NCAA considering transfer/playing rule change

• BunkMoreland

  Azubuike24;1359235 wrote:In theory, yes, but the "contact" a coach signed is NOT the same as the contract "LOI/scholarship papers" a student-athlete signs

  Right, one often pays millions of dollars per year and the other gives them something you also get with a 3.5 GPA and 30 ACT score.
  
  I find the discrepancy in how millionaire 50 year olds are treated, and how 18 year olds are treated, to be completely ridiculous. I'm strongly in favor of anything that balances it out. Besides, how does it possibly effect me? Why would I care if some kid that plays a game and entertains me on a weekly basis is given a little more freedom of choice?
• Azubuike24

  

  I'm not arguing against what you're saying. What I'm saying is that by just "opening it up" for everyone to move freely, to "even it out" because coaches have been doing it for years, is the WRONG solution.
  
  You can't take two completely different contractual relationships and apply the exact same set of rules and guidelines to both.
  
  To address your last post...and to add to my post 2 posts above. There are options for athletes that allows them the freedom and choice, and to not get locked into being stuck with the NCAA's narrow ways of operation.
  
  1. Don't sign a letter of intent. It's not required. You can still get a scholarship, you can still participate. This is an absolute no-brainer for a basketball player who is one-and-done.
  
  2. Google "Michael Chandler" and "Brandon Jennings." Similar situations, as you can see from the "where they are now", it didn't work out the same. That's a testament to being the maker of your own success.
• Azubuike24

  

  ccrunner609;1359536 wrote:lol at people trying to compare a coaches "job" and a players "education" being the same.
  
  Kids should be able to come and go from any school. They are young and having to make alot of important decisions at the age of 17-18 years old. THe number of kids that choose to go somewhere based on what they know at that age might be viewed differently at the age of 20-21.
  
  Make the penalty is that if a student wants to go to another school after 2 years or so, they are made to pay their tuition back to the school for the ammount of time they were there. Once they paid their dues, they are free to go.

  Great idea. Akin to giving someone without a job a loan with high interest rate and then telling them they are good to go as long as everything is completely paid off on-time. It's a catch-22. People are caught up in the "now." Offer someone a free ride at age 18, most will take it. Even if they know that 2-3 years later it must be paid back, it won't deter things that much. Regardless of this warning, very few student-athletes will have the means to pay it off without some sort of compensation, even if they intended to transfer. All something like would do would create an extra advantage for kids who have access to money, either via family or some other form. It would also create a means to money changing hands to pay off scholarship fees which would allow a kid to transfer. What's to keep someone from "loaning" the money to a family based on future earnings, and allow that kid to transfer? It would create an even bigger problem that is ever increasing now, and a problem that the NCAA can't control currently. How on earth could they enforce it on a larger scale.
  
  Again, giving the athletes an "out-clause", whether that be financially, academically or other reasons is only going to create more work for an already-depleted and incompetent NCAA. Then again, maybe this is a good thing and may lead to the eventual abandonment of the whole NCAA model.
• BunkMoreland

  ccrunner609;1359536 wrote:Make the penalty is that if a student wants to go to another school after 2 years or so, they are made to pay their tuition back to the school for the ammount of time they were there. Once they paid their dues, they are free to go.

  Why should they need to pay back anything? If they play football for 2 years at a school, they get a scholarship for 2 years. If another school is willing to give them a scholarship for the remaining two years and they decide they prefer that school, then they can leave their previous scholarship behind and the university can give it to someone else.
  
  Why are you people so concerned about student-athletes simply being allowed to transfer when they want to transfer? Do you not want to have to memorize new rosters as often?
• Pick6

  

  BunkMoreland;1359586 wrote:Why should they need to pay back anything? If they play football for 2 years at a school, they get a scholarship for 2 years. If another school is willing to give them a scholarship for the remaining two years and they decide they prefer that school, then they can leave their previous scholarship behind and the university can give it to someone else.
  
  Why are you people so concerned about student-athletes simply being allowed to transfer when they want to transfer? Do you not want to have to memorize new rosters as often?

  Pretty sure 99% of the time student athletes are allowed to transfer when they want to.
• BunkMoreland

  Pick6;1359588 wrote:Pretty sure 99% of the time student athletes are allowed to transfer when they want to.

  To be clearer, I was speaking about freedom to transfer where/when they want without penalty.
  
  Also loved the use of pretty sure at the beginning of the statement. Very underrated way to be subtly condescending.
• WebFire

  BunkMoreland;1359617 wrote:To be clearer, I was speaking about freedom to transfer where/when they want without penalty.
  
  Also loved the use of pretty sure at the beginning of the statement. Very underrated way to be subtly condescending.

  Like I said earlier, it has the potential to lead to a "free agent" type market for college. It would be constant recruiting for current players as well as high school players. It leaves a big door open for booster corruption.
• BunkMoreland

  WebFire;1359662 wrote:It leaves a big door open for booster corruption.

  I'm in favor of anything that gets more money in the player's pockets. If some creepy old guy wants to give them money because he likes watching them play a sport, then hopefully they're just smart enough not to get caught. It won't effect my enjoyment when viewing games.