http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../75218572/

Quote:The named plaintiff in this suit is Devin Pugh, who played at Weber State, a Football Championship Subdivision school, and then at Colorado State-Pueblo, a Division II school.

According to the complaint, Pugh received one-year, renewable scholarships from Weber State in 2010, when he redshirted, 2011 and 2012. Following the 2011 season, there was a coaching change. Although Pugh’s scholarship was renewed for the 2012-13 school year, the suit alleges that after the 2012 season, Pugh was told his scholarship would not be renewed for the following year and “he should look into transferring to another school.”

Pugh alleges that he received scholarship offers from FCS and Bowl Subdivision schools, but that all were contingent on Pugh being able to preserve both of his remaining seasons of eligibility. Because the NCAA’s rules generally require an FCS football player who transfers to an FCS or FBS school to sit out a year and lose a season of eligibility, the suit alleges that Pugh asked the NCAA for a hardship waiver that would allowed him to play immediately for a new school and keep both of his remaining seasons of eligibility. The NCAA denied the request, according to the suit.

It's about denying "free-agency".

Such a concept has no place in amateur athletics.


If schools are going to start making 4 or 5 year commitments in scholarships, then the kids need to make the same commitment back to the school -- regardless if it works out the way the athlete had hoped.

It's about time! This rule absolutely should go away. Students should be able to transfer wherever they want when they want. If they really are student athletes, they should be free to transfer and play immediately.

(11-05-2015 04:23 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  It's about time! This rule absolutely should go away. Students should be able to transfer wherever they want when they want. If they really are student athletes, they should be free to transfer and play immediately.

Being student-athletes is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to transfer penalty free.

(11-05-2015 02:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's about denying "free-agency".

Such a concept has no place in amateur athletics.


If schools are going to start making 4 or 5 year commitments in scholarships, then the kids need to make the same commitment back to the school -- regardless if it works out the way the athlete had hoped.

You do realize in this example the school reneged on its commitment to the kid, right?

In general I agree that chaos would happen if transfer eligibility rules were relaxed to allow any student who transfers immediate eligibility. On the flip side I cannot see a legal argument to support it, especially when both coaches are allowed to move at will, and probably more importantly kids can have their scholarships revoked. I would not want such charge Blanche to exist, but I'm not sure how the practice can be legally defended without guaranteed four year scholarships or restrictions on coaches.

(11-05-2015 04:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 02:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's about denying "free-agency".

Such a concept has no place in amateur athletics.


If schools are going to start making 4 or 5 year commitments in scholarships, then the kids need to make the same commitment back to the school -- regardless if it works out the way the athlete had hoped.

You do realize in this example the school reneged on its commitment to the kid, right?

In general I agree that chaos would happen if transfer eligibility rules were relaxed to allow any student who transfers immediate eligibility. On the flip side I cannot see a legal argument to support it, especially when both coaches are allowed to move at will, and probably more importantly kids can have their scholarships revoked. I would not want such charge Blanche to exist, but I'm it sure how the practice can be legally defended without guaranteed four year scholarships or restrictions on coaches.

Yes exactly.

So that's my point: schools need to make 4 (or 5) year commitments to the athletes (scholarship-wise) and in exchange the athletes need to be making the same commitments to the school.

Then in order to transfer, it would be still possible somehow ... but it would have to be a mutual breaking of a contract, etc.

If a school releases a student-athlete. Then that student should be allowed to transfer and have immediate eligibility.

Kids on a scholarship because they are good at theater or a academic field have few issues transferring if someone else offers a scholarship. If we really want to say these are amaeuters, they should be able to transfer at will. If we instead accept they are half employees, restrictions get a little easier. They are treated that way, i wish we would acknowledge they are half employees/half students.

Proprietary information about the program is shared with all student athletes. I think the only limit placed on transfers is that they cannot go to another school that the team they are leaving plays during their eligibility. For the sake of competition.
Same with coaches.

