ESPN - Bilas: Solving the transfer question is easy - Let them play

[jbhtexas]

This. It's not like the current system prevents the rich getting richer in any way. It's already dirty as dirty can be.

It isn't nearly as dirty as it can get. If you want to see just how dirty it can get, let players transfer and play immediately.

I personally don't care if schools would be hurt by it. It's a small price to pay for fairness for the student athlete.

The student athletes are already treated fairly. They get tuition, food, room and board paid, plus physical training, academic counseling, nutrition counseling, and other benefits beyond those given to normal students. What isn't fair is sticking it to mid-majors so blue bloods can benefit.

I'd love to see transfer rules applied to coaches as well. You want to leave? OK. You have to sit out a year. You can run practice, but no game day coaching.

I have no problem with that.

 

[Clonehomer]

I do not like this. It's going to mean that recruiting of these players will never stop, even after they start playing.

Why not just allow them to get scholarships right away and still make them sit a season?

I do like the idea of a coach sitting for a year if they leave before a contract is up. Might mean coaches aren't demanding extensions with three years left anymore.

 

[Knownothing]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...le-let-athletes-play-immediately-not-sit-year

Interesting article:

This isn't difficult. If this is really about unpaid, amateur students being treated like any other students, then the transfer policy is simple. Athletes should be able to transfer at will at any time, and immediately accept full aid elsewhere, and be eligible to play immediately upon full-time enrollment at the beginning of the quarter or semester of the next full season. Of course, this is all just talk, because the NCAA will not change its ridiculous, unjustifiable transfer policies anytime soon. The "membership input" being sought will skew toward athletes as employee-assets rather than students. It is all just talk.

No way in my opinion. Then kids would transfer at semester to a school that needed a certain player to win a national title. I like the sit out year and grad transfer rule. The one thing I would change is that if you transfer after the first semester. You can start playing the next season.
.

 

[DeereClone]

I think this would be really bad for college basketball. Recruiting and retention would be a nightmare for coaches, and the rich would most definitely get richer.

Think NBA super teams forming but on steroids because there are no contracts - every year would be the Wild West.

 

[AuH2O]

These players should go after the coaches. They are the ones getting rich.
Also, a guy on scholarship that never plays costs the school a ton. Same with players on teams that lose money- not just non-revenue sports, but plenty of bball programs. Should they have to pay extra fees to cover the extra cost the University incurs on their behalf?
The problem is guys like Bilas want the coaches to keep getting rich, players to get paid, players that don't contribute financial value to the school to get paid, and the facility upgrades to keep coming.

 

[OnlyCyclones]

Either restrict coaches or let athletes transfer unrestricted just as coaches do. IMO!

There's a clear problem with the vacuum between juvenile future pros, and the pros. Currently the NFL and NBA let the NCAA be the go between, and the NCAA has unquestionably benefited from that. SO, somehow the NCAA needs to directly compensate the people bringing the prosperity.

But, that isn't what the transfer question is about. The performers deserve that compensation. But transfers have nothing to do with that compensation, they're basketball decisions. And the NCAA has every right regulate basketball decisions. I love the grad transfer rule. Grad transfers got their degree, they did what the NCAA wanted them to do, and realistically, for the 99% who don't go pro, they're opening up graduate school opportunities and get to play a game at a high level. Everyone can still transfer, they just have to sit a year. That deterrent keeps competitive balance. And without that balance, there's no tradition and pageantry,and no college sports woven into the cultural fabric, because college sports are "minor league" sports. They're 18 to 23 year olds. Put them in the D-League, and most of them will be ignored. Put them in college sports as they've developed, and the athletes have a stage.

They deserve to be compensated for being the performers on that stage, but the NCAA system largely created that stage, and I think unrestricted transfers would cause that stage to crumble.

