Arizona refuses to allow freshman center to transfer

I think a coach retiring/leaving/being fired/dropping dead is a legitimate out to a letter of intent. Period.

 

In the mid-1970s, the reserve clause which restricted baseball players' rights forced players to sign with one team with no choice of which team to play with and with management having almost all of the leverage.

Thirty years later, Division I athletes make a committment which is frequently based upon a coach being at a certain college. I don't know if it is still in effect, but Division I athletes were restricted from taking jobs. In the mid-60s, the NCAA took away a $15/month expense money from athletes. (This would be at least $100/month now).

The letter is a condition of employment, in effect. When it costs $50 to go to a college football game in Division I, this is a business. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

I believe the rule is now is that D-I athletes can have jobs,but they can't make more than $2,000 or so per school year, or something to that effect (can anyone say, restraint of trade).

Problem is, being on an intercollegiate sports team is effectively a full-time job with the hours put in for practice, traveling, games, not to mention conditioning work that the coaches expect, but don't count towards the 20 hours a week. Put the job with being a full-time student, and the athletes have little, if any time for a job.

Not to mention, there are certain coaches who get POed at their athletes if they have any outside interests other than playing their sport and passing enough classes to remain eligible.

 

I'd treat a LOI as a contract. You sign a contract, you live up to the contract.

Perhaps if Withey "lawyers up," he'll cite Lute Olson's retirement as breach of contract? I dunno. I still think he should play out the year at Arizona before making a decision either way.

 

Pretty naive view considering that it's a one-year agreement for the player in that he/she is guaranteed aid for one year ... and then it can be pulled for any reason or no reason at all. But if the athlete wants out of the deal after that same one year they then have to sit at least one year (and perhaps two) in order to play at the same level. It's not equal — it's exploitative bullshit of the highest order. If they want to make it even, each kid should get to transfer after every year with no penalty, just like the school can cut them without penalty. I won't call it a master-slave relationship because the perks (a college education) are good for the athlete, but the athletes are treated more like property than students.

 

That's what I feel. Frankly, I don't see why a school should have the power to decide where a kid can transfer to, at all. By having a kid sit out two years instead of one, or whether or not the kid can still receive a scholarship, means the original school effectively can dictate where a kid goes.

For instance, let's say a star football player on Alabama decides to transfer to Auburn. Why should Alabama be able to prevent him from going there and playing football?

 

The Letter of Intent program is not part of the NCAA. It is part of the Collegiate Commissioner's Association and it is voluntary for each school to participate. The program was developed to avoid the kind of hell that somebody described above where you would offer scholarships to 15 people and then at the last minute, tell 10 kids not to come.

The reason for the two-year penalty is because that is how long a kid commits to a school for. He would take part on the team for one year and then if unhappy, could transfer and sit out the second season before being eligible again in year three. It keeps the integrity of the program intact and makes the word of the student-athlete mean something.

A school does not have to take part in the LOI program but by doing so, would have no method to lock a student-athlete down for the following year. By participating, the school agrees to follow the rules. The program hasn't really changed in almost 30 years.

 

But what's to keep the school from cutting the kid after a year?

 

But if a student enrolls at a university, they cannot enroll in a second, right? So once the student is enrolled, that is their binding agreement they are attending.

If the coach jumps ship befoe the season starts, the student can drop out and look at other schools the same week.

 

Under that logic, then why doesn't the NCAA make transfers sit out for two years instead of one?

Bottom line is, if a school doesn't approve of where a kid wants to transfer to, they can force the kid to sit out for two years. If Ohio State doesn't want a kid to transfer to Michigan, they can force the kid to sit out for two years. That ain't right.

 

You're right Baron.
That ain't right.
A school can't arbitrarily force a player to sit out two years because it doesn't approve of his choice of a second school.
Some conferences have rules like that in place, but it's not at the whim of an individual school.

 

Shouldn't even be a conference rule. Last I checked, this is America. Students should be free to choose whatever school they want, and participate in any extracurricular activities they want.