|
Post by bvrbooster on Apr 5, 2022 15:57:20 GMT -8
In the not too distant past, the NCAA presided over a college basketball scene that worked very well for all concerned. Some 5,000 young men and 5,000 young women played D1 basketball each year, and, in return for their services, each received a free college education. That's a good deal, and a good thing.
The men's game was enormously popular with a very large fan base, and the women's game was growing by leaps and bounds. Huge sums of money were generated by this, allowing the various universities to subsidize lesser revenue producing sports, thus allowing thousands of other young men and women to receive a free college education. That's also a good thing.
And the young women and men were certainly not required to attend any specific college, or any college at all for that matter. They could choose whatever alternatives might be available to them in the open market. A high school baseball player, for example, drafted in the 19th round, could choose to go toil in the lower divisions of the minor leagues or attend college on whatever scholarship might be available. In the case of basketball, the alternatives to college are very few and far between, and the scholarship is a full ride. So, considering the alternatives available, this is a good thing.
Recognizing that some players, for various reasons, might decide that their original choice of school might not have been the best fit, they allowed any scholarship athlete to transfer without losing any eligibility. To make that a serious decision, not made lightly or whimsically, however, and to keep it from becoming a 3 ring circus, they made a proviso that they would have to sit out the next year. There's lots to be said for that; it is not a bad thing.
Now they have completely upended that, and created the above mentioned 3 ring circus. What had been a neat, orderly system, that the very large fan base could depend upon for continuity, has devolved into chaos. All around the country, on boards just like this one, the fans who buy the tickets, join the Rebounders, attend the team dinners, and just generally support the program and the team, are questioning whether they want to continue doing that. I know I am, and I've read others stating the same.
And that, my friends, is most decidedly not a good thing - not for the fans like us, not for the schools, individually and collectively, and not for the kids who are, perhaps, in the process of killing the goose who would someday lay the golden egg for their younger siblings.
And the blame for this is laid directly at the feet of the NCAA.
|
|
escott58
Sophomore
Posts: 1,146
Grad Year: 1983
|
Post by escott58 on Apr 5, 2022 17:09:50 GMT -8
Can't think of anything that I disagree with on your post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Apr 5, 2022 17:19:24 GMT -8
Some of you sound like baseball owners in the 1960s and 1970s, trying to defend the reserve clause, which bound players to one team for the rest of their lives.
College athletes have five years to play college sports. Why should they be forced to stay someplace they may discover they don't want to remain at for all five years?
Quite often, the circumstances at their original school change. Their head coach changes jobs, or is fired. A family member gets sick. They find they don't want to be far from home (or close to home, which also applies). They might decide to change their major and want to find a better school for that major. Or something else may transpire that might lead them to seek a fresh start elsewhere.
A regular college student can transfer, without penalty, at any time. A coach can break his/her contract, and leave at any time. A one-time free move for a college athlete isn't unreasonable. It's their life. Let them live it as they choose, where they choose to.
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Apr 5, 2022 17:36:58 GMT -8
Comparing student athletes to the general student body is apples and oranges. There's the matter of the full ride scholarship. Now a few student are on academic scholarships, and may have been highly sought after by various universities, but I can all but guarantee there wasn't the amount of time and effort put into getting an academic scholarship student to enroll in a particular school as is invested in a student athlete. That right there is a huge difference. It doesn't mean a student athlete is beholden to the university for 4 years, but I would like to think it means 1/4 to 1/3 of the team isn't going to up and leave every season, with eligibility remaining. Something definitely has gone very wrong in the last 2 years, and it is not what's best for the players.
Comparing to pro sports doesn't even work. It would be the equivalent of an entire team being unrestricted free agents every season, and able to head for another team whenever they want. That's not at all how pro sports work, it wouldn't be viable. The league would collapse.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Apr 5, 2022 18:58:01 GMT -8
1. Athletes do not give up their rights because they are on scholarship.
2. The (needless) free year of eligibility because of Covid has significantly changed the situation. Players such as Jones and Brown still have two years of eligibility remaining, even though they have been at college for three years. Once the athletes given that bonus year cycle through, I expect things to return to historical norms.
