Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
Author Message
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 205
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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.
02-04-2020 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,281
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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.
02-04-2020 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,281
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(02-04-2020 08:31 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  The data are here. Not sure what conclusions you could draw from it. M/W basketball both already have very high rates of transfers. Football and Ice Hockey are around the median and baseball is very low.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/researc...Slides.pdf

I'd be curious what the numbers for non-athletes are and how they compare. Baseball, basketball, soccer and beach volleyball are all over 20%. Both tennis, both golf and men's track are over 10%, along with women's volleyball, softball and football.
02-04-2020 10:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,349
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 587
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #64
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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.
02-04-2020 10:23 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,281
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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:  
(02-04-2020 08:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  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.

If you aren't going to pay them, you have to treat them like other students would be.
They don't right now. There wouldn't be any restriction on a violin player on scholarship at Michigan moving to Indiana.
02-04-2020 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,124
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1437
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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:  
(02-04-2020 08:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  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.

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.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2020 10:54 AM by Attackcoog.)
02-04-2020 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,349
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 587
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #67
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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.

Oh, I think that the NCAA would love an antitrust exemption.

The practical political problem is that hating the NCAA is one of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on these days. The bipartisan disdain for that organization is quite strong. I've said before that the NCAA is almost a perfect political foil: conservatives can stick it to the leadership in academia that they despise, while liberals get to advance a player empowerment movement and possibly get them unionized. It's a win-win for both sides of the aisle to rip on the NCAA, so I can't see too much political will to grant them any type of antitrust exemption.

You're correct that Title IX compliance is at odds with a true free market system of colleges directly paying players, so something has to give. That's why the Olympic model of allowing for outside endorsement is where we seem to be settling at for now (as Title IX doesn't apply to, say, Pepsi paying the QB of Alabama for an endorsement when it's not paying any other athletes, whether male or female, at Alabama).

I find it more likely that the politicians will clarify Title IX enforcement under this new paradigm than it is for them to grant an outright antitrust exemption to the NCAA (which would be incredibly unpopular).
02-04-2020 11:14 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,124
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1437
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(02-04-2020 11:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(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:  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.

Oh, I think that the NCAA would love an antitrust exemption.

The practical political problem is that hating the NCAA is one of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on these days. The bipartisan disdain for that organization is quite strong. I've said before that the NCAA is almost a perfect political foil: conservatives can stick it to the leadership in academia that they despise, while liberals get to advance a player empowerment movement and possibly get them unionized. It's a win-win for both sides of the aisle to rip on the NCAA, so I can't see too much political will to grant them any type of antitrust exemption.

You're correct that Title IX compliance is at odds with a true free market system of colleges directly paying players, so something has to give. That's why the Olympic model of allowing for outside endorsement is where we seem to be settling at for now (as Title IX doesn't apply to, say, Pepsi paying the QB of Alabama for an endorsement when it's not paying any other athletes, whether male or female, at Alabama).

I find it more likely that the politicians will clarify Title IX enforcement under this new paradigm than it is for them to grant an outright antitrust exemption to the NCAA (which would be incredibly unpopular).

Good point. That said---one thing both parties seem to love is power. Im not convinced at all that having power in the form of oversight and control over major college sports wouldnt be quite attractive to both parties. At the very least---for politicians, control over anything always means a steady flow of campaign dollars will emerge from that arena.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2020 01:04 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-04-2020 11:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,144
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 650
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #69
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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.

There are many other aspects of college athletics that are not compatible with amateurism, such as having a Daddy Warbucks spend millions of dollars to hire away another team's football coach, or to build a pro-quality stadium or arena. So if anyone wants government control of it (I don't), then why limit that control to restricting athletes' freedom of movement and making sure they have to work for free?

