(09-06-2017 02:17 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 02:04 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  A student athlete should be able to transfer universities just like any other student can if you truly believe they are "amateurs" and students first.

They can. They just have to wait a year before playing the sport again. They can receive a scholarship and even practice that year, just not play.

They shoudnt have to sit out a year. I mean, we are talking about amateur sports right? Why should an amateur student have to sit out? We don't make cheerleaders sit out a year when they go from Ole Miss to Alabama?

Precisely because they are amateur athletes.

All college athletes are amateurs. LOLOLOLOL

(09-06-2017 02:04 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  A student athlete should be able to transfer universities just like any other student can if you truly believe they are "amateurs" and students first.

They can. They just have to wait a year before playing the sport again. They can receive a scholarship and even practice that year, just not play.

They shoudnt have to sit out a year. I mean, we are talking about amateur sports right? Why should an amateur student have to sit out? We don't make cheerleaders sit out a year when they go from Ole Miss to Alabama?

Cheerleaders don't get full ride scholarships that could be being given to students who are just at college for academics.

I am curious to know whether this rule will be an exception to the APR measures. For example, if my alma mater has a bunch of players transfer out to go to P5 schools is that going to negatively impact the school's final score?

(09-06-2017 02:25 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 02:04 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  A student athlete should be able to transfer universities just like any other student can if you truly believe they are "amateurs" and students first.

They can. They just have to wait a year before playing the sport again. They can receive a scholarship and even practice that year, just not play.

They shoudnt have to sit out a year. I mean, we are talking about amateur sports right? Why should an amateur student have to sit out? We don't make cheerleaders sit out a year when they go from Ole Miss to Alabama?

Cheerleaders don't get full ride scholarships that could be being given to students who are just at college for academics.

Most college athletes dont get full rides either.

If this happens, this is just another way to delegitimize the G5. Any good player in the G5 can transfer away with no repercussion whatsoever now, so they'll just find a way onto Purdue or Tennessee or Boston College or some other garbage team somewhere.

Good for the SA's, bad for us as a conference. Basketball will be the friggin wild west now.

(09-06-2017 01:36 PM)StatueKnight Wrote:  The problem is that giving a scholarship is an investment in a player. That investment does not pay dividends many times until year three. so you house, feed, school. tutor, train and help the player meet his potential only for him to leave to go play at Alabama. Seems fair to me.

Or it could go the other way around. A 4 star RB could get sick of riding the pine in favor of a 5 star RB at Alabama.

(09-06-2017 02:42 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  If this happens, this is just another way to delegitimize the G5. Any good player in the G5 can transfer away with no repercussion whatsoever now, so they'll just find a way onto Purdue or Tennessee or Boston College or some other garbage team somewhere.

Good for the SA's, bad for us as a conference. Basketball will be the friggin wild west now.

Or we can land the second string linebacker from Alabama because he doesn't like Saban being mean. It would work both ways. It does stink that you could end up with a break out star and they bolt their senior year. There will be "runners" for transfer talent.

This would stop coaches from being D-bags. You almost have to recruit the same player for 4 to 5 years.

The rule change will effectively make the G-5 a farm system like the baseball minors.

I doubt the lower tiered P-5 schools will favor the change and will be surprised if the proposed rule passes.

(09-06-2017 02:41 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 02:25 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 02:04 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  A student athlete should be able to transfer universities just like any other student can if you truly believe they are "amateurs" and students first.

They can. They just have to wait a year before playing the sport again. They can receive a scholarship and even practice that year, just not play.

They shoudnt have to sit out a year. I mean, we are talking about amateur sports right? Why should an amateur student have to sit out? We don't make cheerleaders sit out a year when they go from Ole Miss to Alabama?

Cheerleaders don't get full ride scholarships that could be being given to students who are just at college for academics.

Most college athletes dont get full rides either.

Ok. Restrict the rule to everything except men's football and basketball then.

(09-06-2017 01:36 PM)StatueKnight Wrote:  The problem is that giving a scholarship is an investment in a player. That investment does not pay dividends many times until year three. so you house, feed, school. tutor, train and help the player meet his potential only for him to leave to go play at Alabama. Seems fair to me.

And then UCF reloads by poaching FCS standouts and P5 second string guys to win 9 games. This doesn't ultimately change the balance of power, it just changes the team makeup.

The article says they may vote. Lol. Good grief. Come on op

(09-06-2017 01:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Horrible idea.

Amen

(09-06-2017 04:53 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Horrible idea.

