(04-16-2014 03:25 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: Well, they aren't bound for 4-5 years. An athlete can transfer at any point, even under the current rules. Sometimes there are penalties, sometimes not. Either way, "bound for four or five years" is not an accurate description. Most transferring players end up getting releases, so a redshirt season is the extent of the penalty.
Yes they are. Except in unusual circumstances, an athlete is penalized for transferring, even after the original one-year commitment is over. The athlete is bound by his original agreement for four or five years. Yes, he can choose to transfer and accept the penalty, but that is part of the agreement, not a sign that he isn't bound by it.
On the other hand, at the end of every year, the school is given the option to renew the scholarship, with no penalty for choosing not to renew.
Quote:I just don't have much sympathy for the likes of Dylan Ennis, who gave the impression that he never saw Rice as anything but a stepping stone. For Rice, enrolling an athlete is an investment. Not just the scholarship, but also the coaching, tutoring, and travel. The total financial investment for Rice is in six digits per MBB player per year. Plus, admittance into Rice has a value that is hard to quantify. For that entire class of Rice signees, the school got very little in return for its investment. Even though Ennis had to sit out a year, Rice did more for him than he did for Rice.
There are lots of schools with budgets comparable to or tighter than Rice, but they continue to make those investments, knowing that some recruits won't pan out, because they hope it will be offset by the ones who do.
What about schools like Rice that have cut athletes when injuries and coaching changes made them expendable? Why are schools like that worthy of sympathy? Why can a school upgrade athletes but athletes can't upgrade schools?
I'm not sure what coaching (judging by the way people on this board talked about Braun, are you sure this was a positive?), tutoring, and travel have to do with anything. That was all part of the agreement for the year, an agreement that Ennis fulfilled.
And if you believe that college athletics play an important role in promoting the university, I'm not sure your balancing is correct. Ennis played on the second-highest profile team at Rice--that has to count for something. Plus, a recent report from Drexell and the National College Players Association (shaker of salt in order) found the average basketball player was worth $375,000 per year (per year or per four years isn't entirely clear from the articles I've seen and I haven't seen a link to the actual report). While that is likely exaggerated, it does suggest that college basketball players are worth more than they are getting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/earl...ete-worth/
Quote:My concern is that if transfer restrictions are eliminated, then stepping-stone will become the norm. (It's already becoming common, even with the current rules.) If stepping stone becomes the norm, then there is little reason for these schools to make the investment in the first place. Players will either not pan out, or quickly depart for greener pastures. The gap between power programs and the rest will widen. With so little upside for most schools, why should they continue to make the investment? In the long run, that's not good for most athletes either.
College sports are big businesses (at least the ones subject to transfer restrictions). There are plenty of incentives to keep playing. The BCS widened the gap between the haves and the have nots, yet I'm pretty sure more schools have joined Division I than dropped out during the BCS era.
Quote:If you want to balance the contracts, it would be much better to enact policies that increase retention -- some might say "loyalty" -- from the school side than to decrease it from the player side.
I disagree that this could be done effectively. With four-year agreements there is too much potential for abuse on the athletes end. Schools should be able to cut under-performing athletes and troublemakers. A "for cause" exemption might work but would depend on the NCAA turning into a transparent and impartial adjudicator, something I just can't see happening. Rather, I think both sides should be able to correct their mistakes.