(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:  

(02-04-2020 08:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 07:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I read today that this one-time transfer rule already exists for most NCAA sports, the only athletes who have to sit out a year are football, men's and women's hoops, baseball, and ice hockey.

To me, there's zero justification for having a different rule for athletes in those five sports, so I am convinced more than ever that the B1G proposal is correct.

It would be interesting to know the transfer numbers of athletes in those non-revenue sports (and non-athletes on scholarships for that matter). The rule was probably implemented to prevent the recruiting of current college athletes, because that will surely be the outcome of this.

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.