Amen

Glass houses. Tulane found a 4* QB in the transfer window. Tulane could actually benefit from this new rule.

The strong would get stronger and the rest of us would continually be chasing our tails! Might as well let the power conferences separate/make their on rules/and circle jerk themselves......it would kill sports as we know it. Most of these power schools are all for it since they know they would be able to still a smaller programs rising stars whenever they wanted, but the bottom P5 teams would probably suffer more than they do now.

(09-06-2017 01:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  A student athlete should be able to transfer universities just like any other student can if you truly believe they are "amateurs" and students first.

I thought we finally gave up that notion and started paying these kids 'cost of attendance'?

they aren't 'any other student' and get lots of benefits to go along with the athletic scholarship...with those benefits, comes rules...and sitting out should be one of those rules.

JMHO.

This is actually going to be even worst for bottom feeders everywhere.

(09-06-2017 07:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  A student athlete should be able to transfer universities just like any other student can if you truly believe they are "amateurs" and students first.

I thought we finally gave up that notion and started paying these kids 'cost of attendance'?

they aren't 'any other student' and get lots of benefits to go along with the athletic scholarship...with those benefits, comes rules...and sitting out should be one of those rules.

JMHO.

No worries. We just disagree. I don't think there should be any restrictions on student athletes when it comes to legal* financial opportunities or freedom of movement.

If universities are allowed to make millions in revenues, the athletes should be able to make as much as their labor produces.

Conversely, a non-revenue producing athlete on a fraction of a scholarship shouldn't be forced to not play a year because he/she only had to pay 80% of their own way instead of 100%.

From a 10k foot view, its a free market issue for me. The NCAA sets itself up as an oligarchy where the Universities and the organization itself take in the fruits of billions in revenue while those who create that revenue on the field/court are given less than the fair share of what their labor created AND restricts their ability to find a better economic opportunity without penalty.



*---by legal, I mean actually legal not stupid NCAA rules.

(09-07-2017 08:29 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  A student athlete should be able to transfer universities just like any other student can if you truly believe they are "amateurs" and students first.

I thought we finally gave up that notion and started paying these kids 'cost of attendance'?

they aren't 'any other student' and get lots of benefits to go along with the athletic scholarship...with those benefits, comes rules...and sitting out should be one of those rules.

JMHO.

No worries. We just disagree. I don't think there should be any restrictions on student athletes when it comes to legal* financial opportunities or freedom of movement.

If universities are allowed to make millions in revenues, the athletes should be able to make as much as their labor produces.

Conversely, a non-revenue producing athlete on a fraction of a scholarship shouldn't be forced to not play a year because he/she only had to pay 80% of their own way instead of 100%.

From a 10k foot view, its a free market issue for me. The NCAA sets itself up as an oligarchy where the Universities and the organization itself take in the fruits of billions in revenue while those who create that revenue on the field/court are given less than the fair share of what their labor created AND restricts their ability to find a better economic opportunity without penalty.



*---by legal, I mean actually legal not stupid NCAA rules.

It's not a free market. It's amature sports. In the free market there is no Title IV requirement that schools provide equal opportunity for women's sports---even though women's sports are largely unprofitable. In fact, the NCAA requires that a school play a minimum number of sports, most of which lose money, just to participate in D-1 football. The only two sports that raise much revenue at all are football and men's basketball--and even those two sports are not making all that much money outside of the P5.

There are multiple court cases seeking to require that D1 football and basketball players be treated as free agents. I don't see how the courts can both find that schools must function as a free market while also finding that the schools must adhere to Title IX requirements for equal opportunity in women's sports. Free markets are not required to engage in a business that loses money. The courts can't have it both ways. Either it's a free market or it is amateur sports. It can't be both.

I think any objective look at the current structure of D1 makes it clear it really isn't designed as a money making venture. It may sometimes actually make money, but that's not its primary function (though its true that money does drive many of its decisions). I think in the vast majority of the cases, the D1 focus on money is due to the increasing costs required to operate a sports program, not the drive for profit itself.

(09-07-2017 08:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It's not a free market. It's amature sports.

Right. Bottom line is that they should be able to transfer just like any "regular student" is able to transfer.

(09-06-2017 05:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 04:53 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Horrible idea.

Amen

Glass houses. Tulane found a 4* QB in the transfer window. Tulane could actually benefit from this new rule.

Yep, G5's will benefit just as much if not more than P5's. Playing time and spots on the roster is limited.