(06-10-2022 09:32 AM)jmu98 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 07:58 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 06:25 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  What that adjustment may be (a return to the one-year sit for transfers would be a good start) is TBD.

So we're going to do that with coaches too right? If they want to break their contract and "transfer" to another school, they have to sit out a year?

No the coach pays the buyout that was negotiated in his/her contract. If the players want to go down that route they will have contracts that are collectively bargained and those contracts will have rules regarding transfers that may involve payments from school to school, from the player to the school, etc.

No one is saying players shouldn't have more freedom to make money, but there needs to be rules in place to govern some of this. While we talk about all of the players transferring and getting this great NIL deals, you hear little from most of the media in regards to how many student athletes are being lead astray and ending up without a scholarship after entering the portal. Some of this is on coaches as they push kids to transfer, but in many cases it is the kid getting bad advice. Until folks realize not all players can be starters/stars this cycle will continue. These kids have been built up so much in AAU, etc. that they do not know how to deal with a situation where they are not a starter/star so they look for the next opportunity.

The bold could be misleading statement for the uninformed. The players have multi-year NIL deals tied to playing at the certain school and while they might not have a "buyout" for leaving those contracts, how it would play out functionally is aligned with the coach process. Stated simplistically, no coach is falling down a tax bracket or taking a net worth hit when they bail on a contract for a better one / pay a buyout, which will be the same for the players.

Further, those coaches were on 3+ year deals that had golden parachute attributes if they fail, whereas the players are on a 1 year scholarship that don't have to be renewed and are in pay for play arrangements (despite what the rules/guidelines states).

Not saying this was the intent of your post but bringing up a coaches "buyout" as if it levels the fairness of coaches bailing on contracts/schools and players transfering is kind of like pulling out a bandaid after someone steps on a landmine.