RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

NCAA will drop transfer rule; sky will fall

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10212



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 10:43 am    ::: NCAA will drop transfer rule; sky will fall Reply Reply with quote

It's about time ...

Of course, the NCAA isn't doing this out of any concern for student-athletes. Their primary focus remains allowing schools and coaches to control the lives of other adults to their own benefit, but self-preservation comes first.

This way, the NCAA can pretend it's reforming itself while its member institutions and administrative employees (not to mention the NCAA staff) make a living while the athletes who generate the income in football and men's basketball are criminally underpaid.

What will be interesting to me is to see how all those who have opposed this reform for so long will react now. Will they continue to defend the transfer rule? Will they continue to argue that the transfer rule was a good thing overall?

I'm hoping, of course, that this is the first removal of a brick in the wall that bars adults from exercising the same freedoms every revenue-generating individual should be able to exercise.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5942
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 11:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Twenty college sports already have a one-time transfer rule, and have had it for for many years, and I'm not aware that any part of the troposphere, stratosphere or ionosphere has fallen because of it.

One-time transfers are currently restricted only in men's and women's basketball, football, baseball and ice hockey. Is the difference in treatment because these five are revenue generating? Maybe, but I'm not sure.

I'm also not sure extending one-time transfers would make that much difference for elite men's basketball players, since they mostly seem to be one-and-doners before trying to go pro.

Do football, baseball and hockey players try to transfer a lot? I have no idea.

Extending the rule would affect many players each year in our sport, women's college basketball, certainly.

I suppose the primary argument against ad libitum transfer has always been mutual self-protection -- to prevent predatory recruiting to screw up the vast financial investments that schools make in positional recruiting. I think that's a very valid argument, but there are competing arguments, and different people can have different views on the differential strengths of the arguments.
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 26273



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 2:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It just means the rich will get richer. If you think that's a good idea, I guess you like it. And it teaches young people that contracts are meaningless.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 642
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 3:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well, they wouldn't have to take up time approving/denying individual waivers anymore...


TechDawgMc



Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 270
Location: Temple, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 3:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
It just means the rich will get richer. If you think that's a good idea, I guess you like it. And it teaches young people that contracts are meaningless.


Right. The coaches haven't been doing that for decades after all


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3980
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 4:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
It just means the rich will get richer. If you think that's a good idea, I guess you like it. And it teaches young people that contracts are meaningless.


On your first point I generally agree. Players who couldn't make a top flight program initially will be able to move up once they prove themselves. This also may make it easier for top programs to let go of underperformers.

But with regard to contracts I see it differently. Players overall are just making the contract more fair. The letter of intent process essentially has made a four-year commitment for the player, but only a series of 1 year commitments by the school.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10212



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
It just means the rich will get richer. If you think that's a good idea, I guess you like it. And it teaches young people that contracts are meaningless.


Athletic directors and coaches never left before their contracts ran out -- and of course they had to sit out a year. Oh wait ...

And really, if players had actual individual contracts instead of NLIs that are incredibly tilted towards the universities, you could include a buyout, just like the ADs and coaches have.

Simple: Keep the present scholarship system. On top of that, allow schools to negotiate contracts in excess of the basic scholarship on an individual basis (just as they do with professors, coaches, etc.). If you want to pay a QB $1 million with a $75,000 buyout after two years, do it; if you don't, don't. If you want to pay a women's tennis player $10,000 for a four-year contract, you can do that too.

It's called the free market, and I've heard it can work pretty well ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7966
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 4:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ultimately the rules should always be to the benefit of the student. Not the "programs", not the schools, not the coaches, but whatever is in the best interest of the athlete.

So will the "rich get richer"? Perhaps. But if they do it's because they have established themselves as being prime locations for student athletes to attend if they want to pursue a future in their sport. Which means...it's in the interest of the student to be able to do that.

In no other field other than Athletics is this a thing. Students in academic fields (even those on full-ride scholarships) are free to leave to other programs if a more prestigious institution suddenly offers them a spot.

Later in life when we sign contracts we routinely put in escape or buy-out clauses that we can trigger if we are offered certain dream positions elsewhere. Yet we expect kids to be locked into their circumstances, even to their own detriment, because...



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5942
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 5:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NLI's are not the primary issue.

