I did not receive an agreement to receive room, board, books, much travel, training facilities and trainers, medical care, tutoring, coaching, clothing in exchange for practicing for and playing a game that I desire to play.

Back to my apples and oranges response.

You didn't receive those because you did not possess the skills or talents the market valued. They do. But then, you also didn't receive 100+ hits to the head every practice session as football players do, injuries, etc. Nor did you have restrictions on your time, major, etc.

On another note, it's amazing & somewhat comical to me how people can understand simple free market principles perfectly fine, but when those same principles are applied to collegiate sports, suddenly it becomes an overwhelmingly complex equation.

[ChillinDuke]

You didn't receive those because you did not possess the skills or talents the market valued. They do. But then, you also didn't receive 100+ hits to the head every practice session as football players do, injuries, etc. Nor did you have restrictions on your time, major, etc.

On another note, it's amazing & somewhat comical to me how people can understand simple free market principles perfectly fine, but when those same principles are applied to collegiate sports, suddenly it becomes an overwhelmingly complex equation.

I'm not sure I follow the bolded. Let me rephrase. I follow the bolded, but I'm not sure I see the relation. Not every situation and construct demands market principles. Utilities are an example, and although some areas are opening up things like electricity to follow a more market-based approach, it's still highly complicated and doesn't provide a one-size-fits-all solution.

Why exactly should collegiate athletics (which is presumably attached to a legitimate and robust education system and, it could be argued, personal maturation system) be governed by market principles? I find it quite simple to argue that something as complicated as education/athletics/personal maturation should not be allowed to freely move wherever the "market" takes it.

- Chillin

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You can't create this "Free Transfer" rule and leave that loophole open for a, say, Auburn to get burned by a Bruce Pearl violation, Pearl runs away in September, and 9 kids transfer out in October. You just can't leave loopholes like that open - even if you believe a mass transfer like that is a black swan event (which I think the probability is significantly higher than black-swan level, albeit still small), you can't blindly create the construct to allow it.

- Chillin

Thanks for your thoughts. I would just say that yes, mass exodus will occur in Bruce Pearl situations, but I would argue that the benefit of athletes who were lied to and misled about what their experience would be in regards to coaching and opportunities ought to be allowed that. And that if that means Auburn loses more games and subsequently keeps a closer on the Bruce Pearls of the world, I am okay with that.

I think the loosening of transfers is the logical result of a ludicrous system. In other words, if you are going to accept all the other circumstances that exist in this absurd version of college athletics, drawing the line at something that actually benefits the athletes seems mean-spirited or worse.

[sagegrouse]

I'm not sure I follow the bolded. Let me rephrase. I follow the bolded, but I'm not sure I see the relation. Not every situation and construct demands market principles. Utilities are an example, and although some areas are opening up things like electricity to follow a more market-based approach, it's still highly complicated and doesn't provide a one-size-fits-all solution.

Why exactly should collegiate athletics (which is presumably attached to a legitimate and robust education system and, it could be argued, personal maturation system) be governed by market principles? I find it quite simple to argue that something as complicated as education/athletics/personal maturation should not be allowed to freely move wherever the "market" takes it.

- Chillin

There also may be some ancient history at play in transfer rules and regs. Back in the 1920's, the early heyday of college football, players would change teams DURING the season. After a game, players on one team would try to talk the best players on the other team into changing schools.

[ChillinDuke]

Thanks for your thoughts. I would just say that yes, mass exodus will occur in Bruce Pearl situations, but I would argue that the benefit of athletes who were lied to and misled about what their experience would be in regards to coaching and opportunities ought to be allowed that. And that if that means Auburn loses more games and subsequently keeps a closer on the Bruce Pearls of the world, I am okay with that.

I think the loosening of transfers is the logical result of a ludicrous system. In other words, if you are going to accept all the other circumstances that exist in this absurd version of college athletics, drawing the line at something that actually benefits the athletes seems mean-spirited or worse.

I can probably get on board with this, subject to some light restrictions. Perhaps even lighter than the few that I proposed above.

That said, I think restrictions on coaches would be a nice wrinkle to tack on to this proposed transfer discussion. In some form. Similar to the athlete dynamic, if a coach wants to get involved at the college level, where teaching is important, and kids/students are involved, I think there should be some light restrictions on them as well. I could easily craft the argument why; I'm sure others could as well.

- Chillin

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I can probably get on board with this, subject to some light restrictions. Perhaps even lighter than the few that I proposed above.

That said, I think restrictions on coaches would be a nice wrinkle to tack on to this proposed transfer discussion. In some form. Similar to the athlete dynamic, if a coach wants to get involved at the college level, where teaching is important, and kids/students are involved, I think there should be some light restrictions on them as well. I could easily craft the argument why; I'm sure others could as well.

- Chillin

I would also be fine if players had to sign a four year contract, only breakable if the coach leaves or if NCAA restrictions are handed down. But that contract would have to apply both ways. And absent that, this idea of vague "commitment" applying only to the least powerful person in the dynamic sits wrong with me.

[swood1000]

No, that's not the reason for transfer restrictions in the pros. The pros have contracts. They're employees. Those "transfer restrictions" contractually-based. And there isn't "parity" in the pros either. Seriously, now.

There are already schools that cannot give anyone any competition. As far as not being able to field a team, that's not realistic. The supply is far greater than the demand.

On another note, it's amazing & somewhat comical to me how people can understand simple free market principles perfectly fine, but when those same principles are applied to collegiate sports, suddenly it becomes an overwhelmingly complex equation.

So it's your contention that the purpose of the NBA draft has nothing to do with attempts toward team parity, and that prospects can just ignore the draft results and sign with whomever they wish?

[dyemeduke]

You didn't receive those because you did not possess the skills or talents the market valued. They do. But then, you also didn't receive 100+ hits to the head every practice session as football players do, injuries, etc. Nor did you have restrictions on your time, major, etc.

On another note, it's amazing & somewhat comical to me how people can understand simple free market principles perfectly fine, but when those same principles are applied to collegiate sports, suddenly it becomes an overwhelmingly complex equation.

There is backlash when treating collegiate sports like an open market, because the majority of people (including me) hold on to this notion to varying degrees that collegiate athletics has some moral virtue of education and looking out for the well-being of athletes. Education and the athletes may be paramount within some universities or programs, but let's face it, overall, it's a complete farce. The UNC scandal is the epitome of this to me. I love college sports, but it presents a moral dilemma for me - there's just so much wrong with it.

[RPS]

Interesting perspective.
Thank you.


Do you feel the system cheated you and your son?
Of course. The system cheats every player. Here are just a few examples.

Isn't it amazing how schools are not allowed to sell "player" jerseys (to uphold the myth that they are student athletes not involved in commercial enterprise) but the jerseys on sale are those with the number(s) of the star(s)?
Once the LOI is signed, players have no leverage.
Schools need not honor their scholarship "commitments."
*Every* D1 program/coach lied to us during recruiting with one exception -- Princeton's coach (so not quite D1), and he got fired shortly thereafter for not winning enough.
The NCAA limits practice time, but schedules are routinely set up with significant gaps of time between activities (but not big enough to take a class or go to the library) so that players are actually committed for much, much longer periods than allowed by rule. During those gaps they practice individually (with coaches or without), watch film, or do further conditioning. My son (who played football) couldn't take a class after noon because he had activities beginning at one (after weight training at 6:30am) through training table and then mandatory study afterwards (that he, fortunately, quickly got excused from because he was an excellent student).
Under the current rules, players cannot move year-to-year but scholarships can be withdrawn and players can be recruited over at will.
Coaches leave all the time but players can't.
Players are routinely discouraged from taking difficult classes or loads, especially during the season.
I get that it's easy to think "I'd do it in a heartbeat" and thus dismiss out-of-hand the idea that D1 athletes are taken advantage of. Those who experience it usually have a very different perspective.


Also, if the proposed rule change is hardly sufficient, how much further should the NCAA go to make it fair?
Players should be paid.

Actually, as much as I love Duke sports, I don't think big-time sports is consistent with any university's mission. But that's a different topic.

[ChillinDuke]

Thanks for your thoughts. I would just say that yes, mass exodus will occur in Bruce Pearl situations, but I would argue that the benefit of athletes who were lied to and misled about what their experience would be in regards to coaching and opportunities ought to be allowed that. And that if that means Auburn loses more games and subsequently keeps a closer on the Bruce Pearls of the world, I am okay with that.

I think the loosening of transfers is the logical result of a ludicrous system. In other words, if you are going to accept all the other circumstances that exist in this absurd version of college athletics, drawing the line at something that actually benefits the athletes seems mean-spirited or worse.

To be clear, what you're proposing here is that in a "Bruce Pearl situation" (as I outlined), an Auburn could theoretically be left with too few players to field a basketball team come November. And you're OK with that, given the situation. Correct? If so, that's very interesting. Because it's basically taking the stance that the school is left to sleep in the bed they made. I hadn't previously been open to that idea, and while I'm still chewing on it, I think that view is quite interesting at the very least.


I would also be fine if players had to sign a four year contract, only breakable if the coach leaves or if NCAA restrictions are handed down. But that contract would have to apply both ways. And absent that, this idea of vague "commitment" applying only to the least powerful person in the dynamic sits wrong with me.

I'm OK with this as well. At least until someone explains to me why I shouldn't be...

- Chillin

[camion]

To be clear, what you're proposing here is that in a "Bruce Pearl situation" (as I outlined), an Auburn could theoretically be left with too few players to field a basketball team come November. And you're OK with that, given the situation. Correct? If so, that's very interesting. Because it's basically taking the stance that the school is left to sleep in the bed they made. I hadn't previously been open to that idea, and while I'm still chewing on it, I think that view is quite interesting at the very least.



I'm OK with this as well. At least until someone explains to me why I shouldn't be...

- Chillin

Where would academic performance by the student factor into the four year contract?

And just as an aside, I'm sure a "Debbie Crowder" could be found to give and "F" as needed instead of an "A."

[RPS]

To be clear, what you're proposing here is that in a "Bruce Pearl situation" (as I outlined), an Auburn could theoretically be left with too few players to field a basketball team come November.
So, in a "Bruce Pearl situation," an Auburn would theoretically be forced to field a basketball team with "actual" students?

[cato]

My answer is: no there are no limits on me.

But I did not receive an agreement to receive room, board, books, much travel, training facilities and trainers, medical care, tutoring, coaching, clothing in exchange for practicing for and playing a game that I desire to play.

Back to my apples and oranges response.

So the transfer restrictions are in place to protect the school's investment in the costs of fielding a team? That strikes me as odd. If that were the case, the restrictions should apply to sports that do not generate revenue, instead of the ones that do.

[madscavenger]

So, in a "Bruce Pearl situation," an Auburn would theoretically be forced to field a basketball team with "actual" students?

No, they could use football players (just like the BIG, Big 10, or Big whatever they purport to be).

[Duke95]

There is backlash when treating collegiate sports like an open market, because the majority of people (including me) hold on to this notion to varying degrees that collegiate athletics has some moral virtue of education and looking out for the well-being of athletes. Education and the athletes may be paramount within some universities or programs, but let's face it, overall, it's a complete farce. The UNC scandal is the epitome of this to me. I love college sports, but it presents a moral dilemma for me - there's just so much wrong with it.

Yes, there are some people who hold on that misguided notion, but the proclivity of some toward belief in fantasy despite evidence to the contrary is not a convincing argument for depriving others of their labor rights.

The well-being of college athletes is at best a peripheral concern and likely more of an inconvenience to those who run college athletics. I think the evidence of this has been overwhelming.

The idea that players are going to sign a four-year contract while unpaid is a non-starter. Proposing that is a great way of downgrading the quality of college basketball by ensuring the top high school stars avoid the college ranks. It's the equivalent cutting one's nose to spite one's face.

[Duke95]

No, actually, it does not. Life is not determined by me, me, me when you VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to become part of a larger enterprise. All such decisions require a commitment. Ending those commitments has consequences. You seem to argue that the issue of consequences should be born by the party willing to meet its commitment.

Transferring and not playing the sport is a different issue. One can always do that. An athletic scholarship is not a contract of involuntary servitude.

This misstates the evidence. Yes, I can voluntarily choose to buy vitamins, but that does not excuse vitamin manufacturers from price fixing. College athletes "choose" the college ranks because there is no viable market alternative, despite the fact that people keep claiming "D-League" (or G-league now), or overseas. This analysis has been done, and I won't reiterate it here except to refer the reader to the O'Bannon decision as a starter.

[PackMan97]

I really like this proposal and I really don't like this proposal.

1) Kids are not employees and should not have a "no compete" clause, which I consider morally reprehensible.

2) Nothing will stop the less moral programs like UK, UNC-CHeat, etc from plucking the top players from the smaller conferences each season. Let's be real, we know it's going to happen.

-----------------

I would really love a proposal that combined a bit of the new and old.

A student can transfer and play immediately, but to do so it will cost their new school TWO scholarships in the next season and one the season after (even if they leave the school for another transfer or going pro). Or the student can sit out a year and play the next as is the current case.

In this way a team can fill a critical need without much harm to their scholarship count, but a team that continual raids kids from smaller schools is going to quickly run into scholarship problems.

[ChillinDuke]

Where would academic performance by the student factor into the four year contract?

And just as an aside, I'm sure a "Debbie Crowder" could be found to give and "F" as needed instead of an "A."

Good question. But I don't see why it would be different from the current construct. Maybe I'm missing something?


So, in a "Bruce Pearl situation," an Auburn would theoretically be forced to field a basketball team with "actual" students?

You may have meant this tongue in cheek. But the answer is, yes, they'd likely have to use "common man" students or walk-on level players or something like that. Which is to say, Auburn would basically not field a basketball team that year.

- Chillin

[swood1000]

I miss the old four year players, the idea of coaches establishing programs after years of struggling, the round robin in the ACC, etc. I also miss gas prices being under a dollar and leaving my front door unlocked at night.

And after unrestricted free transfers you’re going to miss:


the days when coaches could require players to conform to the coach's standards if they wanted to play,
the days before we abandoned Coach K's view that the desire to transfer is typically the result of an immature desire for instant gratification, and that learning discipline at this age (an age known to be often in need of a reality check) is also a worthy goal,
the days before rebellious players were a true threat and before team collapse was just one insurrection away,
the days before an incentive was created to foment dissatisfaction and unrest within college teams in order to pry players away or to sell magazines,
the days before there began the period at the end of each season when players shop their services around to see what kinds of offers they can get from other teams, and we have to look at huge tables showing all the players and the teams that are interested in them, nobody having a clue what next year's team will look like,
the days before it became common to 'release' lesser players in order to open a spot for a transfer in,
the days when there was an incentive to take a chance on a young team, fans and coaches consoling themselves with the knowledge that the team can only get better as the players mature,
the days before the absence of team continuity and the apparent loss of true athlete attachment to the team dampened fan interest,
the days before we took steps to reduce team parity in a system that already lacked parity, further undermining the game's popularity,
the days before we discovered that unlimited coach transfer rights do not imperil the health of the game but that unlimited player transfer rights do,
the days when the health of the college game was considered sufficient justification for some restrictions on athletes, who could always enter the G league or play abroad if they found these conditions incompatible with their personal needs or desires.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

And after unrestricted free transfers you’re going to miss:


the days when coaches could require players to conform to the coach's standards if they wanted to play,
the days before we abandoned Coach K's view that the desire to transfer is typically the result of an immature desire for instant gratification, and that learning discipline at this age (an age known to be often in need of a reality check) is also a worthy goal,
the days before rebellious players were a true threat and before team collapse was just one insurrection away,
the days before an incentive was created to foment dissatisfaction and unrest within college teams in order to pry players away or to sell magazines,
the days before there began the period at the end of each season when players shop their services around to see what kinds of offers they can get from other teams, and we have to look at huge tables showing all the players and the teams that are interested in them, nobody having a clue what next year's team will look like,
the days before it became common to 'release' lesser players in order to open a spot for a transfer in,
the days when there was an incentive to take a chance on a young team, fans and coaches consoling themselves with the knowledge that the team can only get better as the players mature,
the days before the absence of team continuity and the apparent loss of true athlete attachment to the team dampened fan interest,
the days before we took steps to reduce team parity in a system that already lacked parity, further undermining the game's popularity,
the days before we discovered that unlimited coach transfer rights do not imperil the health of the game but that unlimited player transfer rights do,
the days when the health of the college game was considered sufficient justification for some restrictions on athletes, who could always enter the G league or play abroad if they found these conditions incompatible with their personal needs or desires.


I agree with everything you list here. O still feel like it is unfair and specious to decide that THIS is where the line belongs for things going to far -a move thay finally works FOR the athlete.

[BD80]

And after unrestricted free transfers you’re going to miss:


the days before rebellious players were a true threat and before team collapse was just one insurrection away, ...

Add some rules about collusion?

Limit the # of transfers a school can accept?

"Pandora! Step away from the box!"

[madscavenger]

This misstates the evidence. Yes, I can voluntarily choose to buy vitamins, but that does not excuse vitamin manufacturers from price fixing. College athletes "choose" the college ranks because there is no viable market alternative, despite the fact that people keep claiming "D-League" (or G-league now), or overseas. This analysis has been done, and I won't reiterate it here except to refer the reader to the O'Bannon decision as a starter.

That's not even apples and oranges; it's carbohydrates and protein. Nutrition 101.

Price fixing or not, you are not entitled (or required) to buy vitamins at a cost suitable to your liking.

You're talking philosophy here, and as in any model, the nature of the animal demands assumptions be made. Absent commonality, a model has in part a conclusion with a baked in bias. Two different models, no level playing field. In terms of discussion, "rightness" (as such) cannot be established. The universe becomes tribal, thus casting the whole embroglio into a real world soup meaning its all about power, which ebbs and flows and ebbs again. Rights are not unalterable. Price fixing can mask free market equilibrium. Should it be agreed that power not rule, resolution would have to be by contract, contract with predetermined crisply defined rights, obligations, and yes yes yes consequences.

Is it what it is, or is it what we say it is - that's the two-headed hobgoblin. :eek::D

[sagegrouse]

And after unrestricted free transfers you’re going to miss:


the days when coaches could require players to conform to the coach's standards if they wanted to play,
the days before we abandoned Coach K's view that the desire to transfer is typically the result of an immature desire for instant gratification, and that learning discipline at this age (an age known to be often in need of a reality check) is also a worthy goal,
the days before rebellious players were a true threat and before team collapse was just one insurrection away,
the days before an incentive was created to foment dissatisfaction and unrest within college teams in order to pry players away or to sell magazines,
the days before there began the period at the end of each season when players shop their services around to see what kinds of offers they can get from other teams, and we have to look at huge tables showing all the players and the teams that are interested in them, nobody having a clue what next year's team will look like,
the days before it became common to 'release' lesser players in order to open a spot for a transfer in,
the days when there was an incentive to take a chance on a young team, fans and coaches consoling themselves with the knowledge that the team can only get better as the players mature,
the days before the absence of team continuity and the apparent loss of true athlete attachment to the team dampened fan interest,
the days before we took steps to reduce team parity in a system that already lacked parity, further undermining the game's popularity,
the days before we discovered that unlimited coach transfer rights do not imperil the health of the game but that unlimited player transfer rights do,
the days when the health of the college game was considered sufficient justification for some restrictions on athletes, who could always enter the G league or play abroad if they found these conditions incompatible with their personal needs or desires.


