(02-04-2020 03:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, there is no good reason for different rules for athletes in different sports. The rule is just a way for the schools to keep "their" athletes in those sports, make it hard for them to leave.

Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room here, nobody goes pro from college gymnastics and swimming. The rules are different because the reality is different.

But ... why is the reality of players from hoops and football going pro relevant here? It's like saying the reason football players and tennis players (who do go pro from college sometimes, fwiw) have different rules is because football players are larger. There's no connection between the reality of going pro and the validity of the rule.

Higher profile athletes, more money made by the university. Don’t play coy, you know why the rule is the way it is.

Not coy, just wanted you to admit there is no good reason for the rule difference, it exists because the schools think it benefits them.

There is a reason, and you and I both know it! I don’t have to agree with it to know that’s the reason the rule exists.

(02-01-2020 09:28 PM)pvk75 Wrote:  I favor improved fairness to the student-athlete, but this proposal goes too far. It is proposed under the guise of being more "fair" to players, but what it really does is ...

--- Turn the entire G5 into a farm club level of football where the P5 "calls up" and "sends down" players at will.
--- Allow the P5 to get even richer by cutting recruiting budgets, and letting the G5 do some of their work for them, without compensation.
--- Alienate even more of the "forgotten" college fans who have ties to the 65 G5 schools. Many already do not bother to attend/pay attention to the "feel-good" bowl games.

If this proposal is adopted, I would expect the next move to be an expansion in the number of FBS scholarships allowed. Generally, the P5 has the money; the G5 does not.

Any time a P5 school or conference proposes anything, you can bet there is an alterior motive. It is NOT for the benefit of college football or the student-athlete. And the fans do not matter at all.

It's not really the 85 limit that's such a big deal - it's the rule on only 25 per class. SC for example always has extra scholarships because so many people transfer out every year and we can't sign enough to replace them.

(02-01-2020 09:15 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I tend to agree in this idea, But understand it is suggested because it will be great for B10 and SEC schools. They are weak at a spot they can try to raid lesser conf teams for needed replacement players.

I don't know - I mean how often does that happen now even with the waivers that are going out? I can't recall SC for example taking a G5 contributor at any point. Usually it's grad transfers, guys not performing at other P5 programs, or it's guys from FCS programs that walk on.

(02-04-2020 03:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, there is no good reason for different rules for athletes in different sports. The rule is just a way for the schools to keep "their" athletes in those sports, make it hard for them to leave.

Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room here, nobody goes pro from college gymnastics and swimming. The rules are different because the reality is different.

But ... why is the reality of players from hoops and football going pro relevant here? It's like saying the reason football players and tennis players (who do go pro from college sometimes, fwiw) have different rules is because football players are larger. There's no connection between the reality of going pro and the validity of the rule.

Higher profile athletes, more money made by the university. Don’t play coy, you know why the rule is the way it is.

Not coy, just wanted you to admit there is no good reason for the rule difference, it exists because the schools think it benefits them.

The rules exist because coaches and administrators think that their interests, and those of the fans who watch college football and basketball, are far more important than the best interests of the athletes. Fans defend NCAA shamateurism for the same reason. It's not any more complicated than that.

(02-04-2020 04:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 09:15 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I tend to agree in this idea, But understand it is suggested because it will be great for B10 and SEC schools. They are weak at a spot they can try to raid lesser conf teams for needed replacement players.

I don't know - I mean how often does that happen now even with the waivers that are going out? I can't recall SC for example taking a G5 contributor at any point. Usually it's grad transfers, guys not performing at other P5 programs, or it's guys from FCS programs that walk on.

Well Georgia had a defender who played at UAB. Alabama had someone from a G5 school playing. Several schools are considering King from Houston.

But usually it is the other way around. SMU's last two QBs have been Texas transfers. King at Houston had a former Longhorn running back.

(02-04-2020 04:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 03:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room here, nobody goes pro from college gymnastics and swimming. The rules are different because the reality is different.

But ... why is the reality of players from hoops and football going pro relevant here? It's like saying the reason football players and tennis players (who do go pro from college sometimes, fwiw) have different rules is because football players are larger. There's no connection between the reality of going pro and the validity of the rule.