If players could transfer without any penalty then inevitably it would lead to shady situations where coaches from other schools would attempt to recruit athletes on scholarship at different programs. I think a reasonable compromise would be to waive the penalty year across the board when there is a coaching change at a school (the notion that a recruit commits to a school and not a coaching staff is laughable) and to likewise increase the ease and transparency in allowing waivers of the penalty in situations where there are family illnesses or other legitimate extenuating circumstances. These kids can also transfer virtually anywhere they want if they finish their degrees in 2-3 years, which isn't as hard as it might sound given that all big time players are enrolled virtually year round in classes. They can then move on to another school with at least two years of eligibility left without a penalty like Greyson Lambert did this year when he left UVa for UGA.

(11-05-2015 10:18 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Kids on a scholarship because they are good at theater or a academic field have few issues transferring if someone else offers a scholarship. If we really want to say these are amaeuters, they should be able to transfer at will. If we instead accept they are half employees, restrictions get a little easier. They are treated that way, i wish we would acknowledge they are half employees/half students.

It might seem "easy" to the average armchair fan, who doesn't understand the importance of why we might fight and not allow student-athletes to become employees, that we should just allow them to transfer at will.

But in reality, it's not so "easy".

(11-05-2015 04:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:23 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  It's about time! This rule absolutely should go away. Students should be able to transfer wherever they want when they want. If they really are student athletes, they should be free to transfer and play immediately.

Being student-athletes is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to transfer penalty free.

You don't have to sit out from school from a year if you decide to transfer to another school that offers a major you want.

Why does an athlete have to sit out if another school offers him a more appeal extra curricular activity? It's somewhat like discrimination if you ask me....

(11-06-2015 11:03 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:23 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  It's about time! This rule absolutely should go away. Students should be able to transfer wherever they want when they want. If they really are student athletes, they should be free to transfer and play immediately.

Being student-athletes is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to transfer penalty free.

You don't have to sit out from school from a year if you decide to transfer to another school that offers a major you want.

Why does an athlete have to sit out if another school offers him a more appeal extra curricular activity? It's somewhat like discrimination if you ask me....

The exception you're citing is only for graduate students.

Example: player goes to school A for four calendar years and earns a Bachelor's degree. Player has a year of eligibility left (calendar year five). He claims that the graduate program he desired to enroll in is not offered at school A, but is offered at school B.

The NCAA will then allow him to transfer to school B and play without sitting out a year.

If a player can pay for school a different way, why place a penalty on him or her by making them ineligible to play athletics? I can see where one scholarship does not equal another, but why the penalty?

(11-06-2015 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 11:03 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:23 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  It's about time! This rule absolutely should go away. Students should be able to transfer wherever they want when they want. If they really are student athletes, they should be free to transfer and play immediately.

Being student-athletes is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to transfer penalty free.

You don't have to sit out from school from a year if you decide to transfer to another school that offers a major you want.

Why does an athlete have to sit out if another school offers him a more appeal extra curricular activity? It's somewhat like discrimination if you ask me....

The exception you're citing is only for graduate students.

Example: player goes to school A for four calendar years and earns a Bachelor's degree. Player has a year of eligibility left (calendar year five). He claims that the graduate program he desired to enroll in is not offered at school A, but is offered at school B.

The NCAA will then allow him to transfer to school B and play without sitting out a year.

The exception I'm citing is a regular student. Imagine your kid went to school for Biology on academic scholarship. Then sophomore year decided to go to a school that had a Computer Science program does you kid have to sit out school for a year?

No.

Does your kid have to pay back a scholarship that was not a loan?

No.

Why do we do this to athletes? If you really take a moment it's discrimination.

(11-06-2015 11:14 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 11:03 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:23 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  It's about time! This rule absolutely should go away. Students should be able to transfer wherever they want when they want. If they really are student athletes, they should be free to transfer and play immediately.

Being student-athletes is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to transfer penalty free.

You don't have to sit out from school from a year if you decide to transfer to another school that offers a major you want.

Why does an athlete have to sit out if another school offers him a more appeal extra curricular activity? It's somewhat like discrimination if you ask me....

