NCAA looking at unlimited transfers?

[Mr Janny]

Bryce Young doesn’t have veto power of a union. Also if he wants to make more money go play pro.

The money in college athletics exists because of the schools. It isn’t there because of the players. The players are then valuable because they play for those schools. If Brock Purdy didn’t play at Iowa State none of us would have any care about him. It’s a chicken or the egg deal. The players are valuable but they are valuable only because of where they play.

There’s not a perfect solution but the route we are going is definitely not the correct way. It’s the same as the realignment. The healthy result is not going to happen because everyone is looking out for their own interests instead of the interests of the whole.

He doesn't have veto power, but he doesn't have to join it either. My point is that I don't know what incentive the top players have to join a union. And if the top players aren't in it, a union loses a lot of its power.

 

[Clonefan94]

I think the correct solution is to apply a rule on transferring where the 1st is always free, 2nd is free if its a certain situation(coach leaving, playing time, recruited over, etc) and then a grad transfer is also free reign to do whatever.

All this is going to do is eventually someone on the fringe of NBA status is going to go hit up the rest of their good college but maybe not pro players and go form a super team somewhere and boom, we're basically the NBA free agency levels of trash where all the good players go play in big markets because big market only. It's trash there and it will suck in college even more.

I don't disagree with you at all. It's a situation I'm really torn about. I can see both sides, but deep down, I side with the players.

 

[3TrueFans]

Bryce Young doesn’t have veto power of a union. Also if he wants to make more money go play pro.

The money in college athletics exists because of the schools. It isn’t there because of the players. The players are then valuable because they play for those schools. If Brock Purdy didn’t play at Iowa State none of us would have any care about him. It’s a chicken or the egg deal. The players are valuable but they are valuable only because of where they play.

There’s not a perfect solution but the route we are going is definitely not the correct way. It’s the same as the realignment. The healthy result is not going to happen because everyone is looking out for their own interests instead of the interests of the whole.

So if all the best players end up going to play in a professional development league the same amount of money will still exist in college sports?

 

[Urbandale2013]

He doesn't have veto power, but he doesn't have to join it either. My point is that I don't know what incentive the top players have to join a union. And if the top players aren't in it, a union loses a lot of its power.

Many industries require union membership. This can be one of them. You don’t want to join the union you are not eligible for college athletics.

 

[yowza]

Jesus christ, what are we even doing here anymore? I don't think a single person out there was asking for another NBA or NFL but shittier

Cool, but maybe make one school comp the other when a dude moves. Not sure what the comp would be.

 

[Dandy]

This is all going to backfire when fan interest plummets in the next 10 years and networks try to bail out of massive contracts.

Colin Cowherd had a piece on this recently regarding the NBA. The NBA is all about player mobility (where the NCAA seems to be headed) but the NBA viewer is not. The viewer "wraps their arms around" continuity. Highest viewership in 2022? Teams built, developed and retained like Golden State, Milwaukee, Boston, even Cleveland.

 

[Mr Janny]

Many industries require union membership. This can be one of them. You don’t want to join the union you are not eligible for college athletics.

Ok, which industries require union membership?

The players union in both the NFL and NBA, which would be the closest equivalent to what we'd be looking at for college sports do not require union membership. Why would a college athletics union be different than them?

 

[CoKane]

Cool, but maybe make one school comp the other when a dude moves. Not sure what the comp would be.

Think there's some legs to that idea. Have to be careful to not turn it into the garbage system that is MLB free agency but that would be a good way to keep some of this in check or at least a little more even

 

[yowza]

Think there's some legs to that idea. Have to be careful to not turn it into the garbage system that is MLB free agency but that would be a good way to keep some of this in check or at least a little more even

Yep. If Bama comes calling and wants your starting OT, they should maybe need to comp the school losing the kid. School to school.

 

[intrepid27]

Pretty soon the NCA will let players transfer during the season. That way if a Blue Blood loses a stud WR or RB going into the playoffs they can get them promptly replaced.

 

[isucy86]

I'm all for this. If a regular student can transfer without penalty, there's no reason a student athlete shouldn't be able to.

Having an athlete transfer and sit, doesn't impede their academic work. Which is the equivalent for regular students.

Sports is a unique experience whether someone is a HS or college athlete. There is a commitment to the team and fellow teammates.

I have no issue with a one time immediate transfer, but allowing unfettered transfer lends itself to NIL crazyness and encourages coaches to cut corners to build a great roster.

Allowing professional athletes to sign long term contracts, but be free agents annually is a bad idea. So no sure how it is a good idea for college athletes.

 

[Mr Janny]

Think there's some legs to that idea. Have to be careful to not turn it into the garbage system that is MLB free agency but that would be a good way to keep some of this in check or at least a little more even

So, under that system, when Prohm was fired, Memphis would have to compensate us for Tyler Harris leaving? Or maybe you give an exception for when coaches get fired? What about coordinators? A new offensive coordinator can completely overhaul the style of play, and if your pocket passer can't run the option, their playing time may be significantly impacted. If they decide to transfer to a school that better fits them, should the destination school have to compensate? What about position coaches? A lot of these players were directly recruited by their position coach. If the position coach gets fired, should another school have to pay for any players that leave as a result?
What about situations where a player is creaned? Told to hit the bricks by the coach that recruited them. The transfer destination is responsible for compensation, still?