Higher profile athletes, more money made by the university. Don’t play coy, you know why the rule is the way it is.

Not coy, just wanted you to admit there is no good reason for the rule difference, it exists because the schools think it benefits them.

The rules exist because coaches and administrators think that their interests, and those of the fans who watch college football and basketball, are far more important than the best interests of the athletes. Fans defend NCAA shamateurism for the same reason. It's not any more complicated than that.

Its really quite much more complicated. The presidents don't want to be run by the NFL, NBA or agents. A lot of fans want the athletes to actually be students of the institution. And a lot don't want all the other sports destroyed in order to feed an ever more expensive basketball and football.

And the reality is that any of those athletes who didn't think colleges provided them a better deal would go pro in every sport but football. All of them have options. The ones wanting to be professionals think going to college benefits them towards turning pro even if "all they get" is a scholarship, room and board and extensive coaching and training by some of the best in the business.

I've got sympathy for athletes for rules that are one-sided. But as for getting paid, they've got options. Again, except for football, but few have any value to the NFL at 18 or 19.

(02-04-2020 04:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 04:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 03:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But ... why is the reality of players from hoops and football going pro relevant here? It's like saying the reason football players and tennis players (who do go pro from college sometimes, fwiw) have different rules is because football players are larger. There's no connection between the reality of going pro and the validity of the rule.

Higher profile athletes, more money made by the university. Don’t play coy, you know why the rule is the way it is.

Not coy, just wanted you to admit there is no good reason for the rule difference, it exists because the schools think it benefits them.

The rules exist because coaches and administrators think that their interests, and those of the fans who watch college football and basketball, are far more important than the best interests of the athletes. Fans defend NCAA shamateurism for the same reason. It's not any more complicated than that.

Its really quite much more complicated. The presidents don't want to be run by the NFL, NBA or agents. A lot of fans want the athletes to actually be students of the institution. And a lot don't want all the other sports destroyed in order to feed an ever more expensive basketball and football.

And the reality is that any of those athletes who didn't think colleges provided them a better deal would go pro in every sport but football. All of them have options. The ones wanting to be professionals think going to college benefits them towards turning pro even if "all they get" is a scholarship, room and board and extensive coaching and training by some of the best in the business.

I've got sympathy for athletes for rules that are one-sided. But as for getting paid, they've got options. Again, except for football, but few have any value to the NFL at 18 or 19.

Those are the interests of presidents, administrators, coaches, and fans. The only way to justify the rules of the current system is to prioritize those interests far above the athletes' interests. If a non-athlete who is a very talented software developer or musician transfers from Western Michigan to Michigan, no rule prevents the student from coding or playing cello for a year at their new school, and AFAIK no one has ever even proposed such a rule. The only reason there are different rules for athletes in money-generating spectator sports is because of fans who want to watch those sports, and schools who want to make money off of them, and don't want the rules to change.

(02-04-2020 03:45 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 03:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room here, nobody goes pro from college gymnastics and swimming. The rules are different because the reality is different.

But ... why is the reality of players from hoops and football going pro relevant here? It's like saying the reason football players and tennis players (who do go pro from college sometimes, fwiw) have different rules is because football players are larger. There's no connection between the reality of going pro and the validity of the rule.

Of course there's a "reason" the rule
Higher profile athletes, more money made by the university. Don’t play coy, you know why the rule is the way it is.

Not coy, just wanted you to admit there is no good reason for the rule difference, it exists because the schools think it benefits them.

There is a reason, and you and I both know it! I don’t have to agree with it to know that’s the reason the rule exists.

Of course there's a "reason" the rule exists, it didn't just materialize itself out of thin air. Point is, it's an absurd self-serving reason for the schools.

(02-04-2020 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...... Furthermore, Title 9 has opened many of those opportunities to women---largely on the back of money provided by the two mens revenue sports.

...... So, by law---the government is essentially taking the money that the players say they deserve----and giving it to women athletes. ....

The notion that men's hoops and football are big cash cows being milked to support Title IX women's sports doesn't seem to hold up. Now sure, at the high-end places, like Texas or LSU or Notre Dame, the football is making a big net profit, and ditto for hoops at places like Duke, Kentucky, and Louisville. But those are outliers, they aren't the typical FBS school.

