I just simply can’t watch all of this …
We need to go back to a year at the new school before eligible to compete if you haven't already graduated. But don't count that year against their 5-year eligibility clock.Changes will have to be made to the transfer portal to help promote competition. Can't have players follow coaches to their new school. Maybe in that scenario the player will have to seat out a year. Also to qualify for immediate playing time you have to face a life changing event. Not like I don't like my current sdchool. I want to go to another school that can give me mnoney or more NIL opportunities, Even NFL free agency have rules. This transfer protal system is crazy.
The only justification is academics.I think the transfer portal finally gives the players some control over their career that they've never truly had. We don't make coaches sit out a year while changing jobs, so why should the players be penalized for now having just as much freedom of movement as the coaches? If you have a good staff, a good program that gives a **** about winning and taking care of players then you'll have fewer transfers. You know, like any employer needs to do to retain its staff.
Does Oregon even accept players transferring from CU?C Gonzales wasn't a Martin recruit. He was a Tucker recruit. But there is a clear and present danger that C Gonzeles may want to follow him to Oregon. CU will just have to address it if it happens
I am not following at all. Are you saying we should restrict transfers for academic reasons? There are no such limitations on non-athlete transfers between universities, which happen a LOT. Why are we treating athletes differently?The only justification is academics.
It's a weird sport in that we've always had rosters turn over by 20-25% every year. Pushing that to 30% is as much an opportunity as threat on competitiveness.
I personally like the idea of emphasizing academics since that's supposed to be the mission of the franchise owners who run college sports.
It's the only justification - that with all the responsibilities put onto a student-athlete they need to acclimate as a student before playing sports. It's why freshmen are often not allowed to pledge a frat or sorority their first semester, why we had Props 42 & 48, why grad transfers were treated differently, why in the old days they even had freshman teams & they weren't eligible to play varsity until their 2nd year.I am not following at all. Are you saying we should restrict transfers for academic reasons? There are no such limitations on non-athlete transfers between universities, which happen a LOT. Why are we treating athletes differently?
People switch schools all of the time for many reasons.The only justification is academics.
It's a weird sport in that we've always had rosters turn over by 20-25% every year. Pushing that to 30% is as much an opportunity as threat on competitiveness.
I personally like the idea of emphasizing academics since that's supposed to be the mission of the franchise owners who run college sports.
Sure. No one is stopping anyone from going to school or getting it paid for with a scholarship. This only impacts game participation.People switch schools all of the time for many reasons.
further, I'm not aware of any practice outside of athletics where students on scholarship commonly transfer from one school to another mid-degree and remain covered by full scholarship.Sure. No one is stopping anyone from going to school or getting it paid for with a scholarship. This only impacts game participation.
If we’re now saying that college athletes are the equivalent of upper management/C-suite level employees, we’d better up the pay.If we’re going to keep comparing this to real life with people jumping from company to company, why are we not discussing non-compete clauses that exist for high level employees? Why are we not comparing the 4 year commitment these players make to a University on a similar level to military commitments?
Framing this issue as “college athletes are the only people in our society who aren’t able to transfer to better their situation” is patently false.
Again, why? Are you also saying coaches should be required to stay?Sure. No one is stopping anyone from going to school or getting it paid for with a scholarship. This only impacts game participation.
If that was how their agreements were structured. I'm actually surprised that schools are offering this kind of guaranteed money without a non-compete clause. Could you imagine the IBM CEO being able to leave for the same job at Apple? University folks are terrible businesspeople. At the least, you'd think that there would be a collective bargaining agreement among NCAA member P5s with a set of rules similar to how they behave in the NFL (no poaching of HCs & no leaving your current gig for a promotion if your season is still going on).Again, why? Are you also saying coaches should be required to stay?
The NCAA and member Universities are not for profit organizations. Non-competes are not a major thing in these organizations. Non-competes are not a thing in the AC market because schools don’t provide the security necessary to retain those employees for long periods. Head coaches at the highest level get major guarantees without non-competes mostly because the schools care more about winning and not being encumbered by an item that’ll be thrown out in negotiation.If that was how their agreements were structured. I'm actually surprised that schools are offering this kind of guaranteed money without a non-compete clause. Could you imagine the IBM CEO being able to leave for the same job at Apple? University folks are terrible businesspeople. At the least, you'd think that there would be a collective bargaining agreement among NCAA member P5s with a set of rules similar to how they behave in the NFL (no poaching of HCs & no leaving your current gig for a promotion if your season is still going on).
If that was how their agreements were structured. I'm actually surprised that schools are offering this kind of guaranteed money without a non-compete clause.