Interesting analysis -- I just happen to disagree with you. These are 19 YO's who chose a college based on their desire to play for and have their career directed by a head coach. It would take a severe blow to dislodge that tie. So, absent the exceptions acknowledged below, I don't think it will have huge effects on the college game.

Exceptions:
1. Coaches change schools, and it will be easier for their players to go with them. On the other hand, if a coach moves from a mid-major to a major school, how many of his players does he truly want to take? Also, if he is fired and hired by a lesser school, I don't see the same pull.

2. Mercenaries among the players. There are a few who change schools and teams every year BEFORE arriving at college. That's a warning sign, but if they are top-flight players, they will probably just BE A ONE-AND-DONE.

[RPS]

And after unrestricted free transfers you’re going to miss: {List follows}
I think you are looking at the problem through Duke colored glasses. The Duke experience is not normative.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think you are looking at the problem through Duke colored glasses. The Duke experience is not normative.

I think Duke would actually be likely to benefit from this change. But that is immaterial to my opinion of the new rules.

[RPS]

I think Duke would actually be likely to benefit from this change. But that is immaterial to my opinion of the new rules.
My point is that the typical college athletics experience is far more negative than Duke fans want to believe (and, to my knowledge -- from when I was a student, so now dated -- than the Duke athletics experience is).

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My point is that the typical college athletics experience is far more negative than Duke fans want to believe (and, to my knowledge -- from when I was a student, so now dated -- than the Duke athletics experience is).

Almost certainly true.

[arnie]

Thank you.


Of course. The system cheats every player. Here are just a few examples.

Isn't it amazing how schools are not allowed to sell "player" jerseys (to uphold the myth that they are student athletes not involved in commercial enterprise) but the jerseys on sale are those with the number(s) of the star(s)?
Once the LOI is signed, players have no leverage.
Schools need not honor their scholarship "commitments."
*Every* D1 program/coach lied to us during recruiting with one exception -- Princeton's coach (so not quite D1), and he got fired shortly thereafter for not winning enough.
The NCAA limits practice time, but schedules are routinely set up with significant gaps of time between activities (but not big enough to take a class or go to the library) so that players are actually committed for much, much longer periods than allowed by rule. During those gaps they practice individually (with coaches or without), watch film, or do further conditioning. My son (who played football) couldn't take a class after noon because he had activities beginning at one (after weight training at 6:30am) through training table and then mandatory study afterwards (that he, fortunately, quickly got excused from because he was an excellent student).
Under the current rules, players cannot move year-to-year but scholarships can be withdrawn and players can be recruited over at will.
Coaches leave all the time but players can't.
Players are routinely discouraged from taking difficult classes or loads, especially during the season.
I get that it's easy to think "I'd do it in a heartbeat" and thus dismiss out-of-hand the idea that D1 athletes are taken advantage of. Those who experience it usually have a very different perspective.


Players should be paid.

Actually, as much as I love Duke sports, I don't think big-time sports is consistent with any university's mission. But that's a different topic.

I'm not sure your last comment really is a different topic. I'm no longer convinced universities should give athletic scholarships. If teams choose to field various sports teams, let them base scholarships entirely on academics and financial need. We can then suspend all transfer rules and students can do as they please assuming the next school can meet their basic financial needs.

If a player wants to be paid for playing his/her sport, then they can join semi-professional or pro development leagues that will spring up in those sports with large fan bases. Of course, women's field hockey, cross country and most minor sports players will have to pay for their future training.

Maybe that's the way it should be, since we've seen the Carolina Way model doesn't allow student-athletes to prosper.

[lotusland]

...
This whole situation is immensely complex, and I think it's only fair to (yet again) reemphasize the complexities as the conversation continues to be played out by the two+ sides.

In support of the players, I agree with you in a vacuum that players should be as free as anyone else to transfer schools. Allow me to clarify this statement. They should be just as free as any non-athlete to transfer schools AND play a sport at the transferee school. I do believe that is reasonable and fair in a vacuum.

Now stepping out of that vacuum, this dynamic can really hurt a school. And saying (as another poster did) that the supply greatly exceeds the demand so no school would ever have to worry about not even fielding a team, that strikes me as a ridiculous statement. You can't create this "Free Transfer" rule and leave that loophole open for a, say, Auburn to get burned by a Bruce Pearl violation, Pearl runs away in September, and 9 kids transfer out in October. You just can't leave loopholes like that open - even if you believe a mass transfer like that is a black swan event (which I think the probability is significantly higher than black-swan level, albeit still small), you can't blindly create the construct to allow it.

So now in my stream of consciousness, I find myself saying, "OK self, players should be allowed to transfer without penalty. But that creates some theoretical, non-zero-probabilistic issues for the sport itself." So there needs to be a protection in place. I think there are many proposals that would fit as a protection. A few include: (1) Free Transfer rights are only allowed during a set window at a reasonable time of the year (e.g. April or May) to allow the transferor team to figure out a contingency, otherwise the old sit-out rules apply; (2) Free Transfer is limited to 1x per collegiate career to limit the universe of transfers allowed and increase transparency/probability about who is staying where; (3) Free Transfer does not apply within conference, perhaps the old rules apply in conference. And there are others.

I don't see these proposed limits on Free Transfer to be unfair. The athlete is still allowed to transfer at any time (just like any student) and as many times as s/he wants (just like any student) and to any school (just like any student), but if the transferring student doesn't stay within the proposed rules, then s/he must sit out from athletics but can still transfer to the new school at that time.

To me, it's a set of reasonable asks by both sides.

Now the further issues of 4-year commitments, pulling scholarships (e.g. Saban), compensation to players, revenue to schools, schools' much broader academic programs as a whole, small program vs big program, minor league vs amateurism, coaches' ability to leave programs at any time without penalty, and even increasing "me-me-me" mentalities (generally, in the world) are additional dynamics that should (IMHO) be addressed somehow, someway. But these issues are highly complicated and have many, many stakeholders so are not easily fixed.

But the players-program transfer dynamic is one of the simpler dynamics that could theoretically be fixed since it involves a much smaller set of stakeholders. While my stance is still generally pro-school/program (I don't care who is on Duke's team as much as I care about watching Duke play basketball), I do believe that this transfer issue could be improved and with relatively simple solutions and proposals.

- ChillinI agree with the gist of your post but, if your point is to be fair, the transfer window shouldn't end until the cutoff for the coach to bring in a new recruit for the next season. In other words a fair system would allow Bolden and Javin to transfer when Bagley signs in August.

[ChillinDuke]

I agree with the gist of your post but, if your point is to be fair, the transfer window shouldn't end until the cutoff for the coach to bring in a new recruit for the next season. In other words a fair system would allow Bolden and Javin to transfer when Bagley signs in August.

I have no problem with that. After all, I was on record for not being totally comfortable with the Bagley situation as it was starting to unfold.

The dates I gave were purely for illustrative purposes.

- Chillin

[RPS]

I'm not sure your last comment really is a different topic. I'm no longer convinced universities should give athletic scholarships. If teams choose to field various sports teams, let them base scholarships entirely on academics and financial need. We can then suspend all transfer rules and students can do as they please assuming the next school can meet their basic financial needs.To the extent college sports were to remain at all important in this scenario, I have little doubt that every great player would be able to show sufficient academic merit and/or financial need to get an exceptional scholarship package.


If a player wants to be paid for playing his/her sport, then they can join semi-professional or pro development leagues that will spring up in those sports with large fan bases. Of course, women's field hockey, cross country and most minor sports players will have to pay for their future training.And student athletes would really be students intending to get a degree. Novel concept.


Maybe that's the way it should be, since we've seen the Carolina Way model doesn't allow student-athletes to prosper.I think so (even though I love Duke sports).

[ChillinDuke]

Interesting analysis -- I just happen to disagree with you. These are 19 YO's who chose a college based on their desire to play for and have their career directed by a head coach. It would take a severe blow to dislodge that tie. So, absent the exceptions acknowledged below, I don't think it will have huge effects on the college game.

Exceptions:
1. Coaches change schools, and it will be easier for their players to go with them. On the other hand, if a coach moves from a mid-major to a major school, how many of his players does he truly want to take? Also, if he is fired and hired by a lesser school, I don't see the same pull.

2. Mercenaries among the players. There are a few who change schools and teams every year BEFORE arriving at college. That's a warning sign, but if they are top-flight players, they will probably just BE A ONE-AND-DONE.

I see what your general point is. I will point out, regarding the bolded, that the dramatic increase in transfers over the last decade or so flies counter to your point there. Now some of that transfer activity is no doubt due to coaching changes, but my counterpoint still seems valid to keep the conversation between the goalposts.

- Chillin

[sagegrouse]

I see what your general point is. I will point out, regarding the bolded, that the dramatic increase in transfers over the last decade or so flies counter to your point there. Now some of that transfer activity is no doubt due to coaching changes, but my counterpoint still seems valid to keep the conversation between the goalposts.

- Chillin

Sage said -- "These are 19 YO's who chose a college based on their desire to play for and have their career directed by a head coach."

I don't see that the "trend" vitiates my point. (I have no idea what "vitiate" means, but it is on my vocabulary improvement list for the week.) Most players don't transfer. I would be interested in seeing how many non-graduate transfers are starters. It certainly appears there is an increase in "impatience" among players who are sitting on the bench.

My post was in response to swood's post, which I thought was a bit on the apocalyptic side. I think most players bond with their teammates and the coaching staff. I don't see changing the rules resulting in huge intercollegiate migration, a rise in "player rebellions," or the erosion of "coaching standards" due to players' ability to leave.

I do think that there will need to be rules aimed at prevention of or, at least, regulation of "poaching" from other programs, or the hostility between schools will be deleterious (I also don't know what that means) to the NCAA.

[swood1000]

I think Duke would actually be likely to benefit from this change. But that is immaterial to my opinion of the new rules.

Many think that the mid-majors were the big losers of the decision to liberalize the graduate transfer rules. They had specialized in trying to find and develop diamonds in the rough, and suddenly the big name schools could come along and poach the gems they had found. This change would be the graduate transfer rule change on steroids.

My guess is that the NCAA would go about this gradually. A beginning change, which I would not oppose, would be the elimination of rules that allow schools to forbid a student from transferring at all.


14.5.5.2.10 One-Time Transfer Exception. The student transfers to the certifying institution from another four-year collegiate institution, and all of the following conditions are met (for graduate students, see Bylaw 14.6.1):

(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.

[swood1000]

Interesting analysis -- I just happen to disagree with you. These are 19 YO's who chose a college based on their desire to play for and have their career directed by a head coach. It would take a severe blow to dislodge that tie. So, absent the exceptions acknowledged below, I don't think it will have huge effects on the college game.

Exceptions:
1. Coaches change schools, and it will be easier for their players to go with them. On the other hand, if a coach moves from a mid-major to a major school, how many of his players does he truly want to take? Also, if he is fired and hired by a lesser school, I don't see the same pull.

2. Mercenaries among the players. There are a few who change schools and teams every year BEFORE arriving at college. That's a warning sign, but if they are top-flight players, they will probably just BE A ONE-AND-DONE.

It's possible that it would not have huge effects on the game, because it would become standard practice to require recruits to promise not to transfer without sitting out a year. To refuse to make such a promise might be taken as an indication that this is not a team player or that this player is already thinking about leaving, he would be a destabilizing influence, and that time spent developing him would be wasted. It seems that the more the athlete’s choice is based on his desire to play for a certain head coach, the more he would be willing to sign such an agreement. He thinks that the chances of becoming disillusioned and changing his mind later are remote.

[chrishoke]

It's possible that it would not have huge effects on the game, because it would become standard practice to require recruits to promise not to transfer without sitting out a year. To refuse to make such a promise might be taken as an indication that this is not a team player or that this player is already thinking about leaving, he would be a destabilizing influence, and that time spent developing him would be wasted. It seems that the more the athlete’s choice is based on his desire to play for a certain head coach, the more he would be willing to sign such an agreement. He thinks that the chances of becoming disillusioned and changing his mind later are remote.

How would such a signed agreement be enforceable?

[Duke95]

How would such a signed agreement be enforceable?

Exactly. It's not enforceable. Not to mention, it's unworkable. Once one school says, "we won't make you promise things like other schools", everyone else will follow or be left behind in the race for talent.

[RPS]

It's possible that it would not have huge effects on the game, because it would become standard practice to require recruits to promise not to transfer without sitting out a year. To refuse to make such a promise might be taken as an indication that this is not a team player or that this player is already thinking about leaving, he would be a destabilizing influence, and that time spent developing him would be wasted. It seems that the more the athlete’s choice is based on his desire to play for a certain head coach, the more he would be willing to sign such an agreement. He thinks that the chances of becoming disillusioned and changing his mind later are remote.In other words, kids who get hosed, or even whose reasonable expectations not met, would be forced to sit a year in the usual course. Based upon my (pretty close) observations, there are three types of situations, all common, in this regard. One type is where the player is roughly "at fault" -- doesn't work hard enough, has a bad attitude, etc. I would think most coaches would like players in this category to leave right away. The second type is where there is no "fault" -- the player just isn't as good as expected, gets injured and falls behind, has a family issue, etc. In these situations, it seems fair to me to allow immediate transfers (as K has done with Elliot Williams, for example). The third set of cases includes those where the school or the coach is roughly "at fault" -- dishonesty about playing prospects (very hard to show and complicated due to biases all around, but routine), poor academic fit, some sort of mismanagement (also hard to show), etc. In those cases, immediate transfer is perfectly appropriate.

The only real argument against immediate transfer is that coaches and schools who do a great job with a player don't want that player to jump to a better opportunity without consequences. They want to reap the benefits of their efforts. But that argument as two major flaws. The first is that since coaches and schools make no long-term commitments (scholarships are year-to-year), it is fundamentally unfair to expect the players to have to give more. The second is that it offers insufficient benefit to the player who works really hard and improves. If you are really great at your job, even if you got great in part because of opportunities your employer provided, you can still take a better job.

[swood1000]

How would such a signed agreement be enforceable?
Some states ban non-compete agreements but most do not, as long as the scope is limited and the conditions are reasonable.

[sagegrouse]

The only real argument against immediate transfer is that coaches and schools who do a great job with a player don't want that player to jump to a better opportunity without consequences. They want to reap the benefits of their efforts. But that argument as two major flaws. The first is that since coaches and schools make no long-term commitments (scholarships are year-to-year), it is fundamentally unfair to expect the players to have to give more. The second is that it offers insufficient benefit to the player who works really hard and improves. If you are really great at your job, even if you got great in part because of opportunities your employer provided, you can still take a better job.

From the point of view of schools likely to lose players, this is destabilizing. And, for all teams, it is already a difficult situation. The lead time for recruiting is typically over a year; the "warning time" is only four months when a player leaves in April that was expected to return. It is virtually impossible to replace such players through the usual path of high school recruitment.

[MarkD83]

From the point of view of schools likely to lose players, this is destabilizing. And, for all teams, it is already a difficult situation. The lead time se for recruiting is typically over a year; the "warning time" is only four months when a player leaves in April that was expected to return. It is virtually impossible to replace such players through the usual path of high school recruitment.

However the pool of players to replace transfers would also include transfers. The issue with losing players is more related to players turning pro that were not expected to go pro.

[swood1000]

In other words, kids who get hosed, or even whose reasonable expectations not met, would be forced to sit a year in the usual course. Based upon my (pretty close) observations, there are three types of situations, all common, in this regard. One type is where the player is roughly "at fault" -- doesn't work hard enough, has a bad attitude, etc. I would think most coaches would like players in this category to leave right away. The second type is where there is no "fault" -- the player just isn't as good as expected, gets injured and falls behind, has a family issue, etc. In these situations, it seems fair to me to allow immediate transfers (as K has done with Elliot Williams, for example). The third set of cases includes those where the school or the coach is roughly "at fault" -- dishonesty about playing prospects (very hard to show and complicated due to biases all around, but routine), poor academic fit, some sort of mismanagement (also hard to show), etc. In those cases, immediate transfer is perfectly appropriate.

You left out Coach K’s observation that the desire to transfer is often the result of a need for instant gratification on the part of the athlete.


The only real argument against immediate transfer is that coaches and schools who do a great job with a player don't want that player to jump to a better opportunity without consequences. They want to reap the benefits of their efforts. But that argument as two major flaws. The first is that since coaches and schools make no long-term commitments (scholarships are year-to-year), it is fundamentally unfair to expect the players to have to give more. The second is that it offers insufficient benefit to the player who works really hard and improves. If you are really great at your job, even if you got great in part because of opportunities your employer provided, you can still take a better job.

I think that the stronger argument against immediate transfer is that it reduces the ability of coaches to require players to conform to the coach’s standards. If player demands are not met, or if destabilizing influences are present, an entire program can be eviscerated in one blow.

If we create a college sport, and a potential athlete doesn’t like the rules, what is the principle that gives him a right to demand that they be changed?

[sagegrouse]

However the pool of players to replace transfers would also include transfers. The issue with losing players is more related to players turning pro that were not expected to go pro.

True. I wonder if there will be schools that tend to be "transfer donors" and others that will be "transfer recipients."

[swood1000]

I do think that there will need to be rules aimed at prevention of or, at least, regulation of "poaching" from other programs, or the hostility between schools will be deleterious (I also don't know what that means) to the NCAA.

But how could there be effective rules against poaching? You could say that coaches can’t initiate contact but you couldn’t forbid them from responding when contacted, and pointing out all the factors that make their program the Shangri-la that it is. You can’t forbid a coach from announcing that what his team is most in need of is a good point guard, who would get all the minutes he could handle, including during the likely march madness run next season, and touting all the media attention his program gets, along with the great NBA contracts his players have signed. Nor could you forbid reporters from pointing this out to potential transferees and asking whether they might be interested. Furthermore, if a particular player requests inquiries from interested teams could the NCAA forbid them from responding?

[cato]

Some states ban non-compete agreements but most do not, as long as the scope is limited and the conditions are reasonable.

You are referring, of course, to employment contracts.

[swood1000]

You are referring, of course, to employment contracts.
Yes. Do you think that the absence of an employer/employee relationship makes a difference?

[sagegrouse]

But how could there be effective rules against poaching? You could say that coaches can’t initiate contact but you couldn’t forbid them from responding when contacted, and pointing out all the factors that make their program the Shangri-la that it is. You can’t forbid a coach from announcing that what his team is most in need of is a good point guard, who would get all the minutes he could handle, including during the likely march madness run next season, and touting all the media attention his program gets, along with the great NBA contracts his players have signed. Nor could you forbid reporters from pointing this out to potential transferees and asking whether they might be interested. Furthermore, if a particular player requests inquiries from interested teams could the NCAA forbid them from responding?

Well, let's be realistic. The NCAA is trying to run a multibillion business with 300+ competitors (who are actually partners as well) without allowing market solutions involving the primary resource -- the players. Hard as heck, isn't it? That's why the rule books is so thick. I predict that, if transfers are allowed without a "sit-out period," the rule book will get thicker, not thinner.