For example, here are the football program profits/losses for FBS state of Michigan schools in 2015 (link below):

Michigan ........... $56m profit

Michigan State ... $29m profit

Eastern Michigan .... $3.87m loss

Central Michigan .... $4.56m loss

Western Michigan ... $5.27m loss

So yes, two of the five FBS programs are rolling in football profits that can fund all kinds of things. But three of the five are losing money on football. Point is, it's hard to imagine pay for play, even extreme, being incompatible with Title IX as it is currently enforced, because the evidence doesn't suggest that a pay model would kill the football goose that is laying the women's sports golden eggs. Football isn't laying that egg in many places, heck it is itself being subsidized by fees and transfers from students, so the women's sports aren't being funded by them.


https://www.mlive.com/news/2016/08/michi..._cost.html

(02-04-2020 07:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...... Furthermore, Title 9 has opened many of those opportunities to women---largely on the back of money provided by the two mens revenue sports.

...... So, by law---the government is essentially taking the money that the players say they deserve----and giving it to women athletes. ....

The notion that men's hoops and football are big cash cows being milked to support Title IX women's sports doesn't seem to hold up. Now sure, at the high-end places, like Texas or LSU or Notre Dame, the football is making a big net profit, and ditto for hoops at places like Duke, Kentucky, and Louisville. But those are outliers, they aren't the typical FBS school.

For example, here are the football program profits/losses for FBS state of Michigan schools in 2015 (link below):

Michigan ........... $56m profit

Michigan State ... $29m profit

Eastern Michigan .... $3.87m loss

Central Michigan .... $4.56m loss

Western Michigan ... $5.27m loss

So yes, two of the five FBS programs are rolling in football profits that can fund all kinds of things. But three of the five are losing money on football. Point is, it's hard to imagine pay for play, even extreme, being incompatible with Title IX as it is currently enforced, because the evidence doesn't suggest that a pay model would kill the football goose that is laying the women's sports golden eggs. Football isn't laying that egg in many places, heck it is itself being subsidized by fees and transfers from students, so the women's sports aren't being funded by them.


https://www.mlive.com/news/2016/08/michi..._cost.html

That post would certainly be an argument against FBS fitting the capitalistic pro sports model.....and isnt real supportive of the view that players are under compensated. There is clearly no pot of gold. There is no profit incentive. There is no incentive for anyone else to enter the marketplace and compete against the NCAA. There is not even any incentive for someone else to do this if the NCAA shut itself down. At the very least---no investor who decided to enter the market after a hypothetical NCAA demise would create a 130 team league with women's and men's sports (at least not one in his right mind)---so most of the kids currently receiving scholarship compensation as an NCAA athlete would likely see nothing if the NCAA was replaced by a purely capitalistic pro sports league.

Like I said--I dont see the NCAA as fish or fowl. It's clearly not a true pro league---but its also not a purely amateur league either.

(02-04-2020 07:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The notion that men's hoops and football are big cash cows being milked to support Title IX women's sports doesn't seem to hold up.

No, typically men's hoops and football are cash cows that are milked to support men's hoops and football. That's one of the responses you get when you have not-for-profit organizations seeking their own interest ... they look for ways to serve their own interests by generating costs that direct their revenues in the directions they want it to go.

Some of them programs have strong enough cash flows that they are willing to share the revenue with others, in order to guarantee their independence, but a lot of them are more focused on channeling the revenues into marginal benefits in an arms race to try to keep up with the higher revenues programs.

(02-04-2020 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  At the very least---no investor who decided to enter the market after a hypothetical NCAA demise would create a 130 team league with women's and men's sports (at least not one in his right mind)---so most of the kids currently receiving scholarship compensation as an NCAA athlete would likely see nothing if the NCAA was replaced by a purely capitalistic pro sports league.

I don't think many doubt that. E.g., it's pretty obvious that when "name and likeness" comes in to being, there will be a few high-profile Joe Burrow or Zion Williamson types each year who can cash in for reasonably serious money for the year they are on top before going to the NFL or NBA, but the vast majority of even football or men's hoops players will get nothing as there is no demand for them. Probably the most they can hope for is a $100 or so posing for a team picture for a local calendar or something.

