NCAA about to dump permission transfer rule

[Baron Scicluna]

The Phil Martellis and Bo Ryans are going to have to figure out another way to **** over the kids. NCAA is looking at a rule that would allow athletes to transfer wherever the hell they want, without having to ask the school for permission:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9642325/transfer-rules-change-next-season-ncaa-says

It's about friggin' time they did this. Why should any educational institution have the right to restrict where a student can choose where to go to school and participate in that school's extracurricular activities.

 

[Armchair_QB]

oh good, Baron has some NCAA porn to jerk off to tonight.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Oh good, the Grumpy Old Troll gives out one of his non-contributing posts.

 

[Mark2010]

Not a bad idea. I look at the kid from Pitt, Tom Savage. Played as a freshman at Rutgers, transfers to Arizona has to sit out. Transfers again to Pitt, has to sit out another year. So now he's finally getting a shot as a senior.

Look at Jacob Coker at Florida State. Redshirts as a freshman, sits behind EJ Manuel the next year. Now he's a redshirt sophomore stuck behind some wunderkind phenom. Gotta be thinking "Damn, I could start at 80 percent of the D-I schools out there and why I am wasting away on the bench here?" Not saying it is the coach's fault all the time, but they should be able to move on and get on with their lives without too great of a penalty.

 

[SpeedTchr]

It would be even fairer if they paired this with a rule change that eliminates the need to justify cutting a scholarship athlete loose at the end of each year. If it's a free market, why should a coach/school have to even think for a second about keeping a kid they don't want any more? Hired and fired, the only way to go.

 

[Mark2010]

As long as the street runs both ways.

My major concern --- and I'm sure this is a big reason the rule exists in the first place --- is that it would become a recruiting free-for-all, with schools constantly trying to entice players to transfer early and often. I've dealt with that too much with high schools --- Joe Stud suddenly decides to live at grandma's house and play for rival school --- and it's just an invitation for even more corruption than already exists today. No easy answers.

 

[Armchair_QB]

It would be even fairer if they paired this with a rule change that eliminates the need to justify cutting a scholarship athlete loose at the end of each year. If it's a free market, why should a coach/school have to even think for a second about keeping a kid they don't want any more? Hired and fired, the only way to go.

If a kid quits or gets kicked off the team/out of school he should have to pay back the cost of his scholarship then.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

It would be even fairer if they paired this with a rule change that eliminates the need to justify cutting a scholarship athlete loose at the end of each year. If it's a free market, why should a coach/school have to even think for a second about keeping a kid they don't want any more? Hired and fired, the only way to go.

Schools and coaches have been doing that for years already. Only in the last year have they been allowed to offer multi-year scholarships. Previously, it was year by year. Coaches run kids off all the time.

It would be even fairer if they paired this with a rule change that eliminates the need to justify cutting a scholarship athlete loose at the end of each year. If it's a free market, why should a coach/school have to even think for a second about keeping a kid they don't want any more? Hired and fired, the only way to go.

If a kid quits or gets kicked off the team/out of school he should have to pay back the cost of his scholarship then.

If a coach has a losing season, they should give back their salaries, right?

As long as the street runs both ways.

My major concern --- and I'm sure this is a big reason the rule exists in the first place --- is that it would become a recruiting free-for-all, with schools constantly trying to entice players to transfer early and often. I've dealt with that too much with high schools --- Joe Stud suddenly decides to live at grandma's house and play for rival school --- and it's just an invitation for even more corruption than already exists today. No easy answers.

There already is the free-for-all for coaches. Why should players be treated any differently?

 

[Armchair_QB]

Coaches get fired for losing. No need for a give-back.

Try to be a little smarter. I know it's asking a lot.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Coaches get fired for losing. No need for a give-back.

Try to be a little smarter. I know it's asking a lot.

Actually, coaches under contract still get paid when they're fired. Their contracts are guaranteed.

Your effort is lacking.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Coaches get fired for losing. No need for a give-back.

Try to be a little smarter. I know it's asking a lot.

Actually, coaches under contract still get paid when they're fired. Their contracts are guaranteed.

Your effort is lacking.

Of course, the other nine guys who get fired for sucking don't get paid.

But I guess you aren't smart enough to understand that.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Coaches get fired for losing. No need for a give-back.

Try to be a little smarter. I know it's asking a lot.

Actually, coaches under contract still get paid when they're fired. Their contracts are guaranteed.

Your effort is lacking.

Of course, the other nine guys who get fired for sucking don't get paid.

But I guess you aren't smart enough to understand that.

Using your idiot logic from earlier, those coaches should not only be fired, but also have given back their salaries, right?

 

[tapintoamerica]

In order to minimize the free for all, keep policies that prevent contact between players and coaches from other schools until the player has given written notice of intent to withdraw from current school.

 

[BrianGriffin]

Just to clarify, kids who transfer D1 to D1 will still have to sit out a year. The kid who kept bouncing from Pitt to Arizona and back would still be doing a lot of sitting out, right?

 

[heyabbott]

and why I am wasting away on the bench here?" Not saying it is the coach's fault all the time, but they should be able to move on and get on with their lives without too great of a penalty.

because I'm getting a Free education with great benefits and travel opportunities and the girls are hot-n-horny

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

and why I am wasting away on the bench here?" Not saying it is the coach's fault all the time, but they should be able to move on and get on with their lives without too great of a penalty.

because I'm getting a Free education with great benefits and travel opportunities and the girls are hot-n-horny

Not everyone on the bench gets a scholarship.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Just to clarify, kids who transfer D1 to D1 will still have to sit out a year. The kid who kept bouncing from Pitt to Arizona and back would still be doing a lot of sitting out, right?

Yes, the sit out a year rule stays. What this does is prevent coaches and schools from giving their athletes a list and telling them that they can't go there. Previously, if a kid wanted to go to a blocked school, they had to sit out two years.

In other words, for instance, Nick Saban can't block A.J. McCarron from transferring to Auburn if McCarron suddenly decided he wanted to play for the Tigers. McCarron would still have to sit out a year, but Saban could no longer block him and force McCarron to sit out two years and attend Auburn without a scholarship.

 

[BrianGriffin]

I don't see anything in there about conference rules making conference-to-conference transfers sit out two years. If you were to transfer from Alabama to Auburn, for example, you'd still have to sit out two years per SEC rules.

Unless I missed something in there, which is possible. Good games on TV this morning.

 

[Mark2010]

There already is the free-for-all for coaches. Why should players be treated any differently?

Well, coaches are university employees. Student-athletes are not.

 

[BrianGriffin]

Let me be even clearer: Eliminating the coach's permission rule doesn't exactly make players free agents. You still have to sit out a year and you still have to sit out two years if you want to transfer within your own conference.

Those have been much bigger detriments to transferring than coaches denying permission.