I expect coaches will be allowed to say, "We'd like to add a point guard" for next year, but not allowed to say, "We would like Siwash U. point guard Joe Schmo to join our team." Will this be even a fig leaf? I dunno, because it is hard to control parents and intermediaries from directly contacting a school. I suppose a coach would be forbidden to say, "Sure, we'll give a scholarship to your son if he transfers here," but not forbidden to say, "Your son's a really good player and most every team in the country would like to have him."

I dunno -- I keep saying that -- but I don't think free transfers will lead to the wild, wild West where coaches are allowed to openly recruit another team's players. As I said, the rule book will probably get thicker.

I liked your original lengthy post on potential problems that arise, but I do believe that most college hoops players are good, solid citizens who are loyal to their teammates, coaches and schools and won't seek a transfer without a good reason.

[ChillinDuke]

<snip>

I liked your original lengthy post on potential problems that arise, but I do believe that most college hoops players are good, solid citizens who are loyal to their teammates, coaches and schools and won't seek a transfer without a good reason.

I think we are more in agreement than disagreement on this general topic/thread. But I would like to further discuss (with you or anyone) this particular quoted sentence.

"Most hoops players are good, solid citizens..." - sure, that's fine. I'm not going to get into the general morality of college bball players. But you're probably right in any event.

"...loyal to their teammates, coaches, and schools and won't seek a transfer without good reason." - this part is highly interesting and worthy of discussion.

The first concept that interests me is "loyalty." I imagine it's not controversial to state that the current generation has much less "loyalty" in most all of their endeavors - work, hobbies, sports, etc. Using work as an example, the statistics (anecdotal for me, I don't have any articles handy) seem to clearly bear out that Millennials are orders of magnitude more likely to "job hop" than preceding generations. The parallel to basketball seems clear (completely disregarding the players-as-employees debate for now), at least to me. I can't reasonably imagine that there isn't a correlation between these well documented Millennial work preferences and their collegiate sport preferences - and possibly a strong correlation, at that.

So while I absolutely noted that you said "most college hoops players," and insofar as that word choice goes I have no choice but to agree, the tone of the sentence seems to lessen the (perhaps even obvious) trend that college players are leaving their teams in larger numbers than ever before.

The second concept that interests me is having a "good reason." Admittedly, this is tied to what I was just talking about. But I'm interested as to what is good reason anymore? Was Chase Jeter's reason good? Of course, we don't definitively know why he chose to transfer. But I'm not sure I'd classify it as "good reason," YMM understandably V. Semi? Silent G? Alex Murphy? Derryck? Rodney Hood? Olek? Seth? Jamal Boykin? Were they all good reasons? Fine, were most good reasons? Unclear. But interesting nonetheless, to me at least.

Unfortunately, the issue is further complicated by the stratification of college basketball. Once you hit the top 6-10 conferences, you are starting to deal with real-life aspirations of playing professional hoops and possibly even NBA hoops. The conferences below that, not so much. So the "Free Transfer" holds more weight as you move up the spectrum.

To me, keeping in mind Millennial preferences as a backdrop, the issue that I have with the Free Transfer rule is are young college players really going to risk their perceived view (no matter how far-fetched in reality) that they have a chance to "level up" (in a sport they love with potentially very serious monetary repercussions) when they have a Free and perfectly allowed ability to do so? Why would not every single player that was in the top half of her/his team at least attempt to "level up" (and correspondingly) the bottom halves "level down" in order to chase their dreams? Every single one. Why not?

OK, fine, not every single one. That's ridiculous. What about most?

- Chillin

ETA - In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Millennial.

[swood1000]

I think we are more in agreement than disagreement on this general topic/thread. But I would like to further discuss (with you or anyone) this particular quoted sentence.

"Most hoops players are good, solid citizens..." - sure, that's fine. I'm not going to get into the general morality of college bball players. But you're probably right in any event.

"...loyal to their teammates, coaches, and schools and won't seek a transfer without good reason." - this part is highly interesting and worthy of discussion.

The first concept that interests me is "loyalty." I imagine it's not controversial to state that the current generation has much less "loyalty" in most all of their endeavors - work, hobbies, sports, etc. Using work as an example, the statistics (anecdotal for me, I don't have any articles handy) seem to clearly bear out that Millennials are orders of magnitude more likely to "job hop" than preceding generations. The parallel to basketball seems clear (completely disregarding the players-as-employees debate for now), at least to me. I can't reasonably imagine that there isn't a correlation between these well documented Millennial work preferences and their collegiate sport preferences - and possibly a strong correlation, at that.

So while I absolutely noted that you said "most college hoops players," and insofar as that word choice goes I have no choice but to agree, the tone of the sentence seems to lessen the (perhaps even obvious) trend that college players are leaving their teams in larger numbers than ever before.

The second concept that interests me is having a "good reason." Admittedly, this is tied to what I was just talking about. But I'm interested as to what is good reason anymore? Was Chase Jeter's reason good? Of course, we don't definitively know why he chose to transfer. But I'm not sure I'd classify it as "good reason," YMM understandably V. Semi? Silent G? Alex Murphy? Derryck? Rodney Hood? Olek? Seth? Jamal Boykin? Were they all good reasons? Fine, were most good reasons? Unclear. But interesting nonetheless, to me at least.

Unfortunately, the issue is further complicated by the stratification of college basketball. Once you hit the top 6-10 conferences, you are starting to deal with real-life aspirations of playing professional hoops and possibly even NBA hoops. The conferences below that, not so much. So the "Free Transfer" holds more weight as you move up the spectrum.

To me, keeping in mind Millennial preferences as a backdrop, the issue that I have with the Free Transfer rule is are young college players really going to risk their perceived view (no matter how far-fetched in reality) that they have a chance to "level up" (in a sport they love with potentially very serious monetary repercussions) when they have a Free and perfectly allowed ability to do so? Why would not every single player that was in the top half of her/his team at least attempt to "level up" (and correspondingly) the bottom halves "level down" in order to chase their dreams? Every single one. Why not?

OK, fine, not every single one. That's ridiculous. What about most?

- Chillin

ETA - In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Millennial.

Sylvia Hatchell (I apologize for bringing her up in a non-abusive context) had a comment on how kids have changed:


Sylvia Hatchell, who has coached at North Carolina for 31 years, also attests to the change.

“You can’t be as hard on the kids as we used to be,” she said. “Coaching in the late 70′s, 80’s and 90’s across from people like Pat Summitt and Kay Yow, we were tough and players did what you said with no questions asked. Now you have to explain and give a reason for everything. We used to run them, but it made them tough, mentally and physically.” http://womenshoopsworld.com/2017/05/25/reasons-behind-increased-college-basketball-transfers-numerous-and-complex/

This was given as part of the explanation for why there are more transfers than there used to be.

Edit: so she thought that paper classes were the appropriate way to compensate. There, got it in.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think we are more in agreement than disagreement on this general topic/thread. But I would like to further discuss (with you or anyone) this particular quoted sentence.

"Most hoops players are good, solid citizens..." - sure, that's fine. I'm not going to get into the general morality of college bball players. But you're probably right in any event.

"...loyal to their teammates, coaches, and schools and won't seek a transfer without good reason." - this part is highly interesting and worthy of discussion.

The first concept that interests me is "loyalty." I imagine it's not controversial to state that the current generation has much less "loyalty" in most all of their endeavors - work, hobbies, sports, etc. Using work as an example, the statistics (anecdotal for me, I don't have any articles handy) seem to clearly bear out that Millennials are orders of magnitude more likely to "job hop" than preceding generations. The parallel to basketball seems clear (completely disregarding the players-as-employees debate for now), at least to me. I can't reasonably imagine that there isn't a correlation between these well documented Millennial work preferences and their collegiate sport preferences - and possibly a strong correlation, at that.

So while I absolutely noted that you said "most college hoops players," and insofar as that word choice goes I have no choice but to agree, the tone of the sentence seems to lessen the (perhaps even obvious) trend that college players are leaving their teams in larger numbers than ever before.

The second concept that interests me is having a "good reason." Admittedly, this is tied to what I was just talking about. But I'm interested as to what is good reason anymore? Was Chase Jeter's reason good? Of course, we don't definitively know why he chose to transfer. But I'm not sure I'd classify it as "good reason," YMM understandably V. Semi? Silent G? Alex Murphy? Derryck? Rodney Hood? Olek? Seth? Jamal Boykin? Were they all good reasons? Fine, were most good reasons? Unclear. But interesting nonetheless, to me at least.

Unfortunately, the issue is further complicated by the stratification of college basketball. Once you hit the top 6-10 conferences, you are starting to deal with real-life aspirations of playing professional hoops and possibly even NBA hoops. The conferences below that, not so much. So the "Free Transfer" holds more weight as you move up the spectrum.

To me, keeping in mind Millennial preferences as a backdrop, the issue that I have with the Free Transfer rule is are young college players really going to risk their perceived view (no matter how far-fetched in reality) that they have a chance to "level up" (in a sport they love with potentially very serious monetary repercussions) when they have a Free and perfectly allowed ability to do so? Why would not every single player that was in the top half of her/his team at least attempt to "level up" (and correspondingly) the bottom halves "level down" in order to chase their dreams? Every single one. Why not?

OK, fine, not every single one. That's ridiculous. What about most?

- Chillin

ETA - In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Millennial.

I think you make some interesting points. Part of me wants to remind you that only 62 players a year are drafted in the NBA, and an increasing percentage of those are from foreign countries. It is tempting to say "why should college basketball's rules be governed around 55+ players a year out of 300+ teams?

But that neglects the fact that such a huge number of players believe themselves NBA caliber talents. I think this is what K refers to in regards to the impatience of players. It is why players get cranky coming off the bench for a few weeks in a row. It is why players leave Duke for Arizona or UCLA. It is why players come to Duke from Liberty or Rutgers.

Hubris among college athletes is massive.

[ChillinDuke]

I think you make some interesting points. Part of me wants to remind you that only 62 players a year are drafted in the NBA, and an increasing percentage of those are from foreign countries. It is tempting to say "why should college basketball's rules be governed around 55+ players a year out of 300+ teams?

But that neglects the fact that such a huge number of players believe themselves NBA caliber talents. I think this is what K refers to in regards to the impatience of players. It is why players get cranky coming off the bench for a few weeks in a row. It is why players leave Duke for Arizona or UCLA. It is why players come to Duke from Liberty or Rutgers.

Hubris among college athletes is massive.

Exactly. The bolded is the key. And further to that, it's not just a belief that one is an NBA talent. It's just the ability to "level up," whatever one's personal definition of that may be. If a kid is playing at SE Missouri State and has lived in small-town Mizzou his entire life and sees the opportunity to "level up" to big city Boston by playing for Boston University, even if he doesn't believe he'll ever make the NBA, that may be a level up to him. He (and many others) may want the opportunity to fundamentally alter his life (regardless of whether us bystanders believe it's reasonable or upstanding or not). You, me, the NBA - no stakeholder probably cares that much if someone transfers from SE Mizz St to BU, but imagine if most (or even a significant minority of) players utilized this.

A Free Transfer rule, without any caveats, allows this sort of movement without a second thought.

I'm not saying Free Transfer will definitely play out this way. But it's worth discussing the likelihood that it may. Because not doing so and blindly instituting it could usher immense changes to the college basketball (and college, broadly) landscape.

- Chillin

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Exactly. The bolded is the key. And further to that, it's not just a belief that one is an NBA talent. It's just the ability to "level up," whatever one's personal definition of that may be. If a kid is playing at SE Missouri State and has lived in small-town Mizzou his entire life and sees the opportunity to "level up" to big city Boston by playing for Boston University, even if he doesn't believe he'll ever make the NBA, that may be a level up to him. He (and many others) may want the opportunity to fundamentally alter his life (regardless of whether us bystanders believe it's reasonable or upstanding or not). You, me, the NBA - no stakeholder probably cares that much if someone transfers from SE Mizz St to BU, but imagine if most (or even a significant minority of) players utilized this.

A Free Transfer rule, without any caveats, allows this sort of movement without a second thought.

I'm not saying Free Transfer will definitely play out this way. But it's worth discussing the likelihood that it may. Because not doing so and blindly instituting it could usher immense changes to the college basketball (and college, broadly) landscape.

- Chillin

Well, let's pretend for a moment that every top player wants to play for Duke (what a stretch!). But... How many players can transfer into our program each year? Maybe one or two? There aren't unlimited spots for these aspirational players.

[RPS]

You left out Coach K’s observation that the desire to transfer is often the result of a need for instant gratification on the part of the athlete.I don't see how that subset isn't covered by "player's fault" and/or "no fault."


I think that the stronger argument against immediate transfer is that it reduces the ability of coaches to require players to conform to the coach’s standards. If player demands are not met, or if destabilizing influences are present, an entire program can be eviscerated in one blow.I reject the premise of the question because coaches abuse their power so often and so consistently (at every level). Machiavelli was really smart.


If we create a college sport, and a potential athlete doesn’t like the rules, what is the principle that gives him a right to demand that they be changed?Says every dictator, every slumlord, every sweatshop owner everywhere.

[RPS]

True. I wonder if there will be schools that tend to be "transfer donors" and others that will be "transfer recipients."The best comparison might be world football (soccer), where there are "selling clubs" and "buying clubs."

[RPS]

Yes. Do you think that the absence of an employer/employee relationship makes a difference?Yes, in two senses. Firstly, the NCAA actively and aggressively does everything it can to keep from being deemed an employer. Its multi-billion dollar business is much harder to run if their primary labor force must be paid and paid market rates. Secondly, contracts of adhesion are unenforceable.

[RPS]

“You can’t be as hard on the kids as we used to be,” she said. “Coaching in the late 70′s, 80’s and 90’s across from people like Pat Summitt and Kay Yow, we were tough and players did what you said with no questions asked. Now you have to explain and give a reason for everything. We used to run them, but it made them tough, mentally and physically.”I think that's true and that it is both good news and bad news. Was Bob Knight (a) tough and demanding; (b) abusive; or (c) both? The "right" answer depends upon who is being asked the question.

[RPS]

Hubris among college athletes is massive.Absolutely true, but matched only (and probably exceeded) by the hubris of college coaches.

[sagegrouse]

I think we are more in agreement than disagreement on this general topic/thread. But I would like to further discuss (with you or anyone) this particular quoted sentence.

"Most hoops players are good, solid citizens..." - sure, that's fine. I'm not going to get into the general morality of college bball players. But you're probably right in any event.

"...loyal to their teammates, coaches, and schools and won't seek a transfer without good reason." - this part is highly interesting and worthy of discussion.

The first concept that interests me is "loyalty." I imagine it's not controversial to state that the current generation has much less "loyalty" in most all of their endeavors - work, hobbies, sports, etc. Using work as an example, the statistics (anecdotal for me, I don't have any articles handy) seem to clearly bear out that Millennials are orders of magnitude more likely to "job hop" than preceding generations. The parallel to basketball seems clear (completely disregarding the players-as-employees debate for now), at least to me. I can't reasonably imagine that there isn't a correlation between these well documented Millennial work preferences and their collegiate sport preferences - and possibly a strong correlation, at that.

So while I absolutely noted that you said "most college hoops players," and insofar as that word choice goes I have no choice but to agree, the tone of the sentence seems to lessen the (perhaps even obvious) trend that college players are leaving their teams in larger numbers than ever before.

The second concept that interests me is having a "good reason." Admittedly, this is tied to what I was just talking about. But I'm interested as to what is good reason anymore? Was Chase Jeter's reason good? Of course, we don't definitively know why he chose to transfer. But I'm not sure I'd classify it as "good reason," YMM understandably V. Semi? Silent G? Alex Murphy? Derryck? Rodney Hood? Olek? Seth? Jamal Boykin? Were they all good reasons? Fine, were most good reasons? Unclear. But interesting nonetheless, to me at least.

Unfortunately, the issue is further complicated by the stratification of college basketball. Once you hit the top 6-10 conferences, you are starting to deal with real-life aspirations of playing professional hoops and possibly even NBA hoops. The conferences below that, not so much. So the "Free Transfer" holds more weight as you move up the spectrum.

To me, keeping in mind Millennial preferences as a backdrop, the issue that I have with the Free Transfer rule is are young college players really going to risk their perceived view (no matter how far-fetched in reality) that they have a chance to "level up" (in a sport they love with potentially very serious monetary repercussions) when they have a Free and perfectly allowed ability to do so? Why would not every single player that was in the top half of her/his team at least attempt to "level up" (and correspondingly) the bottom halves "level down" in order to chase their dreams? Every single one. Why not?

OK, fine, not every single one. That's ridiculous. What about most?

- Chillin

ETA - In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Millennial.

Wow. I am not sure I can match your philosophical depth in my response. The point of coaching is not so much X's and O's as it is to form a team -- bonded to each other and to the coaching staff. Are there really talented, ego trips that resist coaching. I don't think there are too many at schools like Duke, which doesn't want to take chances on bad actors (and doesn't have to).

So, I didn't buy swood100's more "atomistic " model of individual behavior under changing incentives -- although I admire his post and told him so. Also, at the margin he is clearly right -- more will transfer and players will have weaker reasons 'cuz the cost is much lower with no sit-out. I just don't think it will be a wholesale level of transfers, and I don't think it will undermine the coaches or the basic teamwork at play.

In terms of your examples, I think "lack of playing time and little prospect of being in the rotation" is a really good reason. A player goes to college to "play" basketball; it is understandable that "not playing" is a reason to be unhappy -- enough to transfer. I suppose there are other good reasons -- academic, social, family -- but it is hard to know what really is driving a decision.

Alex Murphy? You bet! He wasn't gonna play at Duke. Same with Czyz, although I would have liked for him to stay. Boykin was more likely to have been a rotation player than Murphy or Czyz, but there was a risk of not playing.

Chase Jeter? I am sympathetic to his decision to transfer -- we recruited over him a whole bunch of times, and it seemed he was getting farther and farther from playing.

Derryck did not have a good reason and told his friends he wanted to stay at Duke but couldn't. There was family pressure, and in choosing to transfer, he made a bad decision.

BTW, there is something about West Coast guys that go to Duke. We have had a lot choose to go back to the West Coast.

Semi and Silent G? Questionable reasons -- both would have played if they had stuck it out and would have had good NBA prospects without wasting a year.

Seth Curry had really good reason to transfer -- a cold-blooded reason, but a very good one. Curry comes from a family of professional athletes and got really good advice. He went to Liberty 'cuz he was tiny, and none of the major schools would give him a scholarship (he could have walked on at VT and he could have gone to Davidson). When he blew up at Liberty, he needed to move. His basketball experience was much better at Duke; at Liberty, he would have been double-teamed and fouled as the only really good player on his team -- and who the heck could he have passed to.

I have no insight into Rodney Hood -- whether he was calculating or just didn't like going to Mississippi State.

I probably didn't answer your question. I am not sure what is said about Millennials is true. The job market has been a lot more challenging in the past decade; my children, somewhat older, had an easy time transitioning into good long-term positions. My generation was Vietnam -- and, let me assure you, it was totally chaotic.