 

[NorthCyd]

If Jay really believes they should be treated like any other student, I wonder how he feels about boosters paying players? I don't believe there is anything stopping someone outside the university from paying a student that is a chemistry wiz to go to his alma mater. Why shouldn't boosters be able to pay players? Just make the whole damn thing a free for all.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I tend to agree that players should have more control over their destiny, but disagree on this particular point, as the game of college basketball would be absolute **** if players just transferred at will. You'd have a small number of relevant teams, and a large number of irrelevant teams that may jump up here and there when they discover a diamond in the rough, but quickly recede as their gem abandoned them for one of the better programs.

 

[cykadelic2]

It would be great for blue blood schools, like the one Jay Bilas played for. Let's say Duke, UNC, or Kentucky needs an upper classman player to fill a hole left by some player leaving for the NBA or a recruit that doesn't pan out. All they would need to do is "turn on the charm" to some good player at a non-blue blood school to fill their needs. It would be particularly devastating to mid-majors who have developed good players.

Scott Drew is right. Jay Bilas is wrong.

Agree, Bilas is full of crap on this one and his asinine belief that athletes should be paid beyond full cost of attendence. JP stated at a luncheon today that the proposal is wrong and ill-advised.

Athletes have a choice of scholarship opportunities (unlike pro athletes who are drafted and tied to a franchise for multiple years) and coaching staffs invest significant resources in recruiting those athletes. The existing sit out rule deters mass transfers while still enabling 4 years of eligibility. And the grad transfer rules rewards athletes with degrees to be immediately eligible. The existing system is fine and fair to both athletes and the schools.

 

[isucy86]

Horrible idea. The college game would become just like the NBA where we would have a small number of Dream Teams. Your kidding yourself if you don't think schools like KU, Kentucky, Duke would reach out through back channels to attract top college players to fill needs. If we're going to allow kids to jump schools without sitting a year, why not just let the NBA "call-up" kids at any time during the season. I bet Kentucky/Duke would freak about such a rule.

I also don't believe the comparison between a coach leaving for a new job and a player leaving and being eligible immediately is an apples to apples scenario. When coaches move on it doesn't change the competitive balance of college basketball for the most part. In most situations, a new coach is hired because the prior coach couldn't win. So the new coach has the job to rebuild. Even in a situation where top-tier programs like Indiana or Florida hire a new coach- there is a rebuilding/readjustment period.

Non-competes exist in the business world and I see the college transfer rule as a similar situation. In the business world non-competes are used to prevent the easy transfer of knowledge obtained from one employer or prevent high revenue generating salesperson to jump to a competitor.

I do think the NCAA needs to lighten up a bit. If a kid wants to transfer, their existing school shouldn't have the ability to restrict where they go. I also see the redshirt system as silly. Why not give athletes 5 years and they can compete all 5 years. IMO high school kids should be able to enter the NBA or NFL draft without attending college.

 

[Frak]

This would be great for Duke and a few other schools...that's why Bilas is all for it. Heck, it would probably help ISU more than it hurt, but I think it would destroy what is good about CBB. Recruiting would not end until the college SR year started. So any minor disagreements with the coach could be transfer time. The blue bloods would spend at least half their scholarships poaching transfers.

My opinion is if you want to pay players, just let them declare for the draft out of HS. Add a round to the NBA draft and start parking those kids in the G League. There, you're getting paid. Kids that don't get drafted have the option of signing with a college team. Works for everyone. Eliminates the farce of the one and done. If a kid wants to play pro ball, he has a shot at a roster. If he wants to try college for a year or 4, he has that option. Total player freedom

 

[cayin]

This is what Jay Bilas wants, the blue bloods would just get better as they acquire better players as the season progresses. This is what he wants, it is good for the tv ratings. Heck, it is better for his Dukies.

