Arizona refuses to allow freshman center to transfer

Shouldn't?
OK.
But there's lots of that in life. It's a rule. If you don't want to live by the Big Ten's rules, you don't choose a Big Ten school. Etc.

 

That's fine, except when there is little alternative for a student.

 

Let's not play stupid.

These kids go to these schools to have a shot at making the pros, so it's not about the actual academics and/or college experience for them so why should the school treat this any different?

Big time College BB and FB is a business and if you don't want to play by the rules, don't sign up.

You can play all the intramurals you want at any school in the country and not have to sign up and/or go through the hassles of transfering if your heart isn't in one particular school.

 

Baron Scicluna,

No one is keeping an athlete from playing basketball that year. They're keeping them from playing basketball at another NCAA Division I school (a potential business rival, per se).

If a kid wants to play basketball badly enough, he has two other options:
- Sign a pro contract (see Randolph Morris, see Brandon Jennings)
- Transfer to a good NAIA program (Oklahoma City, Georgetown-KY) and play immediately (Matt Walls played at Marshall last year and he's playing for Georgetown this year)

If you sign a NLI and agree to a basketball scholarship (which pretty much means you ain't there for the school's fine science lab), then you play by the rules you agreed to and you deal with the consequences of your decisions.

I'm sure Withey knew if he tried to leave early that there would be a possibility of Zona pulling this. If not, Withey is too stupid to be going to college for free.

 

How many athletes actually make pro? The odds are astronomical. Except for the top stars, many of them try to use the scholarship to get an education. Or at least they should. The ones that don't are fools. Just because they decide to receive a scholarship doesn't mean the school should be able to dictate where they can transfer.

I agree that FB and BB are nothing more than big business. I've said on this forum before that I wish athletes would either unionize, or walk out in protest before a game. Unfortunantly, many of them are afraid to lose their scholarships, or are just brainwashed into thinking that State U cares about them other than their athletic ability.

Sure, kids can play intramurals. But why should they be limited to playing in that? If the school sponsors an extracurricular activity, it should be open for any student to try out for it.

Dealing with the consequences of a decision is one thing when there is mutuality in agreeing to a contract. I understand the NCAA wanting kids to sit out a year if they transfer, to prevent bidding wars. (Don't get me started on the hypocrisy of coaches leaving schools while still under contract for a better job right away while the kids have to sit out the year). But it seems to me that a school should not have dictatorial powers of where a kid can transfer and participate in an extracurricular activity.

To use the business world for an example, say an employee signs a deal to work at McDonald's. A few months in, the employee is unhappy and wants to transfer to Burger King. McDonald's wants to hold the kid to the year, even though they could let him out early if they want and find another employee. McDonald's also has the power to claim that the employee 'broke a rule' and fire the guy, so it's not like they can't end the relationship early either.

Under NCAA rules, McDonald's can then tell the employee that they don't want them to work at Burger King, even after the year is up, so they have to wait two years to work there. But if they want to work for Podunk Sandwiches, they only have to wait one year. Why should McDonald's be able to deprive someone of making a living the way they want to?

 

Baron Scicluna,

Isn't there "mutuality" involved when the kid signs?

I mean, there's not a "I do NOT agree" checkbox on any of that paperwork. When you sign it, you mutually agree to it.

So if you don't live up to your end - staying at the school, keeping your grades up and staying on the team - don't get pissy when the school does something perfectly legal by saying "You signed with us, came here and now you don't want to play? Fine, but you are NOT going anywhere any time soon."

No one is keeping the kid from getting a free education (which he is entitled to as long as he remains on the team, whether he is happy athletically makes no difference as far as the price of his education is concerned) or going somewhere smaller (NAIA) and playing. He's just not allowed to go to a potential rival.

The kid still has options. Just because you do not personally like those options doesn't mean the kid is being held there against his will.

 

Why is he 'not allowed to go to a potential rival' as you put it?

