(07-01-2019 01:10 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:47 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:34 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion, and I'm not sure I even want to believe it given that it would almost certainly gut the lower levels of college basketball, but I just don't see how athletes aren't given free rein to transfer without sitting out a year. Everybody goes to great lengths to point out that they're not "professional athletes" and therefore shouldn't be compensated. But that puts them squarely in the student camp (I don't see the middle ground argument). If we want to classify college athletes as firstly students, then I don't see how their movement should be restricted. Nobody would bat an eye if some brilliant freshman astrophysics major on a full scholarship transferred from Colgate to Harvard because he thought Harvard's resources provided him the best opportunity to make an impact in his field of choice. I know people think it's an entirely different and disparate situation, but I don't see how it is. Both he/she and the CBB player who puts up 10+ ppg in his freshman year are students highly skilled in a specific field. One can transfer whenever he/she likes, the other can't. I don't see how that's a fair situation. I realize that the athlete uses his skill to get into his/her preferable school, which is dissimilar. And I realize that makes his/her abandoning the school seem unfair. But I don't see how that makes a difference in the grander scheme. Creating some entirely separate class for a group of kids who are simultaneously not professional athlete enough to be paid and not student enough to be given the same rights as any random kid transferring schools has just never rubbed me the right way.

Talk to me when students who are not athletes get cost of attendance - on top of full scholarships (in the highest profile sports). They're getting over $20,000 per year (if they attend summer school), and can save extra if they live 3-4 per apartment.

Fair point, but what about the kids on the track team? Or the sailing team? They're getting nowhere near what a football player makes and they're restricted in the same manner. The system can't be designed with only football/basketball/baseball in mind.

Actually the one-year-sit-out rule only applies in football, basketball (M and W), baseball, and hockey. Transferring athletes in any other sport can be immediately eligible as long as they're in good academic standing and have a release.

I would give all athletes the option to transfer after their freshman year without penalty. Choosing a school to attend and be an athlete is probably the third biggest decision an 18 YO can make, after getting married and joining the military. I think if a kid arrives at XYZ U. and finds it is not what he thought it would be, give him a chance to correct that.

(07-01-2019 09:09 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 01:10 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:47 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:34 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion, and I'm not sure I even want to believe it given that it would almost certainly gut the lower levels of college basketball, but I just don't see how athletes aren't given free rein to transfer without sitting out a year. Everybody goes to great lengths to point out that they're not "professional athletes" and therefore shouldn't be compensated. But that puts them squarely in the student camp (I don't see the middle ground argument). If we want to classify college athletes as firstly students, then I don't see how their movement should be restricted. Nobody would bat an eye if some brilliant freshman astrophysics major on a full scholarship transferred from Colgate to Harvard because he thought Harvard's resources provided him the best opportunity to make an impact in his field of choice. I know people think it's an entirely different and disparate situation, but I don't see how it is. Both he/she and the CBB player who puts up 10+ ppg in his freshman year are students highly skilled in a specific field. One can transfer whenever he/she likes, the other can't. I don't see how that's a fair situation. I realize that the athlete uses his skill to get into his/her preferable school, which is dissimilar. And I realize that makes his/her abandoning the school seem unfair. But I don't see how that makes a difference in the grander scheme. Creating some entirely separate class for a group of kids who are simultaneously not professional athlete enough to be paid and not student enough to be given the same rights as any random kid transferring schools has just never rubbed me the right way.

Talk to me when students who are not athletes get cost of attendance - on top of full scholarships (in the highest profile sports). They're getting over $20,000 per year (if they attend summer school), and can save extra if they live 3-4 per apartment.

Fair point, but what about the kids on the track team? Or the sailing team? They're getting nowhere near what a football player makes and they're restricted in the same manner. The system can't be designed with only football/basketball/baseball in mind.

Actually the one-year-sit-out rule only applies in football, basketball (M and W), baseball, and hockey. Transferring athletes in any other sport can be immediately eligible as long as they're in good academic standing and have a release.