[swood1000]

Yes, in two senses. Firstly, the NCAA actively and aggressively does everything it can to keep from being deemed an employer. Its multi-billion dollar business is much harder to run if their primary labor force must be paid and paid market rates.

My question is: why is an employee/employer relationship necessary for there to be a valid non-compete agreement?


Secondly, contracts of adhesion are unenforceable.
Contracts of adhesion that are fair are not unenforceable. They are used all the time, and in most states reasonable non-compete agreements are not considered unconscionable.

[rasputin]

Exactly. The bolded is the key. And further to that, it's not just a belief that one is an NBA talent. It's just the ability to "level up," whatever one's personal definition of that may be. If a kid is playing at SE Missouri State and has lived in small-town Mizzou his entire life and sees the opportunity to "level up" to big city Boston by playing for Boston University, even if he doesn't believe he'll ever make the NBA, that may be a level up to him. He (and many others) may want the opportunity to fundamentally alter his life (regardless of whether us bystanders believe it's reasonable or upstanding or not). You, me, the NBA - no stakeholder probably cares that much if someone transfers from SE Mizz St to BU, but imagine if most (or even a significant minority of) players utilized this.

A Free Transfer rule, without any caveats, allows this sort of movement without a second thought.

I'm not saying Free Transfer will definitely play out this way. But it's worth discussing the likelihood that it may. Because not doing so and blindly instituting it could usher immense changes to the college basketball (and college, broadly) landscape.

- Chillin

I chuckled when I read this post, because I went to undergraduate school at Southeast Missouri State, and law school at Duke. That seems to have been a level up.

[lotusland]

I chuckled when I read this post, because I went to undergraduate school at Southeast Missouri State, and law school at Duke. That seems to have been a level up.

I chuckled because moving to Boston is definitely moving "up" from anywhere in Missouri.

[cato]

Yes. Do you think that the absence of an employer/employee relationship makes a difference?

Yes. For example, in CA, non-competes in employment contracts are unenforceable. Non-completes in sale agreements where an owner of a business sells the business and agrees not to compete for x years are enforceable.

I have no experience in law regarding scholarship agreements.

Assuming a non-compete in an agreement to award an athletic scholarship were enforceable, what would the enforcement mechanism be? Currently, the transfer rules are administered by the NCAA, which has the authority to determine whether a player is eligible.

If the NCAA clears a transfer to play at a new school, would the old school pursue an injunction preventing the player from playing at the new school? Now that we are in the realm of equitable remedies, a whole range of factors would come into play. I have to admit, I would be interested in a school, whose mission is higher education, making its best argument that it is so harmed by a player leaving to play for another school that the only equitable solution is to prevent that player from playing sports for another school.

If you are aware of any analogous situations, I would be very interested.

[swood1000]

If we create a college sport, and a potential athlete doesn’t like the rules, what is the principle that gives him a right to demand that they be changed?

Says every dictator, every slumlord, every sweatshop owner everywhere.

It might be a bit of a stretch to equate the requirement to sit out for a year as a prerequisite for transfer with having to live or work in vile and inhuman conditions. Furthermore, a dictator tells people what they have to do. Nobody is requiring anybody to play basketball, or to play it in college instead of professionally or in Europe.

[rasputin]

I chuckled because moving to Boston is definitely moving "up" from anywhere in Missouri.

I live in a quiet, beautiful neighborhood on a golf course, and I have a 15-minute commute to work. You can insult my adopted home state all you want.

[RPS]

My question is: why is an employee/employer relationship necessary for there to be a valid non-compete agreement?Anti-competitive contracts have major presumptive hurdles to overcome. Without an employer/employee relationship, the anti-competitive nature of the contract cannot remotely be justified by any countervailing societal value. Of the flip side of that, when something acts more and more like a duck, the more likely it is that the thing *is* a duck. The more "employee" sorts of things a school tries to enforce, the more likely a court is to find an employment relationship, something the NCAA will do pretty much anything to avoid. The NCAA cannot afford it, donchaknow, even though bowl directors make upwards of a million dollars per year (https://www.sheffieldbarry.com/2017/01/cfb-bowl-director-pay/) to put on just one single game per year and even though the highest paid state employee in 39 states (http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/19019077/highest-paid-us-employees-dominated-college-football-college-basketball-coaches) is a college coach (to cite just two obvious examples and without having to go to UT's personal, locker room, 43 inch flatscreens for nameplates (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2703728-new-texas-lockers-feature-43-inch-tv-monitors-instead-of-nameplates)).


Contracts of adhesion that are fair are not unenforceable. They are used all the time, and in most states reasonable non-compete agreements are not considered unconscionable.Yes. I short-handed that and I shouldn't have. An anti-competitive adhesion contract foisted upon a teenager who is an unpaid but vital cog in a multi-billion dollar business, which contract could never be obtained by competitive bargaining, would not be enforced.

[RPS]

It might be a bit of a stretch to equate the requirement to sit out for a year as a prerequisite for transfer with having to live or work in vile and inhuman conditions. Furthermore, a dictator tells people what they have to do. Nobody is requiring anybody to play basketball, or to play it in college instead of professionally or in Europe.An "option" that forces a teenager overseas is hardly a viable one. And where do football players go?

As an aside, note that the best football coach in the best football league earns far, far less (https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/5/2/15515544/nick-saban-11-million-salary-highest-paid-sports-coach-2017) than the best college football coach, a guy who didn't cut it at the highest level. But the NCAA can't afford to pay players.

[swood1000]

Yes. For example, in CA, non-competes in employment contracts are unenforceable. Non-completes in sale agreements where an owner of a business sells the business and agrees not to compete for x years are enforceable.

I have no experience in law regarding scholarship agreements.

First, it is said that California, Montana, North Dakota, and Oklahoma totally ban non-compete agreements for employees. Be that as it may, these provisions are still valid in other states.

Second, would California law really ban such a provision? California Business and Professions Code section 16600 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=16600) states: "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."

But we are not talking about restraining athletes from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business. So how is it applicable?


Assuming a non-compete in an agreement to award an athletic scholarship were enforceable, what would the enforcement mechanism be? Currently, the transfer rules are administered by the NCAA, which has the authority to determine whether a player is eligible.

If the NCAA clears a transfer to play at a new school, would the old school pursue an injunction preventing the player from playing at the new school? Now that we are in the realm of equitable remedies, a whole range of factors would come into play. I have to admit, I would be interested in a school, whose mission is higher education, making its best argument that it is so harmed by a player leaving to play for another school that the only equitable solution is to prevent that player from playing sports for another school.

If you are aware of any analogous situations, I would be very interested.

Your point goes to the awkwardness of enforcing such a provision (which would be enforced the same way every other non-compete is enforced) and to how distasteful this may seem to many people, not to the legality of it. For that matter we have seen schools take steps that many view as exceedingly harsh in connection with blocking players who wish to transfer, so not all schools are deterred by the public relations aspect of it.

[cato]

Second, would California law really ban such a provision? California Business and Professions Code section 16600 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=16600) states: "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."

Yes, such a provision would be unenforceable in California.






Your point goes to the awkwardness of enforcing such a provision (which would be enforced the same way every other non-compete is enforced) and to how distasteful this may seem to many people, not to the legality of it. For that matter we have seen schools take steps that many view as exceedingly harsh in connection with blocking players who wish to transfer, so not all schools are deterred by the public relations aspect of it.

I am not talking about public relations or what is or is not distasteful. I am asking you to make the argument that a court should or could use its equitable power to prevent a student for playing a game for another school.

[swood1000]

Anti-competitive contracts have major presumptive hurdles to overcome. Without an employer/employee relationship, the anti-competitive nature of the contract cannot remotely be justified by any countervailing societal value.

Well, the NCAA rule requiring transfers to sit out a year has been upheld by the courts. Why would the same result by private contract not be treated the same way?

[Hingeknocker]

Yes. I short-handed that and I shouldn't have. An anti-competitive adhesion contract foisted upon a teenager who is an unpaid but vital cog in a multi-billion dollar business, which contract could never be obtained by competitive bargaining, would not be enforced.

I must spread some comments around before giving you points for this post, so I'll simply reply to say that this is 100% correct in its moral, if not also legal, analysis, and also add that I am stunned by the argumentative lengths to which people in this thread are willing to go just to avoid the obvious solution staring them straight in the face: pay the players.

[cato]

Well, the NCAA rule requiring transfers to sit out a year has been upheld by the courts. Why would the same result by private contract not be treated the same way?

To start, it would be helpful to compare the analysis in the case you references with cases analyzing non-competes in analogous (non-employment) situations, if any exist.

[RPS]

But we are not talking about restraining athletes from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business. So how is it applicable?I agree. In no way is the NCAA "a lawful profession, trade or business."


Well, the NCAA rule requiring transfers to sit out a year has been upheld by the courts. Why would the same result by private contract not be treated the same way?As I understand it, the validity of the transfer rules is an open question (http://lawreview.unl.edu/ncaa-transfer-restraints-free-agency-college-players) under the law. However, you are correct that some courts have upheld those rules based upon the fiction that the one-year restriction is required for educational reason (https://www.law360.com/articles/899057/another-attack-on-ncaa-s-sit-out-rule-for-transfers-tossed)s. There is no way in which a non-competition agreement between an individual school (rather than the NCAA) and a player can be said to relate to education.

[lotusland]

I live in a quiet, beautiful neighborhood on a golf course, and I have a 15-minute commute to work. You can insult my adopted home state all you want.

Sorry by moving up to Boston, I meant moving north. I'm from the palmetto state and our motto is "Thank God for Mississippi". We don't thumb out noses at anyone:).

[swood1000]

Yes, such a provision would be unenforceable in California.

Because playing college basketball would be termed a profession, trade or business? Why then do the California courts not currently prohibit the NCAA from enforcing in California its one-year sit out policy when an athlete wishes to transfer?


I am not talking about public relations or what is or is not distasteful. I am asking you to make the argument that a court should or could use its equitable power to prevent a student for playing a game for another school.

May it please the court: without this provision the harm done to college basketball will be irreparable. Competitive balance among teams will be lost. All programs will be at risk of sudden and catastrophic collapse and the effect on coach-player relations will be disastrous for the continued vitality of the sport. Some restraints on competition have always been considered necessary for a competitive sports league to even exist and in fact what is the basis of an athlete's right to transfer anyway? Requiring a player to sit out a year if he wants to transfer does not deny him the right to gainful employment or any other protected right. And even if it did, the inconvenience he suffers in this situation is miniscule compared with the injury to college basketball without this requirement. Finally, are we to announce a new policy that gives college athletes the right to legally force changes in the rules of sports in which they compete? On what foundation would that policy rest?

[Duke95]

Yes. Do you think that the absence of an employer/employee relationship makes a difference?

Of course it makes a difference.

[Duke95]

Well, the NCAA rule requiring transfers to sit out a year has been upheld by the courts. Why would the same result by private contract not be treated the same way?

Please read the briefs filed in those cases...especially the Vassar case. The answers you seek are there.

[ChillinDuke]

Wow. I am not sure I can match your philosophical depth in my response. The point of coaching is not so much X's and O's as it is to form a team -- bonded to each other and to the coaching staff. Are there really talented, ego trips that resist coaching. I don't think there are too many at schools like Duke, which doesn't want to take chances on bad actors (and doesn't have to).

So, I didn't buy swood100's more "atomistic " model of individual behavior under changing incentives -- although I admire his post and told him so. Also, at the margin he is clearly right -- more will transfer and players will have weaker reasons 'cuz the cost is much lower with no sit-out. I just don't think it will be a wholesale level of transfers, and I don't think it will undermine the coaches or the basic teamwork at play.

In terms of your examples, I think "lack of playing time and little prospect of being in the rotation" is a really good reason. A player goes to college to "play" basketball; it is understandable that "not playing" is a reason to be unhappy -- enough to transfer. I suppose there are other good reasons -- academic, social, family -- but it is hard to know what really is driving a decision.

Alex Murphy? You bet! He wasn't gonna play at Duke. Same with Czyz, although I would have liked for him to stay. Boykin was more likely to have been a rotation player than Murphy or Czyz, but there was a risk of not playing.

Chase Jeter? I am sympathetic to his decision to transfer -- we recruited over him a whole bunch of times, and it seemed he was getting farther and farther from playing.

Derryck did not have a good reason and told his friends he wanted to stay at Duke but couldn't. There was family pressure, and in choosing to transfer, he made a bad decision.

BTW, there is something about West Coast guys that go to Duke. We have had a lot choose to go back to the West Coast.

Semi and Silent G? Questionable reasons -- both would have played if they had stuck it out and would have had good NBA prospects without wasting a year.

Seth Curry had really good reason to transfer -- a cold-blooded reason, but a very good one. Curry comes from a family of professional athletes and got really good advice. He went to Liberty 'cuz he was tiny, and none of the major schools would give him a scholarship (he could have walked on at VT and he could have gone to Davidson). When he blew up at Liberty, he needed to move. His basketball experience was much better at Duke; at Liberty, he would have been double-teamed and fouled as the only really good player on his team -- and who the heck could he have passed to.

I have no insight into Rodney Hood -- whether he was calculating or just didn't like going to Mississippi State.

I probably didn't answer your question. I am not sure what is said about Millennials is true. The job market has been a lot more challenging in the past decade; my children, somewhat older, had an easy time transitioning into good long-term positions. My generation was Vietnam -- and, let me assure you, it was totally chaotic.

LOL. I tend to get a little philosophical at times. Apologies.

In the end, I think I agree with you. I think the most likely answer is that there will be a (further) increase in transfers but it won't be wholesale. That said, I still am not in favor of a rule (any rule) that allows an exploitable loop hole / devastating set of circumstances.

Said more explicitly, I'm in favor of loosening up transfers for student athletes, and potentially loosening them dramatically. But I would require some constraints to at least minimally protect programs, within reason.

- Chillin

[English]

An honest question, asked in sincerity, to the folks arguing that players should be afforded the right to transfer without sitting a year, per the latest Free-Transfer Rule proposal: Do you still resist the new rule, as proposed, because it provides ONE free transfer for college athletes? Presumably, the line of reasoning that non-competes are immoral and unenforceable, and that the NCAA is a slumlord sweatshop manager, would suggest that you'd be supportive of unfettered transfer rights without any impact on eligibility--a free market for the players. Do you think the rule doesn't go far enough?

I ask this question limiting the scope to college-athlete transfers, intentionally avoiding the "pay the players" can of worms.

[Duke95]

An honest question, asked in sincerity, to the folks arguing that players should be afforded the right to transfer without sitting a year, per the latest Free-Transfer Rule proposal: Do you still resist the new rule, as proposed, because it provides ONE free transfer for college athletes? Presumably, the line of reasoning that non-competes are immoral and unenforceable, and that the NCAA is a slumlord sweatshop manager, would suggest that you'd be supportive of unfettered transfer rights without any impact on eligibility--a free market for the players. Do you think the rule doesn't go far enough?

I ask this question limiting the scope to college-athlete transfers, intentionally avoiding the "pay the players" can of worms.

Transfer rights and compensation are inextricably linked as what we are talking about are athletes' status as either employees or students.

If they're students, transfer rights cannot be limited at all. If they're employees, then transfer rights can be limited through non-compete agreements, but that would also necessarily entail just compensation.

[RPS]

Transfer rights and compensation are inextricably linked as what we are talking about are athletes' status as either employees or students.

If they're students, transfer rights cannot be limited at all. If they're employees, then transfer rights can be limited through non-compete agreements, but that would also necessarily entail just compensation.Excellent point. This approach assumes, of course, that big-time athletics will remain largely unfettered going forward. My view (even though I follow Duke sports religiously and love them) is that big-time sports are in no way consistent with a university's mission.


An honest question, asked in sincerity, to the folks arguing that players should be afforded the right to transfer without sitting a year, per the latest Free-Transfer Rule proposal: Do you still resist the new rule, as proposed, because it provides ONE free transfer for college athletes? Presumably, the line of reasoning that non-competes are immoral and unenforceable, and that the NCAA is a slumlord sweatshop manager, would suggest that you'd be supportive of unfettered transfer rights without any impact on eligibility--a free market for the players. Do you think the rule doesn't go far enough?

I ask this question limiting the scope to college-athlete transfers, intentionally avoiding the "pay the players" can of worms.I support the current proposal *and* think it doesn't go far enough. However, if we assume that big-time sports will remain part of college life at D1 schools for the foreseeable future, I am not indifferent to the goals of schools and teams to protect their investments and assets. For example, I don't think mid-season transfers make sense (as much as I would have liked to have seen us add a point guard last January). That said, if we continue with the fiction that players are truly "student athletes" (as the parent of a child who was one, this idea is a monumental joke, but anyway...), they should be able to transfer like other students.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

We have traveled a long way from "my students would like to compete against your students in Sport X. We will come over Saturday afternoon."

[swood1000]

We have traveled a long way from "my students would like to compete against your students in Sport X. We will come over Saturday afternoon."
And do athletes have a right to demand changes in every sports rule or just this one? What is the basis of this right?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

And do athletes have a right to demand changes in every sports rule or just this one? What is the basis of this right?

I assume your are replying to my earlier comments, not this one off-hand thought you quoted.

Why does it not make sense for players to have rights? Even if you discard the "players as employees" argument, which would make it quite clear why they should have rights... Don't student who are not athletes have rights? Why would you take rights from students who also happen to be talented athletes?

If you want to strip the rights of athletes, let's have them sign some sort of waiver of those rights and see how that goes over.

I just don't like the idea that of all the parties involved, the current system takes the most advantage of the people who actually have the talent. Putting a modicom of leverage in their hands does not give me palpitations.

[Hingeknocker]

And do athletes have a right to demand changes in every sports rule or just this one? What is the basis of this right?

Yes, athletes should have a right to demand changes in every sports rule. Like anything else, whether their demands are acceded to is entirely dependent on their ability to state their case with their negotiating partner. I think the basis of this right is inherent to the same labor rights that every human being should enjoy.

Just curious, do you think that Curt Flood had the right to demand the end of the reserve clause?

[RPS]

Yes, athletes should have a right to demand changes in every sports rule. Like anything else, whether their demands are acceded to is entirely dependent on their ability to state their case with their negotiating partner.Sadly, I don't think the quality of the arguments has much to do with it (see links below). In a world where the public at large generally thinks that college athletes are almost impossibly lucky, the weight of public opinion (and often judicial opinion) is almost always on the side of the schools, no matter what outrage has been committed.

'I Trusted 'Em': When NCAA Schools Abandon Their Injured Athletes (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/i-trusted-em-when-ncaa-schools-abandon-their-injured-athletes/275407/)
How The Myth Of The NCAA "Student-Athlete" Was Born (http://deadspin.com/how-the-myth-of-the-ncaa-student-athlete-was-born-1524282374)
In denying O'Bannon case, Supreme Court leaves future of amateurism in limbo (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/10/03/ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit-supreme-court)

[BigWayne]

Sadly, I don't think the quality of the arguments has much to do with it (see links below). In a world where the public at large generally thinks that college athletes are almost impossibly lucky, the weight of public opinion (and often judicial opinion) is almost always on the side of the schools, no matter what outrage has been committed.