3. I think it's up to the players to determine what is best for them, not their coaches or fans.
4. The one thing MLBPA executive director Marvin Miller feared was the owners following Oakland owner Charlie Finley's advice for annual, universal free agency. Miller knew making every player available would flood the market and depress salaries. With limited free agency, teams had fewer players to bid on and salaries skyrocketed.
It's the law of supply and demand. Limit the supply, and the demand increases. Create an endless supply, and demand decreases.
Having universal free agency almost certainly would not create chaos. Most people do not want to uproot their families every year. Most players do not want to play on a different team every year. Pro players who are happy at their current team would generally stay with their current team.
|
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,661
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Apr 5, 2022 20:39:51 GMT -8
Some of you sound like baseball owners in the 1960s and 1970s, trying to defend the reserve clause, which bound players to one team for the rest of their lives. College athletes have five years to play college sports. Why should they be forced to stay someplace they may discover they don't want to remain at for all five years? Quite often, the circumstances at their original school change. Their head coach changes jobs, or is fired. A family member gets sick. They find they don't want to be far from home (or close to home, which also applies). They might decide to change their major and want to find a better school for that major. Or something else may transpire that might lead them to seek a fresh start elsewhere. A regular college student can transfer, without penalty, at any time. A coach can break his/her contract, and leave at any time. A one-time free move for a college athlete isn't unreasonable. It's their life. Let them live it as they choose, where they choose to. I don't disagree with anything you said, but I would be a little cautious with the statement "A regular college student can transfer, without penalty, at any time." Often there is a perhaps difficult to quantify 'penalty' - not all your coursework transfers, relationships have to be rebuilt,
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Apr 6, 2022 6:44:36 GMT -8
Some of you sound like baseball owners in the 1960s and 1970s, trying to defend the reserve clause, which bound players to one team for the rest of their lives. College athletes have five years to play college sports. Why should they be forced to stay someplace they may discover they don't want to remain at for all five years? Quite often, the circumstances at their original school change. Their head coach changes jobs, or is fired. A family member gets sick. They find they don't want to be far from home (or close to home, which also applies). They might decide to change their major and want to find a better school for that major. Or something else may transpire that might lead them to seek a fresh start elsewhere. A regular college student can transfer, without penalty, at any time. A coach can break his/her contract, and leave at any time. A one-time free move for a college athlete isn't unreasonable. It's their life. Let them live it as they choose, where they choose to. I don't disagree with anything you said, but I would be a little cautious with the statement "A regular college student can transfer, without penalty, at any time." Often there is a perhaps difficult to quantify 'penalty' - not all your coursework transfers, relationships have to be rebuilt, Yes, and athletes are subject to the same conditions, so they should be treated the same.
|
|
|
Post by algernon14 on Apr 6, 2022 7:32:52 GMT -8
“College athletes have five years to play college sports. Why should they be forced to stay someplace they may discover they don't want to remain at for all five years?”
This is false. The prior NCAA rule stated you could transfer, but had to sit out one year before resuming play with your new team, NCAA removed this one year penalty and now it’s a total s*%t show, thank the NCAA for its continued campaign to ruin college sports.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Apr 6, 2022 7:38:37 GMT -8
“College athletes have five years to play college sports. Why should they be forced to stay someplace they may discover they don't want to remain at for all five years?” This is false. The prior NCAA rule stated you could transfer, but had to sit out one year before resuming play with your new team, NCAA removed this one year penalty and now it’s a total s*%t show, thank the NCAA for its continued campaign to ruin college sports. You still can only transfer once without sitting out going forward.