Had no idea. Thanks for pointing out. That does solve some of the issues. To Walt's comment, they're still penalized for transferring regardless of whether they can immediately take classes. On a basic level, my point is simple. I've always believed that student-athletes should be treated as any other student. Let them be amateurs. Give them the ability to choose any major they want. Give them the freedom to miss practices and games to study and take exams (if education is really their primary purpose). Give them free movement, etc. etc.

Yes, it would probably corrode the lower levels of the NCAA. Yes, it would have nasty side effects in recruiting, etc. etc.

(06-29-2019 06:43 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I’m pretty resigned to this sort of thing. The almost free transfer situation and the one and done philosophy has fundamentally changed everything.
The players want the freedom to parlay their talent into the best situation possible ... on a season by season basis. I can’t really blame them and if that’s the situation then nobody can fight it.
But it destroys loyalty to the programs that initially recruited and supported the players early on. It feels like a free for all.

This is what happens when you reduce athletic scholarships to a series of renewable one year contracts. Perhaps the NCAA should make scholarships binding four year contracts ?

(07-01-2019 10:24 AM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 06:43 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I’m pretty resigned to this sort of thing. The almost free transfer situation and the one and done philosophy has fundamentally changed everything.
The players want the freedom to parlay their talent into the best situation possible ... on a season by season basis. I can’t really blame them and if that’s the situation then nobody can fight it.
But it destroys loyalty to the programs that initially recruited and supported the players early on. It feels like a free for all.

This is what happens when you reduce athletic scholarships to a series of renewable one year contracts. Perhaps the NCAA should make scholarships binding four year contracts ?

I like this, and if they transfer, they should sit out a year and lose a year of eligibility. Transferring should be discouraged.

(07-01-2019 10:24 AM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 06:43 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I’m pretty resigned to this sort of thing. The almost free transfer situation and the one and done philosophy has fundamentally changed everything.
The players want the freedom to parlay their talent into the best situation possible ... on a season by season basis. I can’t really blame them and if that’s the situation then nobody can fight it.
But it destroys loyalty to the programs that initially recruited and supported the players early on. It feels like a free for all.

This is what happens when you reduce athletic scholarships to a series of renewable one year contracts. Perhaps the NCAA should make scholarships binding four year contracts ?

Schools can make scholarships 4-year deals if they want. I believe this was one of the more player-friendly rule changes made in the wake of the Northwestern players' attempt to unionize. If Rice is not already doing this I believe we should. Players could still request a release if they want to transfer, and I think releases should still be given as a matter of course, but maybe kids will feel a little more loyalty if we make an explicit 4-year commitment to them.

Or maybe not.

The "new" transfer rule eliminates the procedure where a student-athlete "requests" the right to transfer. Now, the student-athlete states that he is transferring and the school must place the name in the Transfer Portal (within 48 hours of the receipt of the request). Once a player enters the Transfer Portal (i) other schools can contact him immediately without notifying the current school and (ii) the current school can immediately (at the end of the semester) withdraw financial aid.

We should sign our coaches to long term contracts so that they can’t leave for dream jobs at other schools.

I think so too

I disagree...I only know of three coaches that left Rice for other "dream" jobs...Scott Thompson who left for a much more lucrative job at Wichita State (after he had been at Rice for a number of years and had greatly improved the program)...Todd Graham (who, I think, is a unique situation...had he not left when he did, there would have been numerous other problems).. and Mike Rhoades...

I think we should be looking for a coach to (i) recognize the value of coaching at Rice and attracting student-athletes who can play at this level and still be good students and athletes and (ii) improve our position during his/her term at Rice and be a good representative of Rice as a university and as an athletic program and (iii) observe all NCAA rules, etc.

I want a coach who will improve us, treat the athletes and school fairly and move on to a better position if they feel that such a move enhances their career. If Tina Langley moves on to coach at Maryland next year (for example), I will wish her the very best and thank her for her contributions and tremendous success at Rice.