And who keeps track of all of these machinations? Handles appeals? Digs in to make sure that all parties are telling the truth?

 

[NorthCyd]

Bryce Young doesn’t have veto power of a union. Also if he wants to make more money go play pro.

The money in college athletics exists because of the schools. It isn’t there because of the players. The players are then valuable because they play for those schools. If Brock Purdy didn’t play at Iowa State none of us would have any care about him. It’s a chicken or the egg deal. The players are valuable but they are valuable only because of where they play.

There’s not a perfect solution but the route we are going is definitely not the correct way. It’s the same as the realignment. The healthy result is not going to happen because everyone is looking out for their own interests instead of the interests of the whole.

This is false. They are not only valuable because of where they play. They are valuable because the sport of football exists, it's popular, and they are talented at it. Their ability to play a popular sport is what gives them value. Playing at certain schools can enhance that value, but a blue chip player is highly valuable to any school that plays football.

 

[Mr Janny]

Having an athlete transfer and sit, doesn't impede their academic work. Which is the equivalent for regular students.

Sports is a unique experience whether someone is a HS or college athlete. There is a commitment to the team and fellow teammates.

I have no issue with a one time immediate transfer, but allowing unfettered transfer lends itself to NIL crazyness and encourages coaches to cut corners to build a great roster.

Allowing professional athletes to sign long term contracts, but be free agents annually is a bad idea. So no sure how it is a good idea for college athletes.

Yes. A year to year commitment in the form of a scholarship. That's all that's enforceable about the commitment.

Regarding academic work, please stop with the tired "they are students first" bull crap. That's the same weak ass obfuscation that the NCAA has tried to pull for years. These athletes in the major sports are there to play sports FIRST. Not be students. The vast, vast vast majority are pitched on the ability of the school to get them to the pros. Requiring them to sit out is absolutely punishment akin to stopping a non athlete student from pursuing study in their chosen career path.

And that's not even accounting other students who are on non athletic scholarships are able to transfer to other schools and participate in non academic activities immediately.

If I have a scholarship to play trumpet at a school, I can accept a scholarship at another school every single year if I want to, and never worry about having to sit out a year in the marching band. Why should another scholarship student be held to a different standard?

 

[CivEFootball]

I'm all for unlimited transfers. Although I still wish the focus was on the athlete actually obtaining their BS and the NCAA overseeing that and helping athletes get that. I think that could be achieved by meeting one of two conditions with allowing unlimited transfers:

1) transfer school and transferee have to prove, transfer credits, class schedule, and an outline that BS/graduation is obtainable with eligible years left.
2) Prove transferee is has enough money (maybe even go as far as put it some sort of escrow account) to pay for finish out BS at transfer school once eligibility runs out.

 

[Bigman38]

Someone smarter than me should set up a tracker that tallies every post about college sports someone makes after saying they're losing/lost interest.

 

[Mr Janny]

I'm all for unlimited transfers. Although I still wish the focus was on the athlete actually obtaining their BS and the NCAA overseeing that and helping athletes get that. I think that could be achieved by meeting one of two conditions with allowing unlimited transfers:

1) transfer school and transferee have to prove, transfer credits, class schedule, and an outline that BS/graduation is obtainable with eligible years left.
2) Prove transferee is has enough money (maybe even go as far as put it some sort of escrow account) to pay for finish out BS at transfer school once eligibility runs out.

Don't schools have minimum scheduling requirements for full time students. Why would there need to to be an additional standard that athletes would be held to, compared with other students?

And are you really thinking it through all of the way when you say that they should have to prove they have enough money to pay for their their degree? Are they not eligible for loans like other students are? And even if you could require it, what would it accomplish? Only students with money or rich parents would be eligible to transfer? Can you imagine how fast that would get dragged to court?

 

[CyJack13]

You can say it's a good thing for the kids if you want (it's not in the long run) but you're going to have a product that will no longer differentiate itself from professional sports and it's going to be really tough to compete against those entities.

Also, the "regular student" thing is a ********* argument. Regular students aren't getting full rides and more to be there. They are paying.

At this trajectory and based on where my interest in sports has been going, I can't really imagine I'll be very interested at all in 5 years. That's likely just me, but for some reason that I can't really explain, it just isn't a big deal to me anymore. It probably has to do more with my life changing but watching ISU have Tyrese Hunter here and lose him due to rule changes isn't going to bring fans in, that's for sure. I'm all for NIL, but the transfer rules are the step to far. That's what really unlocks the free agent pay-for-play model.

Lol we've brought in so many transfers over the last decade but as soon as we lose a big time player, than the rule sucks and is going to lead to less interest.

 

[jctisu]

The genie is out of the lamp on so many things around college athletics I don't even care anymore. Honestly I just want it to get even more insane and crazy at this point because why not? This unlimited transfer idea isn't crazy enough. In-season transfers with immediate eligibility is too small of a next step. I say let the players play for whoever they want week to week. Don't bail on me now God dammit if we are going to make this thing a circus (NCAA sports have always been a circus FYI) let's really change this thing up.

 

[2122]

Freshman year at Harvard, where you can dominate, do some networking, and bag smart chicks.
Sophomore year at Oregon, where you can build your shoe collection, and bag granola chicks.
Junior year at Kansas, where you can make bank, and bag farm girls.
Senior year at 'bama, where you can build your draft stock, and bag Junior League girls.
Then finish up back at Harvard for that diploma and trust-fund wife.