1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Yahoo's Wetzel hits nail on head about NCAA transfer rules

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Baron Scicluna, Jan 2, 2009.

  1. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Of course, having a scholarship to get that education sure does help.
     
  2. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    The transfer rule is appalling, but it's no slam-dunk (pardon the pun) that a court would overturn it as any sort of restraint of trade or whatnot. There are a lot of professions where someone who leaves has to sit out for a certain period before working for the competition. TV anchors, for one. Doctors, for another. It isn't uncommon for physicians to be barred completely from setting up shop within a certain number of miles of wherever they left, or at least barred from doing so for six months to a year. Some states look more askance at this than others, but the NCAA might be on firm ground in court given these existing rules.
     
  3. Freelance Hack

    Freelance Hack Active Member

    Just the other day, I saw where a two-sport player (football-lacrosse) was transferring schools. He was immediately eligible for lacrosse, which starts soon. But he won't be able to play football for the school until 2010.

    That does not make any sense to me. There shouldn't be any type of sit-out rule.

    That said, I do understand some restrictions on transfers. I can see the need for keeping players from following coaches or playing for conference opponents or teams on future schedules. Why give a future opponent an advantage?
     
  4. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    The problem is that the scholarship rules are tilted significantly towards the university. They get one year renewals, so they can cut the guy at any time, yet the transfer has to sit out one year, and now there are restrictions.

    Also, let's not get so worked up about the "free education" payoff, which is significant, but look at what the schools/bowls/leagues get. Its hardly equitable.

    This is the only reason I prefer pro sports v. college, college sports is great theatre but the environment is sickening.
     
  5. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    The best compromise I saw was this:

    If you put any restrictions on where a player can go, then he can play immediately. So if Shannon restricts Marve from even a single FBS school, that restriction stands, but Marve can play next year for whatever school he chooses. There would have a few rules limiting the number of restrictions ("You can only transfer to Arkansas State" is not acceptable), but it could be worked out.

    If no restrictions are placed on the student, he has to sit out a year after transferring.
     
  6. Twoback

    Twoback Active Member

    I'm not sure I get that: Look what the schools/bowls/leagues get.
    The education and training the college athletes get is worth a significant amount of money. For a select few, the publicity they gain is worth even more. (Ask Kevin Durant about his $60 million Nike contract, the direct result of one year spent at Texas). It's not as bad a deal for the athletes as you make it seem. It's certainly no worse a deal than the kids whose parents are paying $60,000 a year so they can say they went to Harvard.
     
  7. Rhody31

    Rhody31 Well-Known Member

    Plenty of kids graduate from college without a scholarship.
    If he's attending a 30k per year school and pays for one year, he'll be in a lot less debt than most college grads
     
  8. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    Hold up, Durant's NIke contract was a direct result of his one year at Texas? Or he happened to put up ridiculous numbers and it's just coincidentally he went to Texas? Having come from a small little high school that's known in this area for only being a HS basketball powerhouse, he was pretty well regarded going into college to the point I don't think it really mattered WHERE he went. In my mind Texas simply benefited from his one year there.
     
  9. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    This is different than the Harvard scenario.

    For NCAA Basketball, I recall that the tournament generates over $1B for the NCAA (most likely more now). I venture that is more collectively than is spent on scholarships for all basketball players in the NCAA. This does not even take into account the ticket revenue and NCAA affiliated sales that the kids never see.

    What about football? The schools make out like bandits. Is it equitable that the coaches get $$$ for the logo contracts but the athletes get zilch even though the logos are paying for the athletes to wear it not the coach?
     
  10. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

    And that's what helps to subsidize NCAA women's tournaments at every level, every men's tournament except the basketball, hockey, wrestling and baseball tournaments at D-I and every national tournament at DII and DIII, all of which lose considerable chunks of money.

    Not a billion, of course, but isn't thazt over the life of the contract, not just in one year.
     
  11. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    if he transfers to a D-2 or D-3 school he doesn't have to sit a year.
    if you transfer to the same level or higher you have to sit.
     
  12. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    And Durant probably benefitted from his one year at Texas, too. Probably drove up the amount he would receive from Nike or whoever signed him, given his star status, national POY honors and the like. He still would have gotten paid very well had he gone straight to the NBA, but not as much.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page