(02-05-2020 02:48 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 07:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The notion that men's hoops and football are big cash cows being milked to support Title IX women's sports doesn't seem to hold up.

No, typically men's hoops and football are cash cows that are milked to support men's hoops and football. That's one of the responses you get when you have not-for-profit organizations seeking their own interest ... they look for ways to serve their own interests by generating costs that direct their revenues in the directions they want it to go.

Some of them programs have strong enough cash flows that they are willing to share the revenue with others, in order to guarantee their independence, but a lot of them are more focused on channeling the revenues into marginal benefits in an arms race to try to keep up with the higher revenues programs.

Yes, and as the Michigan data shows, most of these football and hoops programs aren't making enough milk for themselves, they are subsidized by student fees and transfers like the "non-revenue" sports are. They are cannibalizing their own institutional money to support athletics, and as you say to "keep up" in erstwhile fashion with the big boys.

(02-04-2020 04:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 04:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 09:15 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I tend to agree in this idea, But understand it is suggested because it will be great for B10 and SEC schools. They are weak at a spot they can try to raid lesser conf teams for needed replacement players.

I don't know - I mean how often does that happen now even with the waivers that are going out? I can't recall SC for example taking a G5 contributor at any point. Usually it's grad transfers, guys not performing at other P5 programs, or it's guys from FCS programs that walk on.

Well Georgia had a defender who played at UAB. Alabama had someone from a G5 school playing. Several schools are considering King from Houston.

But usually it is the other way around. SMU's last two QBs have been Texas transfers. King at Houston had a former Longhorn running back.

Yeah, I think if anything it goes from P5 to G5 more.

(02-04-2020 10:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 10:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 08:52 AM)chester Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, there is no good reason for different rules for athletes in different sports. The rule is just a way for the schools to keep "their" athletes in those sports, make it hard for them to leave.

Those athletes are treated like assets, plain and simple. Ugly look when you're in the midst of an antitrust suit that challenges compensation caps that weren't agreed to by the workers.

Right.

Exactly.

Schools and fans can't bemoan that college sports are turning "semipro" but then put restrictions in place on player movement that in order to protect the fact that (surprise!) great players on athletic teams can make a lot of money and interest for those schools. People are so worried about the Ohio States and Alabamas of the world hoarding talent that they're ignoring the whole cognitive dissonance that restricting player movement actually makes the players look *more* like professional employees. In the real world, that's called a non-compete clause in your employment agreement.

My reactions here is a giant shrug, I’ve said for a long time the only long term solution for big time college sports as we know it is probably to seek an antitrust exemption from the government in exchange for giving the government a greater oversight role in college sports. College sports isn’t pro sports. Title 9 (at least as it’s currently enforced) is incompatible with the capitalistic pro sports model. Given the recent move of multiple states toward differing third party player payment models, federal involvement is now inevitable anyway. If college sports wants to preserve as much of its current model as possible, the only way I see it working is as an institution protected by an antitrust exemption. If the objection before was that they didn’t want to invite a loss of control due to federal involvement—that involvement is now inevitable anyway. May as well game the system and get something in exchange.

Like you’ve said before—the NCAA is a walking antitrust violation. Just own it and ask for an exemption. Governent would likely do so since it’s the only way to preserve title 9 and the opportunities it affords women’s athletes.

Federal involvement might be likely but, Congress being Congress, there's no guarantee that they will ever act on anything. And they would probably wash their hands of the matter if the courts end up granting Alston plaintiffs the relief they ask for -- a move that would settle everything, and in dramatic fashion. As Tulane's Gabe Feldman once said:

"If Alston is decided against the NCAA (a very big IF), it will make this NIL discussion seem like the 'spreads on bagels' debate. (Ie, remember when we were fighting about *that*?). A player-friendly Alston ruling would swallow up the NIL issue..."

But then there's no guarantee that that will happen, either... Leaving just the states.

-------

I've noticed what might be the start of a trend in state NIL legislation, something that might interest you.

For a bit of context, currently there are at least 25 states with active or prefiled NIL bills and there are close to 40 separate bills between them. (Not including duplicate companion bills in separate houses of the same legislature.)