Unless it is specifically written in the contract listing the schools that a kid cannot transfer to, and the kid agrees to it, the kid should be able to transfer to wherever the heck he wants, whether it's to his team's archrival or an NAIA school.

Actually, the school CAN keep him from getting a free education, no matter his grades or playing ability. The scholarships are four one-year scholarships, not a four-year scholarship. A new coach comes in, he only has to pay the kid's education for the first year. Then he can yank it and the kid is stuck either paying his own way, or trying to find a school to transfer to, THAT HIS ORIGINAL SCHOOL APPROVES OF.

It took Major League Baseball players the first 75 years of the 20th century to get free agency. Change will eventually come to college sports as well. The NCAA better be careful and start working with the athletes, otherwise it may end up blowing up in their face.

 

Not to end this very interesting -- and needed debate -- but I'm pretty sure AZ is doing this because of academic/GPA/graduation standing rules, and the possible loss of a basketball scholarship if the kid bolts immediately. AFAIK it's not a punitive situation.

That said, perhaps we can expand the discussion to include well-meaning regulations and unintended consequences.

 

Arizona's going to take an APR hit regardless of if he stays for a whole year or leaves at the end of the semester. One point docked for him leaving while eligible (instead of a two-point hit if he's ineligible).

And he can't transfer to another NCAA school and receive athletic scholarshiop aid if he's not eligible at the school he left.

Arizona's just being a dick about it.

 

Baron, Jeff Withey was rated among the 40 best basketball players nationally in his HS graduating class.
The odds against him NOT playing basketball professionally are astronomical with that background. From that position, he might or might not make it in the NBA, but in order to not be a pro somewhere he'd have to be a serious screw-up or be significantly injured.
Don't buy into all that crap about the odds against being a pro being so tough.
Who do you think has it easier getting a job in his chosen profession today:
The basketball talent or the journalism student?

 

Today? It would be the basketball player, since the journalism industry crapped all over itself for years and is now paying the price for real. The previous 106 years, give or take a few? Journalism.

There are over 320 men's basketball teams. Let's divide the 12 players on the team by four, one for each class year, which would be three. So, there are roughly 1,000 players who use up their eligibilty, or graduate, or are among the 30 or 40 who leave school for the NBA draft.

Out of those 1,000 players, 60 get drafted by the NBA, and that's not counting European players. So, let's say 40 come out of U.S. colleges to get drafted.

Now, some of those 1,000 will play overseas. The mid-major D-I school in my area had two players graduate and play in Europe (not in the major hotbeds like Spain or Italy). So, let's say 160 (to make it a round number) will play. Include those with the NBA, that's 200 out of 1,000, or 20 percent.

And that's just for one year. Players get hurt, lose interest, don't have the ability, etc. So there's turnover every year for a career in which only 20 percent will ever get paid any sort of money to work in.

And that's IF a player competes for four years in college. That's not counting players, who like you said, get hurt, or are discovered to be overhyped phenoms.

If a school only had a 20 percent success rate of putting students into their chosen field in which they might only last one year, they'd be laughed at (unless, of course, they won a national championship. Then all is forgiven).

So yeah, the odds of making it as a pro to make a serious living are pretty astronomical.

 

Couple of things that I haven't seen mentioned (sorry if I somehow overlooked them).

1. The head coach also signs the Letter of Intent. There are three signatures on it when it gets to the student-athlete -- the coach's, the athletic director's and the president's. Those three people are promising that player a one-year scholarship, including room and board, in exchange for his participation in the program operated by those three individuals. Now, it would seem to me that if one of those three individuals is no longer present for that year, it voids that contract.

2. They are very likely preventing him from transferring to another school because he will not be eligible for financial aid at any other institution. That's a BRICK WALL for most of these kids. And it's pure bullshit.

Someone said earlier that the NCAA often doesn't look out for the interest of the student-athletes. No truer words have ever been typed. The interest of the NCAA go: 1. NCAA, 2. Any entity that makes the NCAA money, 3. The institutions, 4. The student-athletes, because it looks bad if we don't care a little, and 5. The coaches.