The exception you're citing is only for graduate students.

Example: player goes to school A for four calendar years and earns a Bachelor's degree. Player has a year of eligibility left (calendar year five). He claims that the graduate program he desired to enroll in is not offered at school A, but is offered at school B.

The NCAA will then allow him to transfer to school B and play without sitting out a year.

The exception I'm citing is a regular student. Imagine your kid went to school for Biology on academic scholarship. Then sophomore year decided to go to a school that had a Computer Science program does you kid have to sit out school for a year?

No.

Does your kid have to pay back a scholarship that was not a loan?

No.

Why do we do this to athletes? If you really take a moment it's discrimination.

I apologize, I misunderstood your argument.


The counter to your argument is this: if the athletic department is going to make a 4 or 5 year commitment to the student-athlete (ie, you still get to keep your athletic scholarship for all 5 years, even if you don't play football after the first year) then the student-athlete should have to make the same 4 or 5 year commitment to the school.

So that means a penalty for breaking that commitment.


That's not discrimination, as the policy wouldn't not apply just because a student-athlete was a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Being a student-athlete isn't a protected class.

(11-06-2015 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 11:14 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 11:03 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Being student-athletes is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to transfer penalty free.

You don't have to sit out from school from a year if you decide to transfer to another school that offers a major you want.

Why does an athlete have to sit out if another school offers him a more appeal extra curricular activity? It's somewhat like discrimination if you ask me....

The exception you're citing is only for graduate students.

Example: player goes to school A for four calendar years and earns a Bachelor's degree. Player has a year of eligibility left (calendar year five). He claims that the graduate program he desired to enroll in is not offered at school A, but is offered at school B.

The NCAA will then allow him to transfer to school B and play without sitting out a year.

The exception I'm citing is a regular student. Imagine your kid went to school for Biology on academic scholarship. Then sophomore year decided to go to a school that had a Computer Science program does you kid have to sit out school for a year?

No.

Does your kid have to pay back a scholarship that was not a loan?

No.

Why do we do this to athletes? If you really take a moment it's discrimination.

I apologize, I misunderstood your argument.


The counter to your argument is this: if the athletic department is going to make a 4 or 5 year commitment to the student-athlete (ie, you still get to keep your athletic scholarship for all 5 years, even if you don't play football after the first year) then the student-athlete should have to make the same 4 or 5 year commitment to the school.

So that means a penalty for breaking that commitment.


That's not discrimination, as the policy wouldn't not apply just because a student-athlete was a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Being a student-athlete isn't a protected class.

It's all fine

The real question I have is why are these commitments so punishing to the students-athletes? And why are only beneficial to the schools and not the students? This system is set up in a manner that keeps talented players away from smaller schools.

Example, let's say a school recruited 2 4 star QB's and the all redshirt. There is a senior QB who starts while they are redshirt freshman and when he graduates the starting position will be up grabs.

The senior QB graduates but the school ends up recruiting a 5 star QB who ends up winning the starting position. So now these two guys who are entering their third year of college have two choices. Never start a game or have to sit out an entire year just to get the chance to play at a D1 team.

If a kid does not get the chance to start and there is a D1 team who really needs a QB and would love to have him why do we have rules that discourage this? Yet encourage a school having the ability to keep talented guys on the bench.

I know most people would fear athletes having more freedom because it would create more Boise St's but it''s not right in my opinion.

(11-06-2015 01:57 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 11:14 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 11:03 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You don't have to sit out from school from a year if you decide to transfer to another school that offers a major you want.

Why does an athlete have to sit out if another school offers him a more appeal extra curricular activity? It's somewhat like discrimination if you ask me....

The exception you're citing is only for graduate students.

Example: player goes to school A for four calendar years and earns a Bachelor's degree. Player has a year of eligibility left (calendar year five). He claims that the graduate program he desired to enroll in is not offered at school A, but is offered at school B.

The NCAA will then allow him to transfer to school B and play without sitting out a year.