Only 2 of those bills contain language that the NCAA would actually like to see, and, as it happens, those 2 are among the 3 most recently introduced NIL bills. Both have had early, unusually rapid success in the committee process relative to most all others.

The sponsors of both bills have said that they consulted with in-state schools before writing their bills. Now, they're not the only legislators to have done that, not at all, but they are the only ones who have bent to the NCAA's will. And they have done that. Trust me, if you've read all the other bills (and I have because I'm a dweeb) you'd know that there is no other NIL bill anywhere near as favorable to the NCAA as these two recent ones are. Not even close. Check out these provisions:

Florida HB 7051

Allowing schools to price-fix transactions between athletes and third parties:

An intercollegiate athlete at a postsecondary educational institution may earn compensation for her or his name, image, likeness, or persona. Such compensation must be commensurate with the market value of the services provided.

(The bill does not name an arbiter, leaving it up to the schools, would seem.)

Prohibiting rewards, inducements and any transaction between athletes and boosters:

To preserve the integrity [sic], quality [sic], character [sic], and amateur nature [sic] of intercollegiate athletics and to maintain a clear separation between amateur intercollegiate athletics and professional sports [sic], such compensation may not be provided in exchange for athletic performance or attendance at a particular institution and may only be provided by a third party unaffiliated with the intercollegiate athlete's postsecondary educational institution.

Requiring schools to price-fix the worth of the NILs of enrolled athletes at zero:

A postsecondary educational institution may not compensate a current or prospective intercollegiate athlete for her or his name, image, likeness, or persona.

No other bill contains any of those provisions...

------

Colorado - SB 20-123 plus amendments*

This bill has conflicting provisions regarding the inability/ability of schools, or, more rather, their membered associations to infringe upon the publicity rights of athletes. I'll set that aside because it makes no sense. But this bit here is crystal clear:

Requiring schools and athletic associations to price-fix direct ability-based compensation at the cost of FCOA:

Neither an institution nor an athletic association shall: provide compensation to *current or prospective student athlete...



Long story short, if neither Congress nor the courts settle the matter. That might be pockets here and there of something that more closely resembles the status quo. (For a while, at least.)

(02-04-2020 04:02 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 09:28 PM)pvk75 Wrote:  I favor improved fairness to the student-athlete, but this proposal goes too far. It is proposed under the guise of being more "fair" to players, but what it really does is ...

--- Turn the entire G5 into a farm club level of football where the P5 "calls up" and "sends down" players at will.
--- Allow the P5 to get even richer by cutting recruiting budgets, and letting the G5 do some of their work for them, without compensation.
--- Alienate even more of the "forgotten" college fans who have ties to the 65 G5 schools. Many already do not bother to attend/pay attention to the "feel-good" bowl games.

If this proposal is adopted, I would expect the next move to be an expansion in the number of FBS scholarships allowed. Generally, the P5 has the money; the G5 does not.

Any time a P5 school or conference proposes anything, you can bet there is an alterior motive. It is NOT for the benefit of college football or the student-athlete. And the fans do not matter at all.

It's not really the 85 limit that's such a big deal - it's the rule on only 25 per class. SC for example always has extra scholarships because so many people transfer out every year and we can't sign enough to replace them.

I don't have a link handy, but one of the P5 conferences (Big 12?) has proposed allowing schools up to 30 initial counters in any given year while maintaining a cap of 50 in any rolling 2-year period.

Kind of surprising that they aren't continually addressing matters of attrition. They probably would tackle the matter in earnest if athletes were allowed one freebie per career.

EDIT: The Big 12 & MAC are the sponsors: 2019-42 Should be up for a vote in April.

The ACC has one too: looks like 2019-41 would allow schools to sign 25 + the number of players who either left for the pros the prior year or suffered a career ending illness or injury that same year. (Nothing about transfers.)

I don't mind having transfers not sitting out a year. There's many reasons to transfer. Playing time(could transfer to another school to be the star or a starter) coaching change,(if a coach can leave a year after your recruited why can't you) players thinking they could be a good fit for a better program (the feeder teams basically G5 to P5)

I don't see why people are against it to be honest. It's almost like coaches recruiting people from Junior or community college. Your not going to ban that because they came from a different school. You give students 2 free passes 1 used anytime and 1 grad transfer. You could even get rid of the grad transfer rule.