(07-01-2019 03:33 PM)temchugh Wrote:  We should sign our coaches to long term contracts so that they can’t leave for dream jobs at other schools.

\Don't we already sign coaches to long term contracts?

(07-02-2019 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 03:33 PM)temchugh Wrote:  We should sign our coaches to long term contracts so that they can’t leave for dream jobs at other schools.

\Don't we already sign coaches to long term contracts?

pretty sure ( as I believe u r ), that they are sarcastic in referring to the impact that a 4 year scholly would have on retaining the would be transfers

(07-02-2019 08:41 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I disagree...I only know of three coaches that left Rice for other "dream" jobs...Scott Thompson who left for a much more lucrative job at Wichita State (after he had been at Rice for a number of years and had greatly improved the program)...Todd Graham (who, I think, is a unique situation...had he not left when he did, there would have been numerous other problems).. and Mike Rhoades...

I think we should be looking for a coach to (i) recognize the value of coaching at Rice and attracting student-athletes who can play at this level and still be good students and athletes and (ii) improve our position during his/her term at Rice and be a good representative of Rice as a university and as an athletic program and (iii) observe all NCAA rules, etc.

I want a coach who will improve us, treat the athletes and school fairly and move on to a better position if they feel that such a move enhances their career. If Tina Langley moves on to coach at Maryland next year (for example), I will wish her the very best and thank her for her contributions and tremendous success at Rice.

Probably can add Fred Goldsmith to this list

(07-02-2019 04:11 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 08:41 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I disagree...I only know of three coaches that left Rice for other "dream" jobs...Scott Thompson who left for a much more lucrative job at Wichita State (after he had been at Rice for a number of years and had greatly improved the program)...Todd Graham (who, I think, is a unique situation...had he not left when he did, there would have been numerous other problems).. and Mike Rhoades...

I think we should be looking for a coach to (i) recognize the value of coaching at Rice and attracting student-athletes who can play at this level and still be good students and athletes and (ii) improve our position during his/her term at Rice and be a good representative of Rice as a university and as an athletic program and (iii) observe all NCAA rules, etc.

I want a coach who will improve us, treat the athletes and school fairly and move on to a better position if they feel that such a move enhances their career. If Tina Langley moves on to coach at Maryland next year (for example), I will wish her the very best and thank her for her contributions and tremendous success at Rice.

Probably can add Fred Goldsmith to this list

McKinney?

I guess we could add Goldsmith and McKinney to the list but neither fits the concern of a coach "using" Rice and then running out to a "better" job. We could also add Watson Brown and Jerry Berndt (who left us for Temple after an 0-11 season).

My bottom line is that I think we need to hire coaches that come to Rice with the attitude that they want to do well at Rice and help the school as well as their career. We are never going to prevent a football coach from leaving Rice to take a head coaching job at say Univ. of Alabama....we just need to make sure they don't want to leave us for Nicholls State since they perceive that to be a better job.

We should use the same logic to recruit student athletes and the same criteria to judge transfers. It’s hard to blame a kid who transfers to play football at Alabama. But, if a starter transfers to Nicholls State it may indicate a problem with our program.

(07-01-2019 03:33 PM)temchugh Wrote:  We should sign our coaches to long term contracts so that they can’t leave for dream jobs at other schools.

Why? Do we really want someone coaching here who wants to be somewhere else?

If we become known as a place that coaches come and then leave for better jobs, that won't hurt us in recruiting replacements when someone does leave. Our problem is that we've hired too many coaches that nobody else wants.

(07-03-2019 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Our problem is that we've hired too many coaches that nobody else wants.

And a few ADs.

(07-03-2019 07:51 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Our problem is that we've hired too many coaches that nobody else wants.

And a few ADs.

there were truly a couple of real disasters. One comes to mind that induced pneumonia to an already sickly patient