(02-01-2018 02:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-01-2018 02:08 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-01-2018 11:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem I see is---even if a team gets extra scholarships for lost transfers--we are talking about losing not only your coach, your staff---but also established kids with experience in the program. Its going to be very hard to avoid a massive drop off every time a coach leaves.

I'd be sympathetic to the schools and whatever risk they assume were they to actually guarantee scholarships universally. If you did, and the kid decides to take a walk, now you can attach governance that gives some stipulations, because the kid is literally walking away from a full commitment.

As is, yeah, there are some scenarios where the wait time is negated, but most of the other rules already serve the school. And, really, does doing this for the kids, now we have to think about the schools' risks again?!

Get better at recruiting, and get smarter with it, I say. And stop giving scholarships to kids who don't belong at your school. Or, stop with the doublespeak at these schools where one year they want you, and the next they don't because a coach says so...as in, vet your coaches and force them to keep the kids...and if not, simply don't hire the guy. Why is that so hard?

UUmmmm---the kid picks the school. Not the other way around. Hell, he can walk on anywhere for that matter.

To be fair, I actually suggested a fix that helps protect the schools while actually giving MORE student athletes additional options to move around. My suggestion was to let players from ANY school transfer without sitting out if they transfer to a school that LOST its coach. How does that in any way hurt the student athlete?

Gap-filling like that would make sense; it's trading spaces at its core. How one would address a school losing a coach and then five or six guys wanting out...not all of them are going to enjoy that benefit.

While I know the kids make the choice, I don't believe the sell is accurate or authentic. There are some awful practices the NCAA should be more vigilant in policing. Like, if you're recruited by Saban or Calipari, and you go to UA or UK respectively, are you told ever that you might be auditioning for your scholarship every year, regardless of your performance on the field and in the classroom? That with some programs, the interest in some kids is like a one-night-stand? That you commit, and you pour yourself into a program and classes to make sure you stay in good favor because there is nothing stopping a school from telling you to get lost; I'm sure kids today are more savvy to the scheme, but, it doesn't make it right just because the kid signs on the line.

Quite honestly, I think the Ivies, Pioneer, and D3 have it right. That it's aid and merit-based awards and not athletic scholarships...more broad, undefined, unspecific, and yet, something for someone for who they are as a student, or person, and not (just) the athlete part. It makes the transfer process a little more complicated because the award system is person-specific. Like, hey, sorry you lost your spot on the team, but doing so still keeps your spot at the school because you're upholding your end of the terms for this merit-based aid package. If you walk away from that...yeah, I'm not sympathetic.