(02-07-2020 02:32 AM)46566 Wrote:  I don't mind having transfers not sitting out a year. There's many reasons to transfer. Playing time(could transfer to another school to be the star or a starter) coaching change,(if a coach can leave a year after your recruited why can't you) players thinking they could be a good fit for a better program (the feeder teams basically G5 to P5)

I don't see why people are against it to be honest. It's almost like coaches recruiting people from Junior or community college. Your not going to ban that because they came from a different school. You give students 2 free passes 1 used anytime and 1 grad transfer. You could even get rid of the grad transfer rule.

Agree, though I wouldn't get rid of the grad transfer rule. (How many non-athlete grad student are *supposed* to stay where they're at?)

(02-07-2020 02:43 AM)chester Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 02:32 AM)46566 Wrote:  I don't mind having transfers not sitting out a year. There's many reasons to transfer. Playing time(could transfer to another school to be the star or a starter) coaching change,(if a coach can leave a year after your recruited why can't you) players thinking they could be a good fit for a better program (the feeder teams basically G5 to P5)

I don't see why people are against it to be honest. It's almost like coaches recruiting people from Junior or community college. Your not going to ban that because they came from a different school. You give students 2 free passes 1 used anytime and 1 grad transfer. You could even get rid of the grad transfer rule.

Agree, though I wouldn't get rid of the grad transfer rule. (How many non-athlete grad student are *supposed* to stay where they're at?)

Getting rid of grad transfers was mostly a olive branch. Graduate transfers are usually for 1 year anyway for sports ( I honestly don't know how it helps if there going after a grad degree) the real some benefit of the grad transfer was the ability to play right away which is useless if everyone has the 1 freebie transfer.

Chances are if you're not starting or have enough playing time(if you're going to try and go pro) you'd try to use the grad transfer rule or actually transfer out before. If you're happy then you wouldn't transfer.. Unless it's academic or team related I don't see a person transferring 2 times. If a student needs a third school I should be a warning sign for coaches.

(02-07-2020 03:01 AM)46566 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 02:43 AM)chester Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 02:32 AM)46566 Wrote:  I don't mind having transfers not sitting out a year. There's many reasons to transfer. Playing time(could transfer to another school to be the star or a starter) coaching change,(if a coach can leave a year after your recruited why can't you) players thinking they could be a good fit for a better program (the feeder teams basically G5 to P5)

I don't see why people are against it to be honest. It's almost like coaches recruiting people from Junior or community college. Your not going to ban that because they came from a different school. You give students 2 free passes 1 used anytime and 1 grad transfer. You could even get rid of the grad transfer rule.

Agree, though I wouldn't get rid of the grad transfer rule. (How many non-athlete grad student are *supposed* to stay where they're at?)

Getting rid of grad transfers was mostly a olive branch. Graduate transfers are usually for 1 year anyway for sports ( I honestly don't know how it helps if there going after a grad degree) the real some benefit of the grad transfer was the ability to play right away which is useless if everyone has the 1 freebie transfer.

Chances are if you're not starting or have enough playing time(if you're going to try and go pro) you'd try to use the grad transfer rule or actually transfer out before. If you're happy then you wouldn't transfer.. Unless it's academic or team related I don't see a person transferring 2 times. If a student needs a third school I should be a warning sign for coaches.

Practically speaking, no, there probably wouldn't be much cause or demand for two freebies.

But the NCAA likes to pretend that there is no difference between "student athletes" and "non-student athletes," when, in fact, there is. Non-athletes may transfer whenever and wherever they like and still participate in this or that activity. Many athletes get the one freebie already. But not those in higher revenue sports.

Meanwhile, no NCAA athletes may enjoy their own publicity rights like other students do.

The NCAA will say of all its athletes "They are students first! and their activity is an avocation, not a vocation! Never mind we treat particular athletes different than others and different than the rest of the student body."

NCAA schools must be called out on their hypocrisy IMO. No transfer limitations at all should be the order of the day if the athletes are simply students playing for the love of the sport, and not players recruited to make money for the school.