'I Trusted 'Em': When NCAA Schools Abandon Their Injured Athletes (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/i-trusted-em-when-ncaa-schools-abandon-their-injured-athletes/275407/)
How The Myth Of The NCAA "Student-Athlete" Was Born (http://deadspin.com/how-the-myth-of-the-ncaa-student-athlete-was-born-1524282374)
In denying O'Bannon case, Supreme Court leaves future of amateurism in limbo (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/10/03/ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit-supreme-court)

It's also the classic situation of the case where the consumer is an infrequent or one time user of a service and can get preyed upon by unscrupulous industry insiders who deal with it every day. See car dealers, real estate agents, etc. (Not all of them) Fortunately, the dawn of the internet makes it easier to learn about these industries and gives the consumer more leverage to be able to deal with and/or avoid the bad actors.

[swood1000]

Yes, athletes should have a right to demand changes in every sports rule. Like anything else, whether their demands are acceded to is entirely dependent on their ability to state their case with their negotiating partner. I think the basis of this right is inherent to the same labor rights that every human being should enjoy.

Just curious, do you think that Curt Flood had the right to demand the end of the reserve clause?
I agree that everyone has a right to make any demand he wishes, and a right to refuse to participate unless his demands are met. But baseball, just like every other professional sport, recognizes that the health of the game requires that players have to play for the team that drafted them. In baseball, it’s six years. College players are not even subject to a draft. They can play for whomever they want out of high school.

When I talk about what right a player has to demand changes in the rules I think of situations involving a person’s livelihood. Curt Flood got a lot of support because he wanted the right to sell his labor to the highest bidder, but the reserve clause prevented this. However, the transfer rules in college basketball do not prevent players from earning more. And Curt Flood had no say in the matter whereas college players just have to sit out a year.

One’s perspective on this really comes down to whether and how much he thinks allowing free transfers would harm the college game and/or how much he cares about harm to the game.

[RPS]

I agree that everyone has a right to make any demand he wishes, and a right to refuse to participate unless his demands are met. But baseball, just like every other professional sport, recognizes that the health of the game requires that players have to play for the team that drafted them. In baseball, it’s six years.Yes, but it is collectively bargained, with no individual limitation on earnings.


College players are not even subject to a draft. They can play for whomever they want out of high school.College athletes can play for whomever they want...without pay.


When I talk about what right a player has to demand changes in the rules I think of situations involving a person’s livelihood. Curt Flood got a lot of support because he wanted the right to sell his labor to the highest bidder, but the reserve clause prevented this. However, the transfer rules in college basketball do not prevent players from earning more.NCAA rules prevent them from earning at all.


And Curt Flood had no say in the matter whereas college players just have to sit out a year.Without pay and at the cost of a year's eligibility.


One’s perspective on this really comes down to whether and how much he thinks allowing free transfers would harm the college game and/or how much he cares about harm to the game.One’s perspective on this really comes down to whether and how much one cares about "student-athletes."

[camion]

Yes, but it is collectively bargained, with no individual limitation on earnings.

College athletes can play for whomever they want...without pay.

NCAA rules prevent them from earning at all.

Without pay and at the cost of a year's eligibility.

One’s perspective on this really comes down to whether and how much one cares about "student-athletes."

Is it your opinion then that a college scholarship has zero value. That's how it seems from your post.

Underpaid, very possibly. Unpaid, I don't really think so.

[Hingeknocker]

Is it your opinion then that a college scholarship has zero value. That's how it seems from your post.

Underpaid, very possibly. Unpaid, I don't really think so.

The only time that the value of the scholarship was commensurate with the monetary value of the players' labor was, as an earlier poster referenced, way back when the schools just arranged to have their respective sets of students show up on a Saturday for a game. We have moved well, well beyond that point.

[RPS]

Is it your opinion then that a college scholarship has zero value. That's how it seems from your post.It does have value, but the "payment" is something many (most?) athletes (revenue sport athletes, at least) don't care much about and isn't fungible into something they do want. What they do want is to go pro and college is all but absolutely necessary to get there. Perhaps worse, the system is set up to keep players from taking full advantage of the benefit. There is a small window in which classes can be taken and athletes are routinely (at most schools, anyway) steered away from difficult courses, difficult majors and full academic loads (especially in season).


Underpaid, very possibly. Unpaid, I don't really think so.I was trying to distinguish between "pay" and "compensation." Still, if Marvin Bagley were not required to stay out of the NBA for another year, do you think there is any chance he'd be in school? Since the answer is obviously "no," it's hard to claim that he's getting meaningful payment via his scholarship beyond the tremendous basketball value of playing for Duke (which isn't supposed to be the point). And since Marvin is clearly an extreme example, ask yourself how many football and basketball players, if offered the choice, would take the actual "retail value" of the scholarship over the actual scholarship. I suspect the answer is the vast majority. If I'm right, I think it's hard to claim that players are receiving meaningful value in exchange for their labor.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

One’s perspective on this really comes down to whether and how much one cares about "student-athletes."

You and I agree on this topic, but that is pretty harsh. Let's assume all of us here care about student-athlete.

When I said earlier upthread that we've come a long way from "let's schedule a match between my students and your students," I didn't mean it as an indictment of all of the everything, but rather as a reflection.

I think the underlying question is whether you believe that it is fair to have someone help you put a new roof on your house, and pay them with a cheese sandwich, because you feel like they are getting a lot out of the experience. Which would be up to you two to determine between the independent parties... But the kicker is, this is the ONLY way this person can legally get experience roofing.

The cheese sandwich is immaterial at this point. The system is rigged.

[swood1000]

Yes, but it is collectively bargained, with no individual limitation on earnings.

College athletes can play for whomever they want...without pay.

NCAA rules prevent them from earning at all.

Without pay and at the cost of a year's eligibility.

One’s perspective on this really comes down to whether and how much one cares about "student-athletes."

The issue being discussed is restrictions on transfer, not restrictions on pay.

[RPS]

You and I agree on this topic, but that is pretty harsh.I suspect you think so because of your Duke-colored glasses. As I noted above, Duke is not normative. The links provided upthread make the point pretty well, I think. And they don't even deal with racial and socio-economic factors.


Let's assume all of us here care about student-athlete.Okay.


When I said earlier upthread that we've come a long way from "let's schedule a match between my students and your students," I didn't mean it as an indictment of all of the everything, but rather as a reflection.

I think the underlying question is whether you believe that it is fair to have someone help you put a new roof on your house, and pay them with a cheese sandwich, because you feel like they are getting a lot out of the experience. Which would be up to you two to determine between the independent parties... But the kicker is, this is the ONLY way this person can legally get experience roofing.

The cheese sandwich is immaterial at this point. The system is rigged.On this we agree.


The issue being discussed is restrictions on transfer, not restrictions on pay.Yes, but the restrictions on transfer make even less sense in the context of the athletes being unpaid.

[gep]

I don't think I read too much about this... wasn't the transfer rules put in place to "level the playing field"... competitive balance, etc? That is, not to create any "super teams" that's now occurring in the NBA. If "free transfers" are allowed, wouldn't that start to create these "super teams"? :confused: Yes... player freedom, etc, but top-heavy, non-competitive sports might become very boring...

[Indoor66]

I suspect you think so because of your Duke-colored glasses. As I noted above, Duke is not normative. The links provided upthread make the point pretty well, I think. And they don't even deal with racial and socio-economic factors.

Okay.

On this we agree.

Yes, but the restrictions on transfer make even less sense in the context of the athletes being unpaid.

Except for that little thing about tuition, room, board, books, travel, clothing, medical care and an education.

There are no restrictions on transfers; only restrictions on availability of athletic scholarship benefits.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Except for that little thing about tuition, room, board, books, travel, clothing, medical care and an education.

There are no restrictions on transfers; only restrictions on availability of athletic scholarship benefits.

That would be fine, except that you aren't giving other institutions the opportunity to give and athlete all those same things. If you are a Duke basketball player and you want to transfer, but no one wants you, well... Whoops.

If I wanted to change schools and the institution I was leaving put any restrictions on where I was going, I would be upset. If a place I used to work tried to tell me where I could and could not make a living, I would be apoplectic.

[camion]

That would be fine, except that you aren't giving other institutions the opportunity to give and athlete all those same things. If you are a Duke basketball player and you want to transfer, but no one wants you, well... Whoops.

If I wanted to change schools and the institution I was leaving put any restrictions on where I was going, I would be upset. If a place I used to work tried to tell me where I could and could not make a living, I would be apoplectic.

Really? One of the conditions for my working in R&D in the company I used to work for was a non-compete agreement stating I couldn't go to work for another company in the same field for two years. I had skills that would have been useful to a competing company.

Still we're doing an apples/oranges thing here.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Really? One of the conditions for my working in R&D in the company I used to work for was a non-compete agreement stating I couldn't go to work for another company in the same field for two years. I had skills that would have been useful to a competing company.

Still we're doing an apples/oranges thing here.

But see, that makes sense. Again, I state that if the colleges and the athletes signed some sort of mutually binding agreement, they can throw in whatever they would like to. Without it, it's just mean-spirited.

Apples and cheese sandwiches.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Except for that little thing about tuition, room, board, books, travel, clothing, medical care and an education.

There are no restrictions on transfers; only restrictions on availability of athletic scholarship benefits.


That's just a bigger cheese sandwich. Still, amounts to a percentage of a percentage of their real value. Unless you think something special and magical happens to a young man between his 18th and 19th year that makes him worth tens of millions of dollars.

[RPS]

Except for that little thing about tuition, room, board, books, travel, clothing, medical care and an education.The problems with this claim are at least several.

The amount and value of the benefit is restricted by the monopolistic entities which have an interest in keeping it low (quite the conflict of interest);
The essence of the benefit (school) is often not desired -- school is merely a necessary means to a desired end (the pros);
The benefit is not guaranteed (scholarships renew year-to-year; many schools pull them and run players off (https://www.insidenu.com/2017/3/30/15119396/johnnie-vassar-opinion-op-ed-northwestern-basketball-chris-collins-ncaa-transfer-violations) routinely); and
A particularly offensive problem is that medical care isn't even guaranteed (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/i-trusted-em-when-ncaa-schools-abandon-their-injured-athletes/275407/).

There are no restrictions on transfers; only restrictions on availability of athletic scholarship benefits.Imagine that statement in another college context, say, "Engineering students are totally free to transfer, they just can't study engineering at their new school." Now imagine that statement in a business context, say, "Businesses can enforce restrictive covenants against employees but don't have to pay those very same employees." Those sound ludicrous, no?

[Bluedog]

In all theses discussions, we're focusing 99% of the conversation on <1% of the athletes. There are far more Libby Thompsons in the world of NCAA athletics (I picked somebody randomly from the Duke women's field hockey team) than there are Marvin Bagleys. The value that an athletic scholarship supplies (ESPECIALLY at a school like Duke) is HUGE and all the parents I know would be beyond ecstatic if their child got a full-ride scholarship to participate in a sport in college. Furthermore, it often helps these students get into the school in the first place. How many football and basketball players at Duke would get in if it wasn't for their athletic prowess? And the majority of these guys STILL do leave with a Duke degree, which I personally believe they do see value in.

Now, I certainly understand the argument that a guy like Marvin Bagley is getting compensated below his "market rate." Although I would argue that the Duke brand, coaches, trainers, facilities are worth a LOT of money. Duke basketball spends >$1M per year per scholarship player....But even disregarding that argument, basically you have to ask yourself if it makes sense for men's basketball and football to subsidize the other sports. You can't have it both ways. If you want these players to get "paid" (which the NCAA recently DID start allowing payments beyond a full scholarship which I feel like didn't get much press - I realize it's only like $4k a year in addition to the full ride depending on the school..Boston College is the lowest in the country for BCS schools for some reason), then you HAVE to get rid of the other sports. Most athletic programs do not make money and instead reinvest the money from football and men's basketball into other sports. So, either universities are a minor league for men's basketball and football and nothing more from an athletic perspective, or they offer an array of sports at an "amateur" rank. There would be a small sliver of schools that could support the other sports possibly even with paying their players a lot of money, but it would be small.

Having said all that, if the NBA or NFL want to change the rules so high schoolers who have no interest in going to college in the first place (which is a lot of the top tier recruits in college) can go to the professional ranks immediately, that's another story. But there is nothing the NCAA or member institutions can do to force their hand. It's up to the NBA and NFL.

But I always find it interesting that people always say the NCAA and universities "take advantage" of their athletes, when we're really talking about a VERY small percentage of the total athletes that actually do have a market rate higher than their current compensation. Not saying we should ignore those few athletes in the revenue sports, but the "normal" athlete should probably also be a part of the conversation IMO.

[Hingeknocker]

I don't think I read too much about this... wasn't the transfer rules put in place to "level the playing field"... competitive balance, etc? That is, not to create any "super teams" that's now occurring in the NBA. If "free transfers" are allowed, wouldn't that start to create these "super teams"? :confused: Yes... player freedom, etc, but top-heavy, non-competitive sports might become very boring...

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but super teams already exist. We're all fans of one - perhaps the biggest one!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

In all theses discussions, we're focusing 99% of the conversation on <1% of the athletes. There are far more Libby Thompsons in the world of NCAA athletics (I picked somebody randomly from the Duke women's field hockey team) than there are Marvin Bagleys. The value that an athletic scholarship supplies (ESPECIALLY at a school like Duke) is HUGE and all the parents I know would be beyond ecstatic if their child got a full-ride scholarship to participate in a sport in college. Furthermore, it often helps these students get into the school in the first place. How many football and basketball players at Duke would get in if it wasn't for their athletic prowess? And the majority of these guys STILL do leave with a Duke degree, which I personally believe they do see value in.

Now, I certainly understand the argument that a guy like Marvin Bagley is getting compensated below his "market rate." Although I would argue that the Duke brand, coaches, trainers, facilities are worth a LOT of money. Duke basketball spends >$1M per year per scholarship player...But even disregarding that argument, basically you have to ask yourself if it makes sense for men's basketball and football to subsidize the other sports. You can't have it both ways. If you want these players to get "paid" (which the NCAA recently DID start allowing payments beyond a full scholarship which I feel like didn't get much press - I realize it's only like $4k a year in addition to the full ride depending on the school..Boston College is the lowest in the country for BCS schools for some reason), then you HAVE to get rid of the other sports. Most athletic programs do not make money and instead reinvest the money from football and men's basketball into other sports. So, either universities are a minor league for men's basketball and football and nothing more from an athletic perspective, or they offer an array of sports at an "amateur" rank. There would be a small sliver of schools that could support the other sports possibly even with paying their players a lot of money, but it would be small.

Having said all that, if the NBA or NFL want to change the rules so high schoolers who have no interest in going to college in the first place (which is a lot of the top tier recruits in college) can go to the professional ranks immediately, that's another story. But there is nothing the NCAA or member institutions can do to force their hand. It's up to the NBA and NFL.

But I always find it interesting that people always say the NCAA and universities "take advantage" of their athletes, when we're really talking about a VERY small percentage of the total athletes that actually do have a market rate higher than their current compensation. Not saying we should ignore those few athletes in the revenue sports, but the "normal" athlete should probably also be a part of the conversation IMO.

We are focusing on revenue sports, because it seems to me that that's the only conceivable rebuttal to this plan. Why would Duke get bent out of shape about a men's swimmer transferring to another school where he wanted to compete? It's the money that's driving ALL of this - both from the side of the school and from the side of the athlete. The athlete is trying to protect the investment in themselves and maximize their value at the next level - you know, the level where they actually get paid? The school is trying to protect their revenue-generation teams and keep as much talent as possible.

I truly can't imagine schools/coaches/institutions being bent out of shape about either non-revenue sports players changing schools. It would make as much sense as a non-D1 school getting fired up about a player transferring.

I don't mean this to belittle non-revenue sports. Quite the opposite. My point is that it's about the money, and that's it. Pretending that it's about building the character of the young people or ensuring they get a proper education is strangely paternalistic and a bit uncomfortable for me.

[RPS]

In all theses discussions, we're focusing 99% of the conversation on <1% of the athletes. There are far more Libby Thompsons in the world of NCAA athletics (I picked somebody randomly from the Duke women's field hockey team) than there are Marvin Bagleys. The value that an athletic scholarship supplies (ESPECIALLY at a school like Duke) is HUGE and all the parents I know would be beyond ecstatic if their child got a full-ride scholarship to participate in a sport in college. Furthermore, it often helps these students get into the school in the first place. How many football and basketball players at Duke would get in if it wasn't for their athletic prowess? And the majority of these guys STILL do leave with a Duke degree, which I personally believe they do see value in.Again, Duke is not normative.


Now, I certainly understand the argument that a guy like Marvin Bagley is getting compensated below his "market rate." Although I would argue that the Duke brand, coaches, trainers, facilities are worth a LOT of money. Duke basketball spends >$1M per year per scholarship player...If the emphasis is the value of Duke basketball rather than the value of Duke academics, the academics are irrelevant and unnecessary.


But even disregarding that argument, basically you have to ask yourself if it makes sense for men's basketball and football to subsidize the other sports.I agree. The current system requires that athletes with market value provide the means (a) for athletes without market value to play college sports; and (b) for colleges to fund their primary marketing endeavors to customers (alumni, fans and students) and prospects (prospective students and their parents). Item (a) provides cover for the fiction that college sports are an intrinsic part of a university's mission while item (b) is what really matters.


You can't have it both ways. If you want these players to get "paid" (which the NCAA recently DID start allowing payments beyond a full scholarship which I feel like didn't get much press - I realize it's only like $4k a year in addition to the full ride depending on the school..Boston College is the lowest in the country for BCS schools for some reason), then you HAVE to get rid of the other sports. Most athletic programs do not make money and instead reinvest the money from football and men's basketball into other sports.If college sports have intrinsic value (and that's the fiction that's sold about these "student-athletes"), schools should be willing to pay for them just like they pay for chemistry departments. Despite pressures for various departments to get funding of various sorts via grants, entrepreneurship and partnerships, there is no real movement to require that the chemistry department "pay for itself" because the academic study of chemistry is obviously a core part of a university's mission. Football? Not so much.


So, either universities are a minor league for men's basketball and football and nothing more from an athletic perspective, or they offer an array of sports at an "amateur" rank. There would be a small sliver of schools that could support the other sports possibly even with paying their players a lot of money, but it would be small.Or, schools would be required to pay for college sports only and to the extent those sports were consistent with the school's mission and thus "worthy" of support.


Having said all that, if the NBA or NFL want to change the rules so high schoolers who have no interest in going to college in the first place (which is a lot of the top tier recruits in college) can go to the professional ranks immediately, that's another story. But there is nothing the NCAA or member institutions can do to force their hand. It's up to the NBA and NFL.Why would the NFL and the NBA pay for that when they get it now for free?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

In all theses discussions, we're focusing 99% of the conversation on <1% of the athletes. There are far more Libby Thompsons in the world of NCAA athletics (I picked somebody randomly from the Duke women's field hockey team) than there are Marvin Bagleys. The value that an athletic scholarship supplies (ESPECIALLY at a school like Duke) is HUGE and all the parents I know would be beyond ecstatic if their child got a full-ride scholarship to participate in a sport in college. Furthermore, it often helps these students get into the school in the first place. How many football and basketball players at Duke would get in if it wasn't for their athletic prowess? And the majority of these guys STILL do leave with a Duke degree, which I personally believe they do see value in.

Now, I certainly understand the argument that a guy like Marvin Bagley is getting compensated below his "market rate." Although I would argue that the Duke brand, coaches, trainers, facilities are worth a LOT of money. Duke basketball spends >$1M per year per scholarship player...But even disregarding that argument, basically you have to ask yourself if it makes sense for men's basketball and football to subsidize the other sports. You can't have it both ways. If you want these players to get "paid" (which the NCAA recently DID start allowing payments beyond a full scholarship which I feel like didn't get much press - I realize it's only like $4k a year in addition to the full ride depending on the school..Boston College is the lowest in the country for BCS schools for some reason), then you HAVE to get rid of the other sports. Most athletic programs do not make money and instead reinvest the money from football and men's basketball into other sports. So, either universities are a minor league for men's basketball and football and nothing more from an athletic perspective, or they offer an array of sports at an "amateur" rank. There would be a small sliver of schools that could support the other sports possibly even with paying their players a lot of money, but it would be small.

Having said all that, if the NBA or NFL want to change the rules so high schoolers who have no interest in going to college in the first place (which is a lot of the top tier recruits in college) can go to the professional ranks immediately, that's another story. But there is nothing the NCAA or member institutions can do to force their hand. It's up to the NBA and NFL.

But I always find it interesting that people always say the NCAA and universities "take advantage" of their athletes, when we're really talking about a VERY small percentage of the total athletes that actually do have a market rate higher than their current compensation. Not saying we should ignore those few athletes in the revenue sports, but the "normal" athlete should probably also be a part of the conversation IMO.

I suspect that has been the case for a few decades now. We only look past it when we find ways to disenfranchise the athletes.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I suspect you think so because of your Duke-colored glasses. As I noted above, Duke is not normative. The links provided upthread make the point pretty well, I think. And they don't even deal with racial and socio-economic factors.


You and I are very much on the same side of this debate. However, I'm not looking at anything through "Duke-colored glasses," I'm just very hesitant to tell anyone else what they do or do not care about or consider. I agree 100% that almost everything surrounding revenue sports, the NCAA, the NBA, the NFL, and all these other institutions don't give a single rip about any right for college athletes - largely because they have been completely disenfranchised. None of those institutions want to walk that back even an inch and offer them consideration.

[RPS]

We are focusing on revenue sports, because it seems to me that that's the only conceivable rebuttal to this plan. Why would Duke get bent out of shape about a men's swimmer transferring to another school where he wanted to compete? It's the money that's driving ALL of this - both from the side of the school and from the side of the athlete. The athlete is trying to protect the investment in themselves and maximize their value at the next level - you know, the level where they actually get paid? The school is trying to protect their revenue-generation teams and keep as much talent as possible.

I truly can't imagine schools/coaches/institutions being bent out of shape about either non-revenue sports players changing schools. It would make as much sense as a non-D1 school getting fired up about a player transferring.

I don't mean this to belittle non-revenue sports. Quite the opposite. My point is that it's about the money, and that's it. Pretending that it's about building the character of the young people or ensuring they get a proper education is strangely paternalistic and a bit uncomfortable for me.Exactly. Which explains why the current rules allow a "free transfer (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017-18_Transfer_Guide_4_Year_20170721.pdf)" for athletes to play immediately at their new schools except in football, baseball, basketball and men’s ice hockey. The fiction (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017-18_Transfer_Guide_4_Year_20170721.pdf) is that the required "academic year in residence" is "designed to allow you to become comfortable in your new environment." But nobody believes it (or it would be required of all transfers). It's about protecting economic interests.

[RPS]

You and I are very much on the same side of this debate. However, I'm not looking at anything through "Duke-colored glasses," I'm just very hesitant to tell anyone else what they do or do not care about or consider. I agree 100% that almost everything surrounding revenue sports, the NCAA, the NBA, the NFL, and all these other institutions don't give a single rip about any right for college athletes - largely because they have been completely disenfranchised. None of those institutions want to walk that back even an inch and offer them consideration.Fair enough. I readily admit that this is a very personal issue for me.

[swood1000]

Yes, but the restrictions on transfer make even less sense in the context of the athletes being unpaid.
No, if the athletes are unpaid then restrictions on transfer do not interfere with the athlete's income or on his standard of living. So when you're balancing the interests of college basketball against the interests of the athlete there is less on the side of the athlete's interests at stake.


One’s perspective on this really comes down to whether and how much one cares about "student-athletes."
If you thought that the changes you are arguing for would result in college basketball having the popularity of minor league baseball how would that affect your calculations?

[BigWayne]

We are focusing on revenue sports, because it seems to me that that's the only conceivable rebuttal to this plan. Why would Duke get bent out of shape about a men's swimmer transferring to another school where he wanted to compete?

The transfer rule of sitting a year only applies to football, men's and womens basketball, baseball, and men's ice hockey. Other sports are not restricted. The NCAA, by the rule, has made it only about revenue sports.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The transfer rule of sitting a year only applies to football, men's and womens basketball, baseball, and men's ice hockey. Other sports are not restricted. The NCAA, by the rule, has made it only about revenue sports.

Even more to my point then. THAT is why we are discussing revenue sports.


No, if the athletes are unpaid then restrictions on transfer do not interfere with the athlete's income or on his standard of living. So when you're balancing the interests of college basketball against the interests of the athlete there is less on the side of the athlete's interests at stake.


If you thought that the changes you are arguing for would result in college basketball having the popularity of minor league baseball how would that affect your calculations?

Absolutely not. Are you suggesting that the popularity of a college team sport supersedes the rights of the athletes? Because I disagree with that wholly as well.

If you want to make college sports more interesting and popular, there are plenty of other places you could start. How about shorter college football games? Just take out some commercial breaks, and peel back about an hour of the airtime. Want to make college basketball more popular? Have NCAA violations follow coaches around as well as programs. Have the NCAA dole out REAL penalties to schools that cheat the system. Makes college conferences smaller again, with round robin schedules of home and home where real rivalries develop.

To look at THIS particular issue - one that actually offers a small amount of leverage to the players - as the "nope, we've gone too far" point feels wildly disingenuous.

[swood1000]

Exactly. Which explains why the current rules allow a "free transfer (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017-18_Transfer_Guide_4_Year_20170721.pdf)" for athletes to play immediately at their new schools except in football, baseball, basketball and men’s ice hockey. The fiction (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017-18_Transfer_Guide_4_Year_20170721.pdf) is that the required "academic year in residence" is "designed to allow you to become comfortable in your new environment." But nobody believes it (or it would be required of all transfers). It's about protecting economic interests.
In the lower profile sports there are not as many destabilizing forces constantly acting upon the teams. In college basketball there is so much money at stake that without restrictions on it the raiding parties would never end and these athletes would be under constant barrage by slick-tongued emissaries from other teams trying to earn a bonus by recruiting them, resulting in a serious loss of team stability and cohesion.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

In the lower profile sports there are not as many destabilizing forces constantly acting upon the teams. In college basketball there is so much money at stake that without restrictions on it the raiding parties would never end and these athletes would be under constant barrage by slick-tongued emissaries from other teams trying to earn a bonus by recruiting them, resulting in a serious loss of team stability and cohesion.

How would you rate the "stability and cohesion" of Duke's basketball team of late?

[sagegrouse]

The problems with this claim are at least several.

The amount and value of the benefit is restricted by the monopolistic entities which have an interest in keeping it low (quite the conflict of interest);
The essence of the benefit (school) is often not desired -- school is merely a necessary means to a desired end (the pros);
The benefit is not guaranteed (scholarships renew year-to-year; many schools pull them and run players off (https://www.insidenu.com/2017/3/30/15119396/johnnie-vassar-opinion-op-ed-northwestern-basketball-chris-collins-ncaa-transfer-violations) routinely); and
A particularly offensive problem is that medical care isn't even guaranteed (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/i-trusted-em-when-ncaa-schools-abandon-their-injured-athletes/275407/).
Imagine that statement in another college context, say, "Engineering students are totally free to transfer, they just can't study engineering at their new school." Now imagine that statement in a business context, say, "Businesses can enforce restrictive covenants against employees but don't have to pay those very same employees." Those sound ludicrous, no?

Holy. moly, RPS! Your post is making my head hurt!

You are trying to establish a broad principle by arguing from a few extreme examples.

For how many 18 YO athletes is a full ride at a premier school not a "market-clearing wage?" A few basketball players? (And they can go pro after their freshman year.) A very, very few football players, who are too physically immature for the NFL at 18. No baseball players -- after all, they could have gone in the baseball draft as HS seniors. No one in the Olympic sports. In the Division 1 universe of 130 or so football schools, the total number of scholarship athletes is 40,000 to 60,000. Aren't we talking about one-tenth of one percent who are possibly getting a bad deal?

And in terms of "non-renewals," don't engineering students who don't "make the grade" get asked to leave?

There is a certain coloration in the NCAA rules that don't apply to ordinary students. The NCAA is trying to compete a balanced and competitive set of teams in its sports, esp. the revenue sports. A part of its balance, it has tried to stomp out teams' poaching players from other schools. In the Wild, Wild West of college football in the 1920's, players would often change schools DURING the season. After games, players from one team would try to get the best players from the other team to come to their school.

The one-year sit-out rule was meant to discourage poaching. Now, if it is being waived, I expect there to be non-tampering language in the NCAA rules and regs.

[swood1000]

Absolutely not. Are you suggesting that the popularity of a college team sport supersedes the rights of the athletes? Because I disagree with that wholly as well.

If you thought that the changes you are arguing for would result in college basketball having the popularity of minor league baseball how would that affect your calculations?


If you want to make college sports more interesting and popular, there are plenty of other places you could start. How about shorter college football games? Just take out some commercial breaks, and peel back about an hour of the airtime. Want to make college basketball more popular? Have NCAA violations follow coaches around as well as programs. Have the NCAA dole out REAL penalties to schools that cheat the system. Makes college conferences smaller again, with round robin schedules of home and home where real rivalries develop.

The NCAA tried some steps along these lines when they tried to limit how many games could be televised. The Supreme Court called it an antitrust violation.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

[QUOTE=swood1000;1000165]If you thought that the changes you are arguing for would result in college basketball having the popularity of minor league baseball how would that affect your calculations?

You somehow missed that my post you quoted was in reply to that exact question.

I love college basketball. I think it is in very poor health, compared to the days when I became a fan. I do NOT believe that the solution to "fixing" it is to continue to deny the players any agency.

[swood1000]

How would you rate the "stability and cohesion" of Duke's basketball team of late?

Duke's stability and cohesion problems have been caused by policies that allow athletes to leave the team after one year instead of having to stay for four years, as well as by the decision to recruit athletes more likely to leave after one year. You're arguing that we should apply that same policy not just to the cream of the crop but to every player. How could that do anything but drastically reduce stability?

[swood1000]

If you thought that the changes you are arguing for would result in college basketball having the popularity of minor league baseball how would that affect your calculations?

You somehow missed that my post you quoted was in reply to that exact question.

I love college basketball. I think it is in very poor health, compared to the days when I became a fan. I do NOT believe that the solution to "fixing" it is to continue to deny the players any agency.

But this doesn't answer my question. You're saying that the changes would not have that result. But if you thought they would have that result how would it affect your calculations, if at all?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

But this doesn't answer my question. You're saying that the changes would not have that result. But if you thought they would have that result how would it affect your calculations, if at all?

I am sorry, I thought I was being very clear. No, it doesn't in any way change it for me. It is of lesser importance to me than the rights of the players and it seems like an arbitrary solution to a systemic problem.

[swood1000]

I am sorry, I thought I was being very clear. No, it doesn't in any way change it for me. It is of lesser importance to me than the rights of the players and it seems like an arbitrary solution to a systemic problem.

How is the right to transfer at will a fundamental “right of the players” when all team revenue sports restrict that right at the beginning the player’s career? (In antitrust law they even have a term, “procompetitive,” which describes restrictions on competition such as drafts, without which it is believed that the enterprise cannot function successfully.)

The result would actually be worse than minor league baseball, since at least those teams don’t have a problem with the coach being reluctant to assert his authority for fear that a few bad-apple players could start an uprising that will leave him without a team at all next season.

[swood1000]

I am sorry, I thought I was being very clear. No, it doesn't in any way change it for me. It is of lesser importance to me than the rights of the players and it seems like an arbitrary solution to a systemic problem.
But look, if college basketball became like minor league baseball then how would that be in the best interests of the players? There would be no TV. There would be no march madness. There would be no media attention.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

But look, if college basketball became like minor league baseball then how would that be in the best interests of the players? There would be no TV. There would be no march madness. There would be no media attention.

Okay, I am not answering your question again. Find the sacrifices elsewhere. I don't know how else to explain without veering into PBB, so I will leave this back and forth with "agree to disagree."

I do appreciate your thoughts and your input, swood. I respect your posts. Just don't agree with you here.

[RPS]

No, if the athletes are unpaid then restrictions on transfer do not interfere with the athlete's income or on his standard of living. So when you're balancing the interests of college basketball against the interests of the athlete there is less on the side of the athlete's interests at stake.Since it is the NCAA that is prohibiting athletes from being paid, I don’t see this as a serious response. Because players are already exploited by not being allowed to be paid, the further exploitation of prohibiting them from transferring doesn’t really matter?


If you thought that the changes you are arguing for would result in college basketball having the popularity of minor league baseball how would that affect your calculations?It wouldn’t.


In the lower profile sports there are not as many destabilizing forces constantly acting upon the teams. In college basketball there is so much money at stake that without restrictions on it the raiding parties would never end and these athletes would be under constant barrage by slick-tongued emissaries from other teams trying to earn a bonus by recruiting them, resulting in a serious loss of team stability and cohesion.The “slick-tongued emissaries” that concern me most are those who pretend that big-time sports are about education and the “student-athlete.”


Holy. moly, RPS! Your post is making my head hurt!My wife says that too.


You are trying to establish a broad principle by arguing from a few extreme examples.I wish they were extreme examples.


For how many 18 YO athletes is a full ride at a premier school not a "market-clearing wage?" There isn’t any data upon which to make such a determination. But we do know a few things. We know that ESPN is paying $7.3 billion to broadcast the College Football Playoff series for 12 years. We know that Nick Saban earns far more than any coach in the best football league in the world even though Saban failed in that league. We know that three assistant coaches at the University of Michigan are making over $1 million per year. We know that there are 24 schools that now earn at least $100 million annually from their sports teams (and each of these athletic departments are all tax-exempt because they remain under the umbrella of nonprofit universities and colleges). And we know that NCAA schools profit handsomely from what is perhaps the most lopsided labor relationship in America.


And in terms of "non-renewals," don't engineering students who don't "make the grade" get asked to leave? Those engineering students aren’t prohibited from transferring freely. Their failing to “make the grade” is never because they became sick or injured. It is never because the school has hired a new Dean. And it’s never because the engineering student turned out to be a B- student instead of an A student.


There is a certain coloration in the NCAA rules that don't apply to ordinary students. The NCAA is trying to compete a balanced and competitive set of teams in its sports, esp. the revenue sports. A part of its balance, it has tried to stomp out teams' poaching players from other schools. In the Wild, Wild West of college football in the 1920's, players would often change schools DURING the season. After games, players from one team would try to get the best players from the other team to come to their school. That’s why I have no objection to prohibiting transfers during the season.


The one-year sit-out rule was meant to discourage poaching. Now, if it is being waived, I expect there to be non-tampering language in the NCAA rules and regs.I have no problem with that.

[cato]

No, if the athletes are unpaid then restrictions on transfer do not interfere with the athlete's income or on his standard of living. So when you're balancing the interests of college basketball against the interests of the athlete there is less on the side of the athlete's interests at stake.

This is one of the stranger contortions I have seen someone take.

[swood1000]

No, if the athletes are unpaid then restrictions on transfer do not interfere with the athlete's income or on his standard of living. So when you're balancing the interests of college basketball against the interests of the athlete there is less on the side of the athlete's interests at stake.

This is one of the stranger contortions I have seen someone take.

My point is that athletes would have a stronger argument that restrictions on transfer should be dropped if they were being paid, but they are not being paid and none of the options on the table that the NCAA is considering involve salary for players. We are discussing the options on the table.

[swood1000]

If you thought that the changes you are arguing for would result in college basketball having the popularity of minor league baseball how would that affect your calculations?


It wouldn’t.

If college basketball became like minor league baseball there would be no TV. There would be no March Madness. There would be no media attention. The earning potential of players in college (your ultimate goal) would be dramatically reduced. How would that be in the best interest of the players?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If college basketball became like minor league baseball there would be no TV. There would be no March Madness. There would be no media attention. The earning potential of players in college (your ultimate goal) would be dramatically reduced. How would that be in the best interest of the players?

I know your argument states several times "if..." but you have to admit that suggesting this rule would lead to the "minor league baseballification" of the NCAA Tournament is "If A, then B, then Q..." Quite a leap.

[Turk]

If college basketball became like minor league baseball there would be no TV. There would be no March Madness. There would be no media attention. The earning potential of players in college (your ultimate goal) would be dramatically reduced. How would that be in the best interest of the players?

That's a false hypothetical. In fact, the exact opposite is happening: college baseball is slowly becoming more like college basketball, with more and more TV exposure during the NCAA baseball tournament. Just like in hoops, the baseball tournament is now including one-bid cannon-fodder Rust Belt / Snow Belt baseball "powerhouses" such as Marist, Yale, Delaware, Xavier, St. John's, etc. For all I know, ESPN might even be grooming a "Joey Basepaths" to start doing bracket projections. http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/baseball/d1/2017

Meanwhile, the high school players who are top draft picks can choose to sign a big-bonus contract with an MLB team and get paid right away, or if they are truly "scholar athletes", they can go to college and try for the pros later. Seems like that's in the best interest of the players to me. So my question is, why can't college basketball become more like college baseball?

[Turk]

I don't think I read too much about this... wasn't the transfer rules put in place to "level the playing field"... competitive balance, etc? That is, not to create any "super teams" that's now occurring in the NBA. If "free transfers" are allowed, wouldn't that start to create these "super teams"? :confused: Yes... player freedom, etc, but top-heavy, non-competitive sports might become very boring...

The NCAA uses that fig leave for every rule they create, including the one prohibiting cream cheese on bagels. Every single rule benefits the coaches and administrators at the expense of the players. Meanwhile, none of these rules have any impact, since college football and college basketball have gotten increasingly top-heavy and non-competitive over the years. Every big-time college football program lards its schedule with cupcake wins, and even the D1 playoffs were mostly blowout games.

[swood1000]

I know your argument states several times "if..." but you have to admit that suggesting this rule would lead to the "minor league baseballification" of the NCAA Tournament is "If A, then B, then Q..." Quite a leap.
Absolutely true, and I agree with you that such an outcome is fanciful. But one side of this question concerns potential harm to college basketball. I just started with the worst case scenario: a destruction of college basketball and with it all of its attributes that players currently find valuable. I'm not trying to provoke you but I think it's nonsensical to say that a liberalized transfer rule would be worth that cost.