You want real amateur athletics, like high school football, then make it amateur all the way. Charge the fans $5 a ticket, and have the team coached by full-time teachers who get paid a few thousand dollars a year to coach football on the side. For that matter, any school that wants to go just about that far can already join Division III, and any fans who want that can just ignore D-I athletics and follow a D-III team. They don't have to ask the government to force Ohio State and Alabama to do the same.
02-04-2020 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,178
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 212
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #70
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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.

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.

I don’t think it’s fair for unrestricted coach movement, but not player movement. It’s not totally restricted player movement, they just have to sit out a year or play JuCo.

I also see this turning very ugly in the underground recruiting scene, and to think the conferences won’t set-up restrictions anyway would be naive. No way will a Michigan player be allowed to transfer to Ohio State without sitting out.
02-04-2020 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,281
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(02-04-2020 11:36 AM)esayem 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.

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.

I don’t think it’s fair for unrestricted coach movement, but not player movement. It’s not totally restricted player movement, they just have to sit out a year or play JuCo.

I also see this turning very ugly in the underground recruiting scene, and to think the conferences won’t set-up restrictions anyway would be naive. No way will a Michigan player be allowed to transfer to Ohio State without sitting out.

Baker Mayfield.

(didn't have to sit out after leaving Texas Tech for Oklahoma)
02-04-2020 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,178
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 212
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #72
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(02-04-2020 11:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 11:36 AM)esayem 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.

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.

I don’t think it’s fair for unrestricted coach movement, but not player movement. It’s not totally restricted player movement, they just have to sit out a year or play JuCo.

I also see this turning very ugly in the underground recruiting scene, and to think the conferences won’t set-up restrictions anyway would be naive. No way will a Michigan player be allowed to transfer to Ohio State without sitting out.

Baker Mayfield.

(didn't have to sit out after leaving Texas Tech for Oklahoma)

Did he have a scholarship?
02-04-2020 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,281
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1267
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(02-04-2020 11:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 11:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 11:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 08:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  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.

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.

I don’t think it’s fair for unrestricted coach movement, but not player movement. It’s not totally restricted player movement, they just have to sit out a year or play JuCo.

I also see this turning very ugly in the underground recruiting scene, and to think the conferences won’t set-up restrictions anyway would be naive. No way will a Michigan player be allowed to transfer to Ohio State without sitting out.

Baker Mayfield.

(didn't have to sit out after leaving Texas Tech for Oklahoma)

Did he have a scholarship?

He started as a walk-on. He would have been scholarship.
02-04-2020 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,321
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 848
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #74
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(02-04-2020 11:36 AM)esayem 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.

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.
02-04-2020 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,124
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1437
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(02-04-2020 11:28 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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:  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.

There are many other aspects of college athletics that are not compatible with amateurism, such as having a Daddy Warbucks spend millions of dollars to hire away another team's football coach, or to build a pro-quality stadium or arena. So if anyone wants government control of it (I don't), then why limit that control to restricting athletes' freedom of movement and making sure they have to work for free?

You want real amateur athletics, like high school football, then make it amateur all the way. Charge the fans $5 a ticket, and have the team coached by full-time teachers who get paid a few thousand dollars a year to coach football on the side. For that matter, any school that wants to go just about that far can already join Division III, and any fans who want that can just ignore D-I athletics and follow a D-III team. They don't have to ask the government to force Ohio State and Alabama to do the same.

Im not suggesting that transfers would represent the only thing the government would regulate. If there is a antitrust exemption granted, the Feds will have regulatory oversight power over all aspects of college sports.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2020 01:08 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-04-2020 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,321
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 848
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #76
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(02-04-2020 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 11:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(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:  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.

Oh, I think that the NCAA would love an antitrust exemption.

The practical political problem is that hating the NCAA is one of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on these days. The bipartisan disdain for that organization is quite strong. I've said before that the NCAA is almost a perfect political foil: conservatives can stick it to the leadership in academia that they despise, while liberals get to advance a player empowerment movement and possibly get them unionized. It's a win-win for both sides of the aisle to rip on the NCAA, so I can't see too much political will to grant them any type of antitrust exemption.