First, NLI's are not administered by the NCAA at all, but rather by the 657 D1 and D2 schools that have voluntarily joined the College Commissioners Association (CCA), which does administer the NLI program. Moreover, the NLI only operates on the student-athlete for her first academic year and then it, and it's potential NLI Penalty, expire. (The NLI penalty is a one-year sit-out plus the loss of one year of eligibility in all sports.) Finally, the NLI and its penalty can be waived by a school if it's conference rules allow it, which not all do.

The primary issue, and the one under the control of the NCAA, are the NCAA transfer regulations contained within the NCAA Bylaws. These regulations include the ban on one-time transfers in the five sports I discussed above. They also include the one-year sit-out for transfers and the requirement of a permission-to-contact release before a student-athlete can talk to a potential transfer school and ultimately receive a scholarship during the NCAA mandated sit-out year.

Even if the NCAA were to extend one-time transfers to all sports by a Bylaw amendment, it's true that that would not accomplish the complete free agency that Clay would like to see. The NLI Penalty (of a redundant one-year sit-out plus the loss of one year of eligibility in all sports) would also have to be removed from NLI's. This is not within the control of the NCAA, but would have to be agreed to by the member schools of the CCA. That seems like a harder hurdle to me, because what's the incentive for a school to guarantee a scholarship to a player and for all other schools to stop recruiting activity, per current NLI terms, if the player is not contractually bound, by threat of the NLI Penalty, to one year at the school in return.

I have long advocated that top high school players with obvious market value not sign an NLI at all. The contracts are slanted in favor of the schools, and a top player should have no problem getting a binding scholarship commitment without signing an NLI. Marginal players, on the other hand, probably can't take the risk of losing a scholarship to their desired school if they don't sign an NLI.
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 26273



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 5:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

same old arguments both ways. don't need repeats. Hopefully it works out well for all involved.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 890
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/19/20 7:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Chicago Sky's executive offices were contacted for a response. A spokesperson for the Sky stated, "we categorically deny these baseless accusations".....



Confused


ucbart



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1602
Location: New York


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/20/20 8:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
It just means the rich will get richer. If you think that's a good idea, I guess you like it. And it teaches young people that contracts are meaningless.


But why should it be that binding of a contract? Nowhere in the real world, outside of professional sports, do most job require contracts to be signed when entering the work force.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 60302
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/20/20 8:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ucbart wrote:
myrtle wrote:
It just means the rich will get richer. If you think that's a good idea, I guess you like it. And it teaches young people that contracts are meaningless.


But why should it be that binding of a contract? Nowhere in the real world, outside of professional sports, do most job require contracts to be signed when entering the work force.


Those that do generally allow consultation with an agent, union rep, or lawyer, and can be negotiated. In the real world, competing entities aren't allowed to conspire to limit contracts like NCAA schools do.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 1404



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/20/20 9:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ucbart wrote:
myrtle wrote:
It just means the rich will get richer. If you think that's a good idea, I guess you like it. And it teaches young people that contracts are meaningless.


But why should it be that binding of a contract? Nowhere in the real world, outside of professional sports, do most job require contracts to be signed when entering the work force.


I think most professional positions require contracts. Medicine requires a ream of paperwork, all of which is reviewed by an attorney before signing. I'd bet law firms require contracts as well. And said contracts have non-compete clauses.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7966
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/20/20 3:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
ucbart wrote:
myrtle wrote:
It just means the rich will get richer. If you think that's a good idea, I guess you like it. And it teaches young people that contracts are meaningless.


But why should it be that binding of a contract? Nowhere in the real world, outside of professional sports, do most job require contracts to be signed when entering the work force.


I think most professional positions require contracts. Medicine requires a ream of paperwork, all of which is reviewed by an attorney before signing. I'd bet law firms require contracts as well. And said contracts have non-compete clauses.

Some have non-compete, most are very limited in scope, and all--as pilight noted--are entered into under the advice of experts and after extensive negotiations where these sorts of terms are agreed upon.

This is not true for students athletes who have no choice but accept the terms dictated to them by the cabal known as the NCAA.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
elsie



Joined: 08 Apr 2016
Posts: 163



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/22/20 3:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

a contract is an agreement between two entities.....for college athletes, its "we will give you free college, plus room and board, and we will help you train athletically, and we will provide trainers,nutritionists,coaches, people specifically assigned to you to help with class scheduling, etc...you will get a monthly stipend and if we do well, you could get free travel " and for this, you the athlete will come to our school and participate in your athletic pursuit, and it will be for 4 yrs or until you graduate"....

millions of young Americans face huge college loans and nobody gives a damn about them....

but give athletes a free college education and its like its nothing.....its a huge GIFT...one that not many regular students can even sniff at.....