On the other hand if we assume negligible cost then I don’t know who could oppose unfettered transfers. I was just trying to establish, however, that cost cannot be ignored and that we need to balance the interests of the game against the interests of the players. I would then go on to say that I question how substantial is the interest of the players in being free to transfer at will, given that professional team athletes starting out don’t even have that right and their livelihood is at stake whereas for college players no money is at stake, and given that unlike professional athletes they were able to freely choose their teams, and can freely switch teams just by sitting out a year. It seems that many of the arguments being made on behalf of the rights of the athletes to transfer freely are really disguised arguments in favor of allowing them to be paid, but that is not being considered.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Absolutely true, and I agree with you that such an outcome is fanciful. But one side of this question concerns potential harm to college basketball. I just started with the worst case scenario: a destruction of college basketball and with it all of its attributes that players currently find valuable. I'm not trying to provoke you but I think it's nonsensical to say that a liberalized transfer rule would be worth that cost.

On the other hand if we assume negligible cost then I don’t know who could oppose unfettered transfers. I was just trying to establish, however, that cost cannot be ignored and that we need to balance the interests of the game against the interests of the players. I would then go on to say that I question how substantial is the interest of the players in being free to transfer at will, given that professional team athletes starting out don’t even have that right and their livelihood is at stake whereas for college players no money is at stake, and given that unlike professional athletes they were able to freely choose their teams, and can freely switch teams just by sitting out a year. It seems that many of the arguments being made on behalf of the rights of the athletes to transfer freely are really disguised arguments in favor of allowing them to be paid, but that is not being considered.

And I see it the other way around... that "these guys don't even get paid, how can we deny them a little leverage and dignity?"

I don't see it being of any use to look at the worst case scenario as a way to evaluate a decision. One would never leave the house.

[swood1000]

That's a false hypothetical. In fact, the exact opposite is happening: college baseball is slowly becoming more like college basketball, with more and more TV exposure during the NCAA baseball tournament. Just like in hoops, the baseball tournament is now including one-bid cannon-fodder Rust Belt / Snow Belt baseball "powerhouses" such as Marist, Yale, Delaware, Xavier, St. John's, etc. For all I know, ESPN might even be grooming a "Joey Basepaths" to start doing bracket projections. http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/baseball/d1/2017

The comparison was to minor league baseball, not college baseball.


Meanwhile, the high school players who are top draft picks can choose to sign a big-bonus contract with an MLB team and get paid right away, or if they are truly "scholar athletes", they can go to college and try for the pros later. Seems like that's in the best interest of the players to me. So my question is, why can't college basketball become more like college baseball?

As I said in a previous post, a major factor seems to be the amount of money that the sport generates. College baseball currently generates very little revenue compared to basketball, so there is much less incentive to cause disruption and conflict by trying to get players to transfer to your school.

[swood1000]

And I see it the other way around... that "these guys don't even get paid, how can we deny them a little leverage and dignity?"

A little leverage and dignity are valuable. But what are the changes they would bring to the game and are they worth that? If they involved the livelihood of the players then it seems to me that would justify greater costs to the game.


I don't see it being of any use to look at the worst case scenario as a way to evaluate a decision. One would never leave the house.

It has the advantage of establishing that there is a theoretical point at which we can agree that the cost to the game is excessive. If we can’t even agree on that (and RPS appears to disagree with that) then I’m not sure that it makes sense to even continue the discussion. If we can agree on that then it makes sense to examine what the likely cost to the game would be and what we could/should bear.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

A little leverage and dignity are valuable. But what are the changes they would bring to the game and are they worth that? If they involved the livelihood of the players then it seems to me that would justify greater costs to the game.



It has the advantage of establishing that there is a theoretical point at which we can agree that the cost to the game is excessive. If we can’t even agree on that (and RPS appears to disagree with that) then I’m not sure that it makes sense to even continue the discussion. If we can agree on that then it makes sense to examine what the likely cost to the game would be and what we could/should bear.

I disagree with it too. If granting rights and dignity to the players results in non-televised tournaments, the oh well, at least those people have rights. That is more important to me than my entertainment.

And I still don't think it is a reasonable way to formulate an argument. You can say "if you go to the grocery store, you might get hit by a car and die, so let's agree that going to the store could be a mistake.". Should we never recruit #1 players like Giles because they might he a bust?

Giving players the ability to transfer once without penalty could have a negative impact on aspects of the game, or my enjoyment therein. But, to argue that it might derail the system is a strange place to start a conversation.

[RPS]

The NCAA uses that fig leave for every rule they create, including the one prohibiting cream cheese on bagels.As an aside (as I'm sure you're aware but readers may not be), the NCAA actually does have a rule on that. There used to be limitations on training table meals provided while snacks were allowed. Thus, after a 6:30am daily weightlifting session (back when my son played), what was permitted as a "snack" was very carefully outlined. I think it was bagels okay, peanut butter okay but cream cheese and jelly prohibited as not sufficiently snack-like. That prohibition was subsequently overturned (https://www.thedailygopher.com/2014/4/15/5618902/ncaa-approves-unlimited-free-meals-bagels-with-cream-cheese-all-day) due to adverse publicity. A (very) small win for the athletes.

[uh_no]

I'd rather see us go the other way....if coach wants to leave his school before his contract is up HE has to sit out a year. .....i mean if we want to teach the young guys about commitments and responsibility, isn't that the way to do it?

[sagegrouse]

I wish they were extreme examples.


There isn’t any data upon which to make such a determination. But we do know a few things. We know that ESPN is paying $7.3 billion to broadcast the College Football Playoff series for 12 years. We know that Nick Saban earns far more than any coach in the best football league in the world even though Saban failed in that league. We know that three assistant coaches at the University of Michigan are making over $1 million per year. We know that there are 24 schools that now earn at least $100 million annually from their sports teams (and each of these athletic departments are all tax-exempt because they remain under the umbrella of nonprofit universities and colleges). And we know that NCAA schools profit handsomely from what is perhaps the most lopsided labor relationship in America.
Your point is that colleges should be able to bid freely against each other for players? Why should they? Every pro league I know has salary caps or even sterner measures that restrict competition for players. The colleges, acting as a whole, have agreed to a set of rules governing players and competition, which are legal under our laws. Presumably, you think some or all of the players should be paid more.


Those engineering students aren’t prohibited from transferring freely. Their failing to “make the grade” is never because they became sick or injured. It is never because the school has hired a new Dean. And it’s never because the engineering student turned out to be a B- student instead of an A student. I'll bet that engineering students with scholarships who do poorly academically won't get a scholarship at another school.

We seem to be talking past each other on the business of giving star athletes a better deal, but these are issues with many possible points of view.

Sage

[rasputin]

As an aside (as I'm sure you're aware but readers may not be), the NCAA actually does have a rule on that. There used to be limitations on training table meals provided while snacks were allowed. Thus, after a 6:30am daily weightlifting session (back when my son played), what was permitted as a "snack" was very carefully outlined. I think it was bagels okay, peanut butter okay but cream cheese and jelly prohibited as not sufficiently snack-like. That prohibition was subsequently overturned (https://www.thedailygopher.com/2014/4/15/5618902/ncaa-approves-unlimited-free-meals-bagels-with-cream-cheese-all-day) due to adverse publicity. A (very) small win for the athletes.

Lisa: So even if a man takes bread to feed his starving family, that would be stealing?
Reverend Lovejoy: No. Well, it is if he puts anything on it. Jelly, for example.

[RPS]

Your point is that colleges should be able to bid freely against each other for players? Why should they? Every pro league I know has salary caps or even sterner measures that restrict competition for players. The colleges, acting as a whole, have agreed to a set of rules governing players and competition, which are legal under our laws.Salary caps are legal because they are collectively bargained. The NCAA will never go there (as the Northwestern case (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/sports/ncaafootball/nlrb-says-northwestern-football-players-cannot-unionize.html?mcubz=1&_r=0) shows).


Presumably, you think some or all of the players should be paid more.I do. But my primary point is that colleges don't belong in the big-time sports business. Currently, the "power" conference schools largely let their sports programs act as stand-alone entities, neither taking money from the schools nor directly contributing to the schools' academic mission. That makes no sense to me.


I'll bet that engineering students with scholarships who do poorly academically won't get a scholarship at another school.Perhaps (although a student transferring from Cal Tech to Fresno State might). Still, those engineering students would be free to pursue and, if offered, accept such scholarships.


We seem to be talking past each other on the business of giving star athletes a better deal, but these are issues with many possible points of view.I agree. Still, I am convinced that those who want to keep things as they are do so not on the true merits, but rather on the basis of how much they love college sports.


Lisa: So even if a man takes bread to feed his starving family, that would be stealing?
Reverend Lovejoy: No. Well, it is if he puts anything on it. Jelly, for example.Exactly.

[swood1000]

I disagree with it too. If granting rights and dignity to the players results in non-televised tournaments, the oh well, at least those people have rights. That is more important to me than my entertainment.

I look at it this way. If you took a poll of college basketball players today and asked them whether, in exchange for the right to transfer freely, they would be willing to give up ever being on TV while in college, give up all the media and fan attention, and give up March Madness as a major national event, how many would say yes, it would be worth it? I am convinced that next to nobody would agree to that.

But these changes would not happen overnight. It would take years. So players right away would get their cake and eat it too. They would get transfer rights along with the current popularity of the sport. The victims would be players ten or twenty years from now. They’re the ones who would be stuck with the consequences. And they would say “Why did you let this happen? What a poor steward you were of this resource to let this happen to it.” You would say “I foresaw this but the players twenty years ago wanted transfer rights so I let them do it. It’s too bad you are the ones who have to suffer.”


And I still don't think it is a reasonable way to formulate an argument. You can say "if you go to the grocery store, you might get hit by a car and die, so let's agree that going to the store could be a mistake.". Should we never recruit #1 players like Giles because they might he a bust?

Giving players the ability to transfer once without penalty could have a negative impact on aspects of the game, or my enjoyment therein. But, to argue that it might derail the system is a strange place to start a conversation.

It’s the same thing as asking if there is any consequence to college basketball that you think would not be worth it in exchange for unrestricted transfer rights, and your answer is ‘No.’

[jv001]

I look at it this way. If you took a poll of college basketball players today and asked them whether, in exchange for the right to transfer freely, they would be willing to give up ever being on TV while in college, give up all the media and fan attention, and give up March Madness as a major national event, how many would say yes, it would be worth it? I am convinced that next to nobody would agree to that.

But these changes would not happen overnight. It would take years. So players right away would get their cake and eat it too. They would get transfer rights along with the current popularity of the sport. The victims would be players ten or twenty years from now. They’re the ones who would be stuck with the consequences. And they would say “Why did you let this happen? What a poor steward you were of this resource to let this happen to it.” You would say “I foresaw this but the players twenty years ago wanted transfer rights so I let them do it. It’s too bad you are the ones who have to suffer.”



It’s the same thing as asking if there is any consequence to college basketball that you think would not be worth it in exchange for unrestricted transfer rights, and your answer is ‘No.’

Ah, Unabomber language, :cool: GoDuke!

[RPS]

I look at it this way. If you took a poll of college basketball players today and asked them whether, in exchange for the right to transfer freely, they would be willing to give up ever being on TV while in college, give up all the media and fan attention, and give up March Madness as a major national event, how many would say yes, it would be worth it? I am convinced that next to nobody would agree to that.

But these changes would not happen overnight. It would take years. So players right away would get their cake and eat it too. They would get transfer rights along with the current popularity of the sport. The victims would be players ten or twenty years from now. They’re the ones who would be stuck with the consequences. And they would say “Why did you let this happen? What a poor steward you were of this resource to let this happen to it.” You would say “I foresaw this but the players twenty years ago wanted transfer rights so I let them do it. It’s too bad you are the ones who have to suffer.”You think college basketball as we know it is doomed to irrelevance if transfer restrictions are loosened? If so, on what evidence?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I look at it this way. If you took a poll of college basketball players today and asked them whether, in exchange for the right to transfer freely, they would be willing to give up ever being on TV while in college, give up all the media and fan attention, and give up March Madness as a major national event, how many would say yes, it would be worth it? I am convinced that next to nobody would agree to that.

But these changes would not happen overnight. It would take years. So players right away would get their cake and eat it too. They would get transfer rights along with the current popularity of the sport. The victims would be players ten or twenty years from now. They’re the ones who would be stuck with the consequences. And they would say “Why did you let this happen? What a poor steward you were of this resource to let this happen to it.” You would say “I foresaw this but the players twenty years ago wanted transfer rights so I let them do it. It’s too bad you are the ones who have to suffer.”



It’s the same thing as asking if there is any consequence to college basketball that you think would not be worth it in exchange for unrestricted transfer rights, and your answer is ‘No.’

Ahhhh, so you are protecting players from themselves. Which is paternalistic.

[RPS]

Ahhhh, so you are protecting players from themselves. Which is paternalistic.Makes sense. Paternalism is essentially the raison d'être of the NCAA.

[swood1000]

You think college basketball as we know it is doomed to irrelevance if transfer restrictions are loosened? If so, on what evidence?
No, the question was whether, if you thought that transfer changes would have this result, you would go ahead anyway.

[swood1000]

Ahhhh, so you are protecting players from themselves. Which is paternalistic.

No, I'm protecting future players from current players. And anyway, we're talking about a bunch of kids barely out of adolescence and at an age known to be shortsighted. What's wrong with a little paternalism?
.

[cato]

No, I'm protecting future players from current players. And anyway, we're talking about a bunch of kids barely out of adolescence and at an age known to be shortsighted. What's wrong with a little paternalism?
.

Why have transfer restrictions in only the sports that make money for schools?

[swood1000]

Why have transfer restrictions in only the sports that make money for schools?
In the lower profile sports there are not as many destabilizing forces constantly acting upon the teams. In college basketball there is so much money at stake that without restrictions on it the raiding parties would never end and these athletes would be under constant barrage by slick-tongued emissaries from other teams trying to earn a bonus by recruiting them, resulting in a serious loss of team stability and cohesion.

Edit: there are no raids on the volleyball team because there's no money in it for anybody, and because university prestige, in the eyes of the students, is not influenced by the results of the volleyball league.

[swood1000]

Ah, Unabomber language, :cool: GoDuke!
I staunchly deny being the Unabomber.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No, I'm protecting future players from current players. And anyway, we're talking about a bunch of kids barely out of adolescence and at an age known to be shortsighted. What's wrong with a little paternalism?
.

Because they are adults?

[sagegrouse]

Salary caps are legal because they are collectively bargained. The NCAA will never go there (as the Northwestern case (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/sports/ncaafootball/nlrb-says-northwestern-football-players-cannot-unionize.html?mcubz=1&_r=0) shows).

I do. But my primary point is that colleges don't belong in the big-time sports business. Currently, the "power" conference schools largely let their sports programs act as stand-alone entities, neither taking money from the schools nor directly contributing to the schools' academic mission. That makes no sense to me.

Perhaps (although a student transferring from Cal Tech to Fresno State might). Still, those engineering students would be free to pursue and, if offered, accept such scholarships.

I agree. Still, I am convinced that those who want to keep things as they are do so not on the true merits, but rather on the basis of how much they love college sports.

Exactly.In the United States, sports are built around colleges and universities. That's the way it developed. It didn't happen elsewhere, where athletic clubs partially filled the gap.

IMHO (where the H has been missing since the time of Red Grange), sports have been, as a whole, beneficial to the universities in terms of fan and alumni financial support, public relations in the case of private schools, and citizen support in the case of state universities. As we know, the popularity of college athletics has also been accompanied by questioning and soul-searching within the schools themselves.

This is the "American system." I support it 'cuz it's what we have to cheer for.

[swood1000]

Because they are adults?
They're adults for some purposes. Not for the purpose of buying hard liquor in most states until they reach 21.

But the fact is that we owe a duty of stewardship to future basketball players to maintain the sport so that when they come of age it will provide comparable benefits to them.

[RPS]

In the lower profile sports there are not as many destabilizing forces constantly acting upon the teams. In college basketball there is so much money at stake that without restrictions on it the raiding parties would never end and these athletes would be under constant barrage by slick-tongued emissaries from other teams trying to earn a bonus by recruiting them, resulting in a serious loss of team stability and cohesion.
Edit: there are no raids on the volleyball team because there's no money in it for anybody, and because university prestige, in the eyes of the students, is not influenced by the results of the volleyball league.You must not have had much contact with non-revenue sports teams and coaches. They want to win, compete and recruit just as hard as their higher profile counterparts.


This is the "American system." I support it 'cuz it's what we have to cheer for.I cheer too. GTHC!


They're adults for some purposes. Not for the purpose of buying hard liquor in most states until they reach 21.
But the fact is that we owe a duty of stewardship to future basketball players to maintain the sport so that when they come of age it will provide comparable benefits to them.Because that obligation is so much stronger than the obligations we owe to current players, players who come to school as teenagers, are disproportionately poor and disadvantaged in a variety of ways, and who support a multi-billion dollar business via unpaid labor?

[cato]

In the lower profile sports there are not as many destabilizing forces constantly acting upon the teams. In college basketball there is so much money at stake that without restrictions on it the raiding parties would never end and these athletes would be under constant barrage by slick-tongued emissaries from other teams trying to earn a bonus by recruiting them, resulting in a serious loss of team stability and cohesion.

Edit: there are no raids on the volleyball team because there's no money in it for anybody, and because university prestige, in the eyes of the students, is not influenced by the results of the volleyball league.

Is this performance art? I cannot tell.

[swood1000]

Is this performance art? I cannot tell.
Is what performance art?

[swood1000]

Because that obligation is so much stronger than the obligations we owe to current players, players who come to school as teenagers, are disproportionately poor and disadvantaged in a variety of ways, and who support a multi-billion dollar business via unpaid labor?

No, it's because the proposed cost to the future generation is so much greater than the benefit to the current generation, which would plainly tell you that they would not take this deal if they had to bear such a cost.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No, it's because the proposed cost to the future generation is so much greater than the benefit to the current generation, which would plainly tell you that they would not take this deal if they had to bear such a cost.

The future generation of anything would tell you plainly not to do anything if outlined in worst case scenario format.

[swood1000]

You must not have had much contact with non-revenue sports teams and coaches. They want to win, compete and recruit just as hard as their higher profile counterparts.

That is true, but it appears to be self-evident that there are many more incentives for teams and fans to try to engineer the relocation of star players on other teams when the sport is high profile and when millions of dollars are at stake. Some universities will even go so far, in aid of its high-profile sports, as to risk a reputation for academic integrity by setting up paper classes.

[swood1000]

The future generation of anything would tell you plainly not to do anything if outlined in worst case scenario format.
But the scenario was set up as one in which you believed that these results were likely, and whether they would be worth it. I think that the more reasonable response from your side would be that no, it wouldn't be worth it, but that such a result is so unlikely as to not be worth worrying about.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

But the scenario was set up as one in which you believed that these results were likely, and whether they would be worth it. I think that the more reasonable response from your side would be that no, it wouldn't be worth it, but that such a result is so unlikely as to not be worth worrying about.

Lucky for me, you and I both get to choose whether our opinions are reasonable. Let me outline mine for you:

1) Giving some rights to college athletes is empirically a good thing regardless of potential consequences to the entertainment of others.