You're correct that Title IX compliance is at odds with a true free market system of colleges directly paying players, so something has to give. That's why the Olympic model of allowing for outside endorsement is where we seem to be settling at for now (as Title IX doesn't apply to, say, Pepsi paying the QB of Alabama for an endorsement when it's not paying any other athletes, whether male or female, at Alabama).

I find it more likely that the politicians will clarify Title IX enforcement under this new paradigm than it is for them to grant an outright antitrust exemption to the NCAA (which would be incredibly unpopular).

Good point. That said---one thing both parties seem to love is power. Im not convinced at all that having a power in the form of oversight and control over major college sports wouldnt be quite attractive to both parties. At the very least---for politicians, control over anything always means a steady flow of campaign dollars will emerge from that arena.

I don't think an anti-trust exemption is likely at all. First, inside the NCAA itself, the power conferences would oppose it, as the anti-trust law is the reason they were able to break free of NCAA control over TV rights back in the 80s. They aren't giving that up.

Second, the existing evidence at the state level doesn't suggest a desire to empower the NCAA. E.g., in California, the vote to allow athletes name and likeness pay was 72-0, liberal democrats and conservative republicans who can't agree on anything voted together on that.

Third, I'm not sure what you mean by Title IX being incompatible with a 'capitalistic' model of college athletics. The name-and-likeness stuff obviously has no ramifications, because that money wouldn't be coming from the schools. And even if schools were no longer prevented from directly paying players, there is no Title IX ramification there, because obviously from the Fed's point of view they will still have to meet the Title IX standard of scholarships for women. No judge is going to allow a USF to say "well, we no longer have the money to fund that women's soccer team because we need that to out-bid UCF and Georgia State for this hot 3-star QB recruit", that would get laughed out of court.

And heck, it's not like at USF or Temple or San Diego State that money saved by not paying football players is resulting in huge profits that are being used to fund the women's tennis team anyway. The football programs at those schools aren't profitable, they often cost more money than they generate, but are kept going in zombie-like fashion largely via student fees and transfers. The schools will just have to transfer enough of that money to the women's teams to comply with the law just as they do now.

Finally, and getting back to the point at hand, even if some of the bigger pay-for-play proposals would shake up the money structure of college athletics in significant ways, the issue being discussed, making the transfer rules for football and hoops players the same as it already is for soccer and tennis players, has no such major monetary ramifications associated with it.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2020 01:19 PM by quo vadis.)
02-04-2020 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,144
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 650
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #77
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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:  
(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.

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.

Look at college basketball, for example. The percentage of college basketball players who later play pro basketball at any level is extremely small, maybe even smaller than the percentage of college golfers who later play pro golf. The prospect of future pro riches is nonexistent for over 99% of college basketball players.
02-04-2020 02:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,178
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 212
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #78
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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:  
(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.

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.
02-04-2020 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,124
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1437
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(02-04-2020 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 11:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 10:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 10:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

Oh, I think that the NCAA would love an antitrust exemption.

The practical political problem is that hating the NCAA is one of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on these days. The bipartisan disdain for that organization is quite strong. I've said before that the NCAA is almost a perfect political foil: conservatives can stick it to the leadership in academia that they despise, while liberals get to advance a player empowerment movement and possibly get them unionized. It's a win-win for both sides of the aisle to rip on the NCAA, so I can't see too much political will to grant them any type of antitrust exemption.

You're correct that Title IX compliance is at odds with a true free market system of colleges directly paying players, so something has to give. That's why the Olympic model of allowing for outside endorsement is where we seem to be settling at for now (as Title IX doesn't apply to, say, Pepsi paying the QB of Alabama for an endorsement when it's not paying any other athletes, whether male or female, at Alabama).

I find it more likely that the politicians will clarify Title IX enforcement under this new paradigm than it is for them to grant an outright antitrust exemption to the NCAA (which would be incredibly unpopular).