The exception I'm citing is a regular student. Imagine your kid went to school for Biology on academic scholarship. Then sophomore year decided to go to a school that had a Computer Science program does you kid have to sit out school for a year?

No.

Does your kid have to pay back a scholarship that was not a loan?

No.

Why do we do this to athletes? If you really take a moment it's discrimination.

I apologize, I misunderstood your argument.


The counter to your argument is this: if the athletic department is going to make a 4 or 5 year commitment to the student-athlete (ie, you still get to keep your athletic scholarship for all 5 years, even if you don't play football after the first year) then the student-athlete should have to make the same 4 or 5 year commitment to the school.

So that means a penalty for breaking that commitment.


That's not discrimination, as the policy wouldn't not apply just because a student-athlete was a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Being a student-athlete isn't a protected class.

It's all fine

The real question I have is why are these commitments so punishing to the students-athletes? And why are only beneficial to the schools and not the students? This system is set up in a manner that keeps talented players away from smaller schools.

Example, let's say a school recruited 2 4 star QB's and the all redshirt. There is a senior QB who starts while they are redshirt freshman and when he graduates the starting position will be up grabs.

The senior QB graduates but the school ends up recruiting a 5 star QB who ends up winning the starting position. So now these two guys who are entering their third year of college have two choices. Never start a game or have to sit out an entire year just to get the chance to play at a D1 team.

If a kid does not get the chance to start and there is a D1 team who really needs a QB and would love to have him why do we have rules that discourage this? Yet encourage a school having the ability to keep talented guys on the bench.

I know most people would fear athletes having more freedom because it would create more Boise St's but it''s not right in my opinion.

Because, like I said before, "free agency" has no place in college football. It's amateur athletics.

It absolutely does benefit the student-athlete. If he/she gets injured or decides to focus on academics, the scholarship stays on the table.

(11-06-2015 10:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  If players could transfer without any penalty then inevitably it would lead to shady situations where coaches from other schools would attempt to recruit athletes on scholarship at different programs. I think a reasonable compromise would be to waive the penalty year across the board when there is a coaching change at a school (the notion that a recruit commits to a school and not a coaching staff is laughable) and to likewise increase the ease and transparency in allowing waivers of the penalty in situations where there are family illnesses or other legitimate extenuating circumstances.

I agree that chaos would happen if it were allowed, but under the present system, now that it is being challenged, chaos aside, I just don't see where the NCAA can win this. yes it would cause problems, but that is not the problem of the courts. I think they would side with the kids, and say there is no reasonable benefit for the players to not be able to transfer without penalty.
However to your other point, allowing carte blanche transfer if a coaching change occurs would also create chaos, as a lot of teams would essentially never be able to fire a coach, for fear they lose a large amount of their players. The major teams likely would not be affected, as they often get players who came to their dream school, but your second tier places would be afraid to fire coaches and losing their team.

(11-06-2015 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 10:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  If players could transfer without any penalty then inevitably it would lead to shady situations where coaches from other schools would attempt to recruit athletes on scholarship at different programs. I think a reasonable compromise would be to waive the penalty year across the board when there is a coaching change at a school (the notion that a recruit commits to a school and not a coaching staff is laughable) and to likewise increase the ease and transparency in allowing waivers of the penalty in situations where there are family illnesses or other legitimate extenuating circumstances.

I agree that chaos would happen if it were allowed, but under the present system, now that it is being challenged, chaos aside, I just don't see where the NCAA can win this. yes it would cause problems, but that is not the problem of the courts. I think they would side with the kids, and say there is no reasonable benefit for the players to not be able to transfer without penalty.
However to your other point, allowing carte blanche transfer if a coaching change occurs would also create chaos, as a lot of teams would essentially never be able to fire a coach, for fear they lose a large amount of their players. The major teams likely would not be affected, as they often get players who came to their dream school, but your second tier places would be afraid to fire coaches and losing their team.

NCAA wins by going to 4/5 year scholarships.

That gives them an out, because a transfer will now be the athlete breaking his/her 4/5 year contract with the school.


Court may not agree, but that's how I think they'll play it.