2) It is possible but not likely that college basketball could swirl into a minor-league baseball-like oblivion as a result.

3) The empirical good of offering rights to athletes is not affected by this potential outcome.

4) Looking at the potential worst-case scenario for future genations to evaluate whether an action is "right" is a very odd way to operate.

Let's do the opposite as an exercise. What is the absolute BEST possible outcome of this rule change? How about athletes gain more self a determinism, the NBA decides to either (force players to stay four years to go straight from high school, depending on which you prefer), leading to an era of great parity in NCAA tournaments, better rivalries, and a golden era of college basketball for decades to come.

How could you possibly pass on this rule change if this is a potential outcome??

[swood1000]

Lucky for me, you and I both get to choose whether our opinions are reasonable. Let me outline mine for you:

1) Giving some rights to college athletes is empirically a good thing regardless of potential consequences to the entertainment of others.

2) It is possible but not likely that college basketball could swirl into a minor-league baseball-like oblivion as a result.

3) The empirical good of offering rights to athletes is not affected by this potential outcome.

4) Looking at the potential worst-case scenario for future genations to evaluate whether an action is "right" is a very odd way to operate.

Let's do the opposite as an exercise. What is the absolute BEST possible outcome of this rule change? How about athletes gain more self a determinism, the NBA decides to either (force players to stay four years to go straight from high school, depending on which you prefer), leading to an era of great parity in NCAA tournaments, better rivalries, and a golden era of college basketball for decades to come.

How could you possibly pass on this rule change if this is a potential outcome??

If I thought that outcome were likely then I could not possibly pass on this rule. However, I don't think that outcome is likely.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If I thought that outcome were likely then I could not possibly pass on this rule. However, I don't think that outcome is likely.

Both outcomes are equally ludicrous in my estimation.

Anyways, unless you want to continue to belittle my opinion, I will revert to "agree to disagree," and we will see how it bears out.

Go Duke!

[swood1000]

Lucky for me, you and I both get to choose whether our opinions are reasonable. Let me outline mine for you:

1) Giving some rights to college athletes is empirically a good thing regardless of potential consequences to the entertainment of others.

2) It is possible but not likely that college basketball could swirl into a minor-league baseball-like oblivion as a result.

3) The empirical good of offering rights to athletes is not affected by this potential outcome.

4) Looking at the potential worst-case scenario for future genations to evaluate whether an action is "right" is a very odd way to operate.

Let's do the opposite as an exercise. What is the absolute BEST possible outcome of this rule change? How about athletes gain more self a determinism, the NBA decides to either (force players to stay four years to go straight from high school, depending on which you prefer), leading to an era of great parity in NCAA tournaments, better rivalries, and a golden era of college basketball for decades to come.

How could you possibly pass on this rule change if this is a potential outcome??

I disagree with number 3. The empirical good is affected by the likelihood of this outcome. If you take an action certain to destroy college basketball then then there is very little that would justify that action.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I disagree with number 3. The empirical good is affected by the likelihood of this outcome. If you take an action certain to destroy college basketball then then there is very little that would justify that action.

So you have stated many times.

Let's go Duke!

[swood1000]

Both outcomes are equally ludicrous in my estimation.

Anyways, unless you want to continue to belittle my opinion, I will revert to "agree to disagree," and we will see how it bears out.

Go Duke!
I'm fine with agree to disagree. This was starting to look like an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm fine with agree to disagree. This was starting to look like an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway.

I think there's probably an unwritten rule that ifs thread devolves into two people for several pages, they are both obligated to walk away.

See you on other threads! Let's go Duke! Whoop Baylor!

[swood1000]

I disagree with number 3. The empirical good is affected by the likelihood of this outcome. If you take an action certain to destroy college basketball then then there is very little that would justify that action.
The more interesting question for me is not whether we can imagine results that, if likely, would be too great a cost or results that would be too good to pass up, but rather what the most likely results would be.

[swood1000]

I think there's probably an unwritten rule that ifs thread devolves into two people for several pages, they are both obligated to walk away.

See you on other threads! Let's go Duke! Whoop Baylor!

Always a pleasure.

[Indoor66]

I'm fine with agree to disagree. This was starting to look like an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway.

Welcome to discussion on DBR.

[RPS]

The more interesting question for me is not whether we can imagine results that, if likely, would be too great a cost or results that would be too good to pass up, but rather what the most likely results would be.Quite obviously, I think MtnDevil has had far the better of this exchange. I’d like to add a few supporting comments before we all move on.

Making matters worse (and making Swood’s argument even weaker) is our wholly human tendency to overweight small probabilities. It has been demonstrated empirically that we tend to overpay for insurance protection (http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-what-behavioral-economics-541701) (to hedge tail risk (https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/the-challenges-in-hedging-tail-risk/)) and that we buy lots of lottery tickets even though they are among the worst economic values (https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/09/09/what-the-lottery-has-to-teach-us-about-investing/) in the universe. We think the apocalypse is (always) nigh (https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/the-apocalypse-is-always-nigh/). Perhaps worse, we are truly dreadful at forecasting (http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/05/23/mastering-the-game-of-imperfect-forecasting?slreturn=1505317058) (the supposed "most likely results"). We love to predict the future and act on those predictions even though experts (much less laypeople) are wrong in their allegedly expert forecasts more often than a random selection would have been. We clearly don’t deal with causation (https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/complexity-chaos-and-chance/) very well.

This provides yet another reason why I always try simply to do what’s right and let the chips fall where they may in terms of future consequences. I think it's self-evidently the right thing to allow unpaid players the right to transfer freely if they so choose.

[WARNING: The last three articles linked above are mine. That may cause some readers to think I am promoting myself inappropriately. I hope not. These areas are a major focus of my professional life and the articles support the points I’m making. I apologize if I’m out of line.]

[Turk]

I look at it this way. If you took a poll of college basketball players today and asked them whether, in exchange for the right to transfer freely, they would be willing to give up ever being on TV while in college, give up all the media and fan attention, and give up March Madness as a major national event, how many would say yes, it would be worth it? I am convinced that next to nobody would agree to that.

But these changes would not happen overnight. It would take years. So players right away would get their cake and eat it too. They would get transfer rights along with the current popularity of the sport. The victims would be players ten or twenty years from now. They’re the ones who would be stuck with the consequences. And they would say “Why did you let this happen? What a poor steward you were of this resource to let this happen to it.” You would say “I foresaw this but the players twenty years ago wanted transfer rights so I let them do it. It’s too bad you are the ones who have to suffer.”



Of course no one would agree with the results of your "poll". I don't either, because it's another house of cards built on false premises and flawed hypotheticals. No one would accept a scholarship only because they might want to have the option of transferring someday. No one buys car insurance because they intend to get in an accident either. Sometimes things don't work out, and a player should be allowed to transfer for any reason they choose, just like any other student, and just like any other coach, who by the way can also break contracts and job-hop at will. Yet somehow, all this coaching turnover doesn't interfere with "team cohesion" enough to stop the oceans of cash that everyone else gets to swim around in except the players who create it.

And by the way, you're right in that any transfer rule changes aren't happening overnight, if ever. The coaches are going to call the shots on this one, and they want complete control over their students / employees / assets. The NCAA will do what the coaches want, and the TV money will still come rolling in, unlimited transfers or no.

Lastly, today's players are doing an excellent job of stewardship and improving the lot of future players. In fact, today's scholarship "student athletes" are now allowed to have cream cheese on their bagels! Hallelujah! It's the Promised Land!

[Turk]

....and that we buy lots of lottery tickets even though they are among the worst economic values (https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/09/09/what-the-lottery-has-to-teach-us-about-investing/) in the universe. We think the apocalypse is (always) nigh (https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/the-apocalypse-is-always-nigh/).



Sixers fans beg to differ. If we narrow down our sample set enough, we can always find ONE example that defies all logic and justifies any behavior:

Trust the process! Hinkie died for your sins!

[RPS]

Sixers fans beg to differ. If we narrow down our sample set enough, we can always find ONE example that defies all logic and justifies any behavior:

Trust the process! Hinkie died for your sins!Actually, I think the Sixer approach made very good rational sense, but failed sufficiently to factor in the fan base's difficulty (it's Philadelphia!) in dealing with the wait. Danny Ainge's approach has worked out better, at least so far, perhaps because he started from a much better base. In any event, we all underrate luck generally (https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/luck-skill-and-jim-harbaugh/) and suffer from self-serving bias (https://www.pragcap.com/luck-be-a-lady-tonight/) (we think the good stuff that happens to us is because of our brains and skill while the bad stuff is poor luck).

[swood1000]

Quite obviously, I think MtnDevil has had far the better of this exchange. I’d like to add a few supporting comments before we all move on.

Making matters worse (and making Swood’s argument even weaker) is our wholly human tendency to overweight small probabilities. It has been demonstrated empirically that we tend to overpay for insurance protection (http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-what-behavioral-economics-541701) (to hedge tail risk (https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/the-challenges-in-hedging-tail-risk/)) and that we buy lots of lottery tickets even though they are among the worst economic values (https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/09/09/what-the-lottery-has-to-teach-us-about-investing/) in the universe. We think the apocalypse is (always) nigh (https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/the-apocalypse-is-always-nigh/). Perhaps worse, we are truly dreadful at forecasting (http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/05/23/mastering-the-game-of-imperfect-forecasting?slreturn=1505317058) (the supposed "most likely results"). We love to predict the future and act on those predictions even though experts (much less laypeople) are wrong in their allegedly expert forecasts more often than a random selection would have been. We clearly don’t deal with causation (https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/complexity-chaos-and-chance/) very well.

This provides yet another reason why I always try simply to do what’s right and let the chips fall where they may in terms of future consequences. I think it's self-evidently the right thing to allow unpaid players the right to transfer freely if they so choose.

[WARNING: The last three articles linked above are mine. That may cause some readers to think I am promoting myself inappropriately. I hope not. These areas are a major focus of my professional life and the articles support the points I’m making. I apologize if I’m out of line.]

You seem to be unable to distinguish between (a) would X outcome be an acceptable cost for Y action, and either (b) X outcome is likely to result from Y action, or (c) Y action should not be taken because X outcome is a possible result, though distant and unlikely.

Edit: I say (a) and you respond as if I have said either (b) or (c).

[swood1000]

This provides yet another reason why I always try simply to do what’s right and let the chips fall where they may in terms of future consequences. I think it's self-evidently the right thing to allow unpaid players the right to transfer freely if they so choose.

You are saying not that we should allow players to freely transfer because the consequences to the game will be insignificant, but that we should allow players to freely transfer regardless of the consequences and without even taking the time to consider what they might be. Let the chips fall where they may.

[RPS]

You seem to be unable to distinguish between (a) would X outcome be an acceptable cost for Y action, and either (b) X outcome is likely to result from Y action, or (c) Y action should not be taken because X outcome is a possible result, though distant and unlikely.

Edit: I say (a) and you respond as if I have said either (b) or (c).I disagree (obviously). I think you -- like virtually everyone -- value your forecasting skills too highly, support the status quo too vigorously, and anticipate small probabilities too readily.


You are saying not that we should allow players to freely transfer because the consequences to the game will be insignificant, but that we should allow players to freely transfer regardless of the consequences and without even taking the time to consider what they might be. Let the chips fall where they may.I expect the consequences to the game to be insignificant if the proposed transfer rule is approved. But I recognize that humans are truly dreadful at forecasting (which explains why, for example, precisely none (http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/page/seasonpreview_mlbteampredictions/mlb-team-predictions-2016-season) of ESPN's more than 30 baseball experts predicted an Indians v. Cubs World Series last year). Thus it is only fair to note that I value the players and their opportunities more than I fear the consequences of the proposed rule change and would do so even if the consequences were far more dramatic than I expect.

[swood1000]

...and that we buy lots of lottery tickets even though they are among the worst economic values (https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/09/09/what-the-lottery-has-to-teach-us-about-investing/) in the universe.
People don't buy lottery tickets for their economic value. They buy them for their fantasy value. Until the drawing they get to imagine that they might win, and this provides a fun little fantasy and perks up their day, kind of like a little mini-high without the drugs or alcohol.

[RPS]

People don't buy lottery tickets for their economic value. They buy them for their fantasy value. Until the drawing they get to imagine that they might win, and this provides a fun little fantasy and perks up their day, kind of like a little mini-high without the drugs or alcohol.You are (partially) correct in that people don't buy lottery tickets or gamble or buy penny stocks based on a cold, rational evaluation. But they do overrate their likelihood of winning by a lot (for example (https://fusionmx.babson.edu/entrep/fer/papers97/sum97/zac.htm)), and suffer from optimism bias generally, which is my point.

[swood1000]

I disagree (obviously). I think you -- like virtually everyone -- value your forecasting skills too highly, support the status quo too vigorously, and anticipate small probabilities too readily.

This comment exactly illustrates my point about statements (a), (b) and (c).


I expect the consequences to the game to be insignificant if the proposed transfer rule is approved. But I recognize that humans are truly dreadful at forecasting (which explains why, for example, precisely none (http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/page/seasonpreview_mlbteampredictions/mlb-team-predictions-2016-season) of ESPN's more than 30 baseball experts predicted an Indians v. Cubs World Series last year). Thus it is only fair to note that I value the players and their opportunities more than I fear the consequences of the proposed rule change and would do so even if the consequences were far more dramatic than I expect.

The thing I can't follow is why you favor opportunities for current players while having apparently no concern as to the effect on future players. Normally I would expect a discussion such as this to concern itself at least in part with the expected consequences for future players (even though it is difficult to predict the future) but your position seems to be that the consequences to future players are irrelevant so discussing what those consequences might be is just time wasted.

[RPS]

The thing I can't follow is why you favor opportunities for current players while having apparently no concern as to the effect on future players. Normally I would expect a discussion such as this to concern itself at least in part with the expected consequences for future players (even though it is difficult to predict the future) but your position seems to be that the consequences to future players are irrelevant so discussing what those consequences might be is just time wasted.I think that the likelihood of the proposed transfer rule, if approved, having a significant negative impact on future players is vanishingly small. I could be wrong, of course. But without clear evidence supporting the idea that free transfer rights will result in the death of college football and basketball as we know them, I think it's silly to discuss and badly muddies the analytical waters. You have offered no such evidence to this point. If you have evidence to offer, or if I have missed some smoking gun, please enlighten me.

As a secondary matter, this thread also discussed paying players. I think they should be paid even though, in my view, paying them could have a significant impact on college sports. However, that issue is irrelevant to the thread's primary topic. If you want to have that discussion, we can, but you should start a new thread for doing so.

[English]

I suppose I fall somewhere between the two polar extremes of the last couple of pages, but I posit that it is possible/likely that free transfer (one-time or wholesale) allowance will result in some appreciable increase in the already high number of transfers between schools/teams. Now, it certainly depends on one's perspective whether that is good or bad, or if it even has a value judgment rather than "it just is."

However, for those around here (and I assume in other high-level program fanbases), the transfer and OAD turnover is already a major source of contention. I imagine that's not unique to DBR posters. However, what is also probably not unique to DBR posters is their continuation to support their team, even amid the changing landscape. Such as it is, it seems we've moved beyond "Super conferences have ruined the game and I will no longer subscribe" or "OAD has ruined the game and I will no longer subscribe." I, personally, find continuity appealing to my enjoyment of the Duke team, following players through the years. However, I consider Duke's pursuit of potential OAD a necessity for competing at the highest level year-in and year-out, so a certain amount of turnover is worth the price of competition and I'll likely continue to hold my allegiances indefinitely. It may help that I'm an alum, but I have nothing to support that premise, and perhaps alums would be more ready to abandon the institution's sports program in the face of additional change than those that have based their support on something else.

I think, basically, what this comes down to is whether one believes that: 1) this rule change will have an effect on the number of transfers among revenue sport student-athletes; and 2) adding an additional appreciable number of transfers to the 400+ annually that currently exist with the sit-out rule, will have a deleterious affect on college revenue sports (or at least a significantly negative impact), and whether that impact is outweighed by the benefit to the student-athletes themselves.

I'm of the opinion that, while the negative impact will be real and felt by many (myself included), the proposed free ONE-TIME transfer allowance isn't my tipping point. I'll continue to watch, attend, buy merch, and enter my office NCAAT pool, etc.

[swood1000]

I think that the likelihood of the proposed transfer rule, if approved, having a significant negative impact on future players is vanishingly small. I could be wrong, of course. But without clear evidence supporting the idea that free transfer rights will result in the death of college football and basketball as we know them, I think it's silly to discuss and badly muddies the analytical waters. You have offered no such evidence to this point. If you have evidence to offer, or if I have missed some smoking gun, please enlighten me.

As a secondary matter, this thread also discussed paying players. I think they should be paid even though, in my view, paying them could have a significant impact on college sports. However, that issue is irrelevant to the thread's primary topic. If you want to have that discussion, we can, but you should start a new thread for doing so.

Of course, athletes have many reasons for wanting to transfer. Overall, Coach K characterized these transfers as being the result of a desire for instant gratification. Would you say that is a reasonable way of looking at the matter?


"What it has produced is one-and-done for kids who are not going pro, the amount of transfers we have in basketball. There are over 450 transfers. Kids don't stick to the school that they pick and they want instant gratification," Krzyzewski wrote via email. "It's not just those elite players that might be able to go after one year. There's just the mentality out there that if you don't achieve after one year, maybe you should go someplace else. For the one-and-done guys it's the NBA, but for the other kids, it's another school." http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-basketball

[RPS]

Of course, athletes have many reasons for wanting to transfer.I agree and would add that, based upon my experience, many (most?) athletes have more than just a single reason for transferring.


Overall, Coach K characterized these transfers as being the result of a desire for instant gratification. Would you say that is a reasonable way of looking at the matter?K's perspective is that of a coach, obviously, and a highly successful one at that. Accordingly, he recognizes that he's good and assumes that his decisions and evaluations are correct. That would mean, in his experience and from his perspective, athletes transfer for more immediate gratification (it can't be immediate under the current rules).

I think K is fantastic, but I also think he makes mistakes (he's hugely successful in large part not because he's perfect but because he makes fewer mistakes than his fellow coaches). He's human. Moreover, different kids want different things. Different coaches want different things. Different teams use different approaches and schemes, have different coaching styles and emphasize different skills. Accordingly, while I have no doubt many players transfer for more "immediate gratification," I think many transfer for perfectly justifiable reasons. Indeed, I think more immediate gratification (which I read as "playing time") can be a perfectly appropriate reason to transfer. More to the point, I think players should have sufficient autonomy to make their own decisions, right or wrong. I'm not comfortable telling any college student that they must be penalized to make a decision s/he thinks is right, because a previous decision was wrong, or because a coach left.

[Ian]

I'll wadeinto this debate a little bit here. What about a middle ground position of allowing 3rd parties to pay these players. Which was something I had proposed earlier this year.

Drop the NCAA amateur requirement, keep the same academic requirements on the students from the school, and allow players to be openly paid by third parties. Which in my opinion is already happening in a lot of places any way just under the table. Let these come out in the open.

And if these payment are free and open contracts between the athletes and their "sponsors", the payments could be tied to agreement to not transfer and would be fully binding.