Good point. That said---one thing both parties seem to love is power. Im not convinced at all that having a power in the form of oversight and control over major college sports wouldnt be quite attractive to both parties. At the very least---for politicians, control over anything always means a steady flow of campaign dollars will emerge from that arena.

I don't think an anti-trust exemption is likely at all. First, inside the NCAA itself, the power conferences would oppose it, as the anti-trust law is the reason they were able to break free of NCAA control over TV rights back in the 80s. They aren't giving that up.

Second, the existing evidence at the state level doesn't suggest a desire to empower the NCAA. E.g., in California, the vote to allow athletes name and likeness pay was 72-0, liberal democrats and conservative republicans who can't agree on anything voted together on that.

Third, I'm not sure what you mean by Title IX being incompatible with a 'capitalistic' model of college athletics. The name-and-likeness stuff obviously has no ramifications, because that money wouldn't be coming from the schools. And even if schools were no longer prevented from directly paying players, there is no Title IX ramification there, because obviously from the Fed's point of view they will still have to meet the Title IX standard of scholarships for women. No judge is going to allow a USF to say "well, we no longer have the money to fund that women's soccer team because we need that to out-bid UCF and Georgia State for this hot 3-star QB recruit", that would get laughed out of court.

And heck, it's not like at USF or Temple or San Diego State that money saved by not paying football players is resulting in huge profits that are being used to fund the women's tennis team anyway. The football programs at those schools aren't profitable, they often cost more money than they generate, but are kept going in zombie-like fashion largely via student fees and transfers. The schools will just have to transfer enough of that money to the women's teams to comply with the law just as they do now.

Finally, and getting back to the point at hand, even if some of the bigger pay-for-play proposals would shake up the money structure of college athletics in significant ways, the issue being discussed, making the transfer rules for football and hoops players the same as it already is for soccer and tennis players, has no such major monetary ramifications associated with it.

I didnt say that. I said that Title 9 is not compatible with the pro sports model. Thats why Ive also maintained that college sports is neither fish nor fowl. It doesn't really fit properly within the current laws governing antitrust. Yes the NCAA acts in an anti-competitive manner. The reality is monopolistic behavior is deemed to be legal if it works in the public interest.

The reality is that sports is not the primary business of colleges. Education is. Many kids who would not otherwise get an education are getting one because of the money that is funneled into college sports by fans. Furthermore, Title 9 has opened many of those opportunities to women---largely on the back of money provided by the two mens revenue sports.

The problem is, litigators are attacking the NCAA and schools for not providing the players their fair share of the money those revenue producing sports earn. The schools are for the most part breaking even or losing money on those sports. Then, to make matters worse, the government is involved by creating a entitlement program (with no funding) that forces the schools to create sports that dont make money so women can have access to a reasonably similar number of scholarship opportunities in college sports. So, by law---the government is essentially taking the money that the players say they deserve----and giving it to women athletes.

So--all Im saying is The whole model is an incompatible mess that doesnt really fit a true capitalistic sports model. An anti-trust exemption, with government having oversight, is the only way the current model really can survive. By the way--this also the best way to avoid liability for concussions down the road becasue the government will have to come up with protocols and safety regs that if adhered to---would largely shield the schools from future liability.

EDIT---The olympic model is a mess because it wont work in college athletics. It simply creates third party pay-for-play. I think its little more than a waypoint on the journey to complete free market pay-for-play by the schools. Once you break the dam for paying players---it over (and over fairly quickly I think). An antitrust exemption with government regulation and oversight is the only viable long term solution to save anything approaching the current model that I can see.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2020 03:31 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-04-2020 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,321
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 848
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #80
RE: Big 10 Proposal Would Allow Anyone To Transfer Anywhere Without Sitting Out a Year
(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:  
(02-04-2020 08:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  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.

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.
02-04-2020 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.