 

[Cloneon]

Wow. I thought college was about an education first and athletics second. If not, it certainly should be as continuing in sports as a 'future' for most of the athletes is as likely as, well, I was when I graduated. Which isn't very likely. So, I ask myself, what's more important for a student athlete? Resoundingly, the answer is their education as that has a payback for a lifetime. Student athletes jumping ship hurts fan dedication, destabilizes a learning platform, will result in a lower quality of play (new systems take time), and teaches them the wrong lessons in life. The costs of 'recruitment' sky rocket as now it's a matter of filling a roster not just once in 4 years, but now every year. It just seems to be a lopsided argument to allow 'free-agency'... so to speak.

 

[Ozclone]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...le-let-athletes-play-immediately-not-sit-year

Interesting article:

This isn't difficult. If this is really about unpaid, amateur students being treated like any other students, then the transfer policy is simple. Athletes should be able to transfer at will at any time, and immediately accept full aid elsewhere, and be eligible to play immediately upon full-time enrollment at the beginning of the quarter or semester of the next full season. Of course, this is all just talk, because the NCAA will not change its ridiculous, unjustifiable transfer policies anytime soon. The "membership input" being sought will skew toward athletes as employee-assets rather than students. It is all just talk.

I think Jay is wrong. If you want them to be treated like any other student, then you don't give them a scholarship for an extra curricular activity. True student athletes wouldn't get scholarships and teams would be made up of the students who chose to go to that school based upon the education they were receiving. If they are going to receive compensation for playing a sport, then it is reasonable to place some restrictions on player movement to maintain the competitive balance of the sport. If Jay wants to make them pros, then we should sign them to contracts and lock them in for four years and then schools could trade them or cut them if they didn't work out.

 

[isutrevman]

These players should go after the coaches. They are the ones getting rich.
Also, a guy on scholarship that never plays costs the school a ton. Same with players on teams that lose money- not just non-revenue sports, but plenty of bball programs. Should they have to pay extra fees to cover the extra cost the University incurs on their behalf?
The problem is guys like Bilas want the coaches to keep getting rich, players to get paid, players that don't contribute financial value to the school to get paid, and the facility upgrades to keep coming.

The vast majority of athletic departments LOSE money. Most revenue made is already spent on the players through equipment costs, facilities that they have around the clock access to, travel, etc. Bilas' claims of how much schools make off these players applies to like the top 10-20 programs and the top 2-3% of players.

 

[isutrevman]

This is what Jay Bilas wants, the blue bloods would just get better as they acquire better players as the season progresses. This is what he wants, it is good for the tv ratings. Heck, it is better for his Dukies.

He had an article posted here that listed his reasons why players should be paid. One reason was that in the national title game a few years ago, the head coaches' salaries were around $12 millon combined (Wisconsin vs. Duke). What he didn't mention, was that $9.5 million of that was coach K's salary. Notice how he intentionally softens the blow against Duke.

 

[Clonehomer]

The vast majority of athletic departments LOSE money. Most revenue made is already spent on the players through equipment costs, facilities that they have around the clock access to, travel, etc. Bilas' claims of how much schools make off these players applies to like the top 10-20 programs and the top 2-3% of players.

Isn't that about all the schools ESPN cares to cover these days?

 

[Rural]

We're probably close to hearing a TV broadcaster say, "They've added that kid from Iowa State for the stretch run".

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

This would absolutely destroy parity in college basketball. Can you imagine the teams the Duke, NC, Kentucky, and Kansas would be able to assemble if the transfer restrictions were lifted. Iowa State has had a really nice run but even with that I still think we would be vulnerable to poaching. The mid majors are already getting killed with the sit out transfer rule and with basically unrestricted free agency those mid major schools would get absolutely gutted every off season. The blue bloods already have an advantage, don't tilt the table even more in their favor.

 

[CyJack13]

I think this would be really bad for college basketball. Recruiting and retention would be a nightmare for coaches, and the rich would most definitely get richer.

Think NBA super teams forming but on steroids because there are no contracts - every year would be the Wild West.

I think this would be fun to watch. College basketball would definitely pick up more casual fans if each spring/summer was a free agent free for all.