I personally do not like the result of this ridiculous new idea....the Oregons, the Louisvilles, the Uconns dragging all these athletes into their coffers......

and someone suggested that this is a benefit to the student....IT BENEFITS THE HUGE COLLEGE PROGRAMS.....

I like bb the way it is.....it is shameful that some people seem to lie their way into playing right away, thru some secret sauce...

what is really shameful is letting marginal players have to sit a full year....

if your college allows you to go, and you don't go play for someone in your conference, I would be open to forgetting the transfer rule.....there has to be stipulations....as in, the schools can not become revolving doors and there must be a limit of how many transfers they take and there must be protection for student athletes who will be kicked off their scholi because Coach got some new flavor the month to transfer in..


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7568



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/22/20 7:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The top schools already get a ton of top players out of high school. How many don’t get ranked appropriately each year? And we already have players transferring to top teams. Mississippi State, Baylor, Notre Dame, Connecticut, Oregon, Tennessee, South Carolina, Oregon State have all gotten very good player transfers before the rule change and the players they mostly, if not all, came from top 25 teams.

In volleyball there are some transfers to top teams, but there is a limit based on the fact that the top teams don’t have a lot of openings. As in wbb, the top players are mostly well known out of high school and they choose to go to top schools. And some players transferring to a top team are coming from another top team. Lexi Sun was the #1 recruit and chose Texas and then transferred to Nebraska. Both Texas and Nebraska are perennial top 10 teams. Lauren Barnes went from Minnesota to Wisconsin, both of whom were in the 2019 Final Four. The best team, Stanford, got a middle blocker from UCLA (normal top 25 team) but she was a graduate transfer and could have not sat out even if basketball. Nebraska did get a starting middle blocker a few years back that was a “doing better in college than expected” transfer moving up.

My hope for the rule is that it encourages more bench players to transfer.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10212



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/22/20 11:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

>a contract is an agreement between two entities.....for college athletes, its "we will give you free college, plus room and board, and we will help you train athletically, and we will provide trainers,nutritionists,coaches, people specifically assigned to you to help with class scheduling, etc...you will get a monthly stipend and if we do well, you could get free travel " and for this, you the athlete will come to our school and participate in your athletic pursuit, and it will be for 4 yrs or until you graduate"....

So let athletes hire agents and negotiate contracts rather than have a heavily biased one imposed -- that they have no say in.

And yes, for most scholarship athletes, the scholarship is a major financial savings, and is a great thing. So, in an open market, most athletes will be happy to sign a contract for that return, and would continue to do so. But let those athletes who have leverage, and deserve more than a scholarship, negotiate their contract. If no one wants to give them more than a scholarship, then bargaining is over. If someone does, they should be able to take advantage.

And of course, forcing transfers to sit out is a kind of indentured servitude, which no other adult in the college system has to endure. Musicians, drama students, debaters can all transfer and be immediately "eligible." And coaches and administrators never have to sit.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 60302
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/22/20 11:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
ucbart wrote:
myrtle wrote:
It just means the rich will get richer. If you think that's a good idea, I guess you like it. And it teaches young people that contracts are meaningless.


But why should it be that binding of a contract? Nowhere in the real world, outside of professional sports, do most job require contracts to be signed when entering the work force.


I think most professional positions require contracts. Medicine requires a ream of paperwork, all of which is reviewed by an attorney before signing. I'd bet law firms require contracts as well. And said contracts have non-compete clauses.


Also, you're using employment contracts as a comparison. The NCAA has been insistent that these aren't employment contracts. If they were, they'd be subject to a bunch of legal restrictions they don't want.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5942
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/22/20 2:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There is no contract imposed on student-athletes. They don't have to sign the one-year NLI, as I discussed above.

In any event, even if signed, the NLI expires after the student-athlete completes one academic year. After that, there are no contracts. Scholarships are renewable yearly in the sole discretion of the university. And all the restrictions on transfers arise from the NCAA Bylaws, which are not subject to negotiations between individual schools and student-athletes.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin