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
NCAA looking at unlimited transfers?
- Thread starter CoKane
- Start date
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
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.
Agreed, they are turning college athletics into a shell of what it used to be.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It is, given that the NCAA isnt going to do anything to protect competitive balance and its just gonna be a BIG and SEC feeding fest every off season
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
Competitive balance? When has big time college sports ever shown anything but the tiniest veneer of lip service toward competitive balance? Football and Men's basketball are the pinnacle of "the rich get richer".
Hell yes, makes the off-season so much more interesting. An in season transfer one time allowance is hopefully the next step. Say you have a great team just missing a big guy, could fill that void during the year. They could have their own version of a trade deadline.
Why do we even have the NCAA any more? They do nothing to the likes of Kansas and NC and drop the hammer on schools like Caltech. They let TV run everything they do anyway.
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.
Imagine how much could have been saved if the NCAA just agreed to pay all players a base salary.
For all the flaws of college sports and there are many it exists because of the idea that it is different than pro sports. If you burn even the little bit of that idea that remains you destroy peoples interest in it.
It isn’t even like pro sports because at least there contracts restrict movement.
If this is the route it is going then the schools should just do what has been suggested and complete cut the real ties to their athletic teams and just license the names.
This isn’t an argument that athletes shouldn’t see more of a percentage of the revenue but it is a reality that can’t comply with many of the requirements the schools have.
I'm guessing if you have an academic scholarship you can still transfer and not have to sit out for a year.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
Students on non athletic scholarships aren't restricted from transferring either. It's only when sports are involved that suddenly people get concerned about it. And that concern has nothing to do with the welfare of the student, and everything to do with a fear that someone's favorite team might not have as great of season if a student transfers.
It comes down to this, if you want to limit where the players can move, make them employees and sign them to contracts. Any other arrangement amounts to wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Why should that matter or make any kind of difference? If they're on a full ride at school A, transfer to school B with immediate eligibility, then it frees up said full ride at school A for someone else.
I just don't understand the argument that it's ok for non-athlete students to transfer however many times they want because they're paying some or all of their own way, but it's not ok for student-athletes to transfer as many times as they want because they're on scholarship. What's your reasoning?
No one has to sit out from the classrooom a year and those athletes are still getting their scholarships. As far as education and the financial effects, there is no difference.
The school is investing a load of money into one and taking a load of money from the other is basically where it starts and stops for me. Do you guys have any clue how much money is spent per football player, for instance? It doesn't stop at room and board. Hell the numbers are staggering if you take all of our expenses against all student athletes, let alone if you just calculate football.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
But it absolutely can make a difference when it comes to their career in athletics. Take a basketball player, for example. Age can make a huge difference in how likely a player is to get drafted. Being forced to sit out a year from athletics may have a large impact on that player's future.
They've got one free transfer opportunity. Besides all that, where you play isn't going to make a huge difference to your long term future. It may make a difference in your college career in terms of winning, going to a tournament, etc., but the sit out year isn't a make or break deal for that. Shayock isn't in the NBA right now if he wouldn't have had to sit out.
The NCAA tried to have it all until they couldn't have anything. They should have immediately been pro-NIL, kept the transfer rules largely the same with immediate waivers in the event of a coaching change and a robust waiver approval system otherwise. Now they're an impotent entity that the Big Ten and SEC or going to eventually dismiss. Mark Emmert was simply incompetent of forward thinking and the gravy train is going to crash.