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Apr 6, 2022 10:44:37 GMT -8
“College athletes have five years to play college sports. Why should they be forced to stay someplace they may discover they don't want to remain at for all five years?” This is false. The prior NCAA rule stated you could transfer, but had to sit out one year before resuming play with your new team, NCAA removed this one year penalty and now it’s a total s*%t show, thank the NCAA for its continued campaign to ruin college sports. You still can only transfer once without sitting out going forward. Except they are granting waivers left and right for immediate eligibility. Mikesell transferred 2 years in a row and never sat out. Plus you can use your 1 free transfer, play at a new school for a year or 2, then grad transfer (without sitting out) to get in at least 3 schools in your 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Apr 6, 2022 10:57:26 GMT -8
You still can only transfer once without sitting out going forward. Except they are granting waivers left and right for immediate eligibility. Mikesell transferred 2 years in a row and never sat out. Plus you can use your 1 free transfer, play at a new school for a year or 2, then grad transfer (without sitting out) to get in at least 3 schools in your 5 years. That's true that you can still grad transfer, but I think you will see less waivers going forward post-covid.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Apr 6, 2022 11:54:07 GMT -8
“College athletes have five years to play college sports. Why should they be forced to stay someplace they may discover they don't want to remain at for all five years?” This is false. The prior NCAA rule stated you could transfer, but had to sit out one year before resuming play with your new team, NCAA removed this one year penalty and now it’s a total s*%t show, thank the NCAA for its continued campaign to ruin college sports. And unless you get a waiver (for a mission, for childbirth, for missing two years with injury, or some other hardship) or take advantage of the free year of eligibility awarded for the 2021 Covid season (which will sunset as players move through the system), you still must complete your eligibility within a five-year window. Sorry that an athlete's desire to play where he/she can maximize his/her playing time, or simply be happier elsewhere, is an imposition to you. And the transfer portal has nothing to do with graduate transfers. That process has not changed.
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Apr 6, 2022 11:58:26 GMT -8
“College athletes have five years to play college sports. Why should they be forced to stay someplace they may discover they don't want to remain at for all five years?” This is false. The prior NCAA rule stated you could transfer, but had to sit out one year before resuming play with your new team, NCAA removed this one year penalty and now it’s a total s*%t show, thank the NCAA for its continued campaign to ruin college sports. And unless you get a waiver (for a mission, for childbirth, for missing two years with injury) or take advantage of the free year of eligibility awarded for the 2021 Covid season, you still must complete your eligibility within a five-year window. Sorry that an athlete's desire to play where he/she can maximize his/her playing time, or simply be happier elsewhere, is an imposition to you. And the transfer portal has nothing to do with graduate transfers. That process has not changed. Is there a waiver specifically for child birth or is it considered medical? Just asking...
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Apr 6, 2022 12:06:03 GMT -8
“College athletes have five years to play college sports. Why should they be forced to stay someplace they may discover they don't want to remain at for all five years?” This is false. The prior NCAA rule stated you could transfer, but had to sit out one year before resuming play with your new team, NCAA removed this one year penalty and now it’s a total s*%t show, thank the NCAA for its continued campaign to ruin college sports. respectfully - what exactly has been ruined for you when it comes to college sports? I'm not here to defend NCAA, I just hear a lot of "this is the end", things have been ruined, etc., but I guess i just don't see it that way.
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Apr 6, 2022 12:50:00 GMT -8
If actions taken by the governing body of some sport cause a fan to lose interest in that sport, then that body has 'ruined' that sport for that fan. If those actions don't matter to his next door neighbor, then, obviously, that sport is not ruined for him.
Example: I used to be a pro football fan until free agency, 'franchise players,' cutting players because of the salary cap, etc., got too much for me. Had no idea from year to year who was going to be on my team, and wound up just not following the NFL at all. (You will have noticed what a hurt my doing so has put on them.) I still like the game of football, and I follow college football, but professional football has been ruined for me.
I think that's what these guys are basically saying.
|
|