(02-04-2020 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I so agree.

When was the current rule established?

(02-07-2020 03:23 AM)chester Wrote:  

(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.

There's more oversight with athletes because of the sports scholarships and how there handled. Unlike academic scholarships there's a set number for sports. The biggest problem the NCAA is going to have is teams are keeping track of scholarships per school and the transfers. Though things wouldn't change much from what's going on now.

(02-07-2020 12:59 AM)chester Wrote:  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.)

So what the NCAA would have us believe is that it is in a position to make a determination of "fair market value" for every instance of an athlete exercising their NIL rights, which would inherently require analyzing the facts separately in every instance? Wow!

The NCAA's position loses all credibility when you realize the transfer sit-out rule only applies to the revenue sports athletes. That shows its true nature, totally unjustifiable.

**********
"One-time transfer exception: If you transfer from a four-year school, you may be immediately eligible to compete at your new school if you meet ALL the following conditions:

- You are transferring to a Division II or III school, or you are transferring to a Division I school in any sport other than baseball, men's or women's basketball, football (Football Bowl Subdivision) or men’s ice hockey. ...

http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/cur...sfer-terms
*************

You can in fact transfer to another FBS school so long as you have never been on athletic scholarship, LOL.

Absolutely zero "student protection" reason for treating these athletes different from those in the other sports.

(02-09-2020 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The NCAA's position loses all credibility when you realize the transfer sit-out rule only applies to the revenue sports athletes. That shows its true nature, totally unjustifiable.

**********
"One-time transfer exception: If you transfer from a four-year school, you may be immediately eligible to compete at your new school if you meet ALL the following conditions:

- You are transferring to a Division II or III school, or you are transferring to a Division I school in any sport other than baseball, men's or women's basketball, football (Football Bowl Subdivision) or men’s ice hockey. ...

http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/cur...sfer-terms
*************

You can in fact transfer to another FBS school so long as you have never been on athletic scholarship, LOL.

Absolutely zero "student protection" reason for treating these athletes different from those in the other sports.

What’s the origin? It’d be interesting to know when they snuck that in and what the reasoning was.

(02-09-2020 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The NCAA's position loses all credibility when you realize the transfer sit-out rule only applies to the revenue sports athletes. That shows its true nature, totally unjustifiable.

**********
"One-time transfer exception: If you transfer from a four-year school, you may be immediately eligible to compete at your new school if you meet ALL the following conditions:

- You are transferring to a Division II or III school, or you are transferring to a Division I school in any sport other than baseball, men's or women's basketball, football (Football Bowl Subdivision) or men’s ice hockey. ...

http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/cur...sfer-terms
*************

You can in fact transfer to another FBS school so long as you have never been on athletic scholarship, LOL.

Absolutely zero "student protection" reason for treating these athletes different from those in the other sports.

The current NCAA rule is even more restrictive than the bolded part -- it says, "If you are transferring to a Division I school for any of the previously-listed sports, you may be eligible to compete immediately if you were not recruited by your original school and you have never received an athletics scholarship."

The first part of that underlined section, "if you were not recruited by your original school", means that the transfer restrictions apply to "preferred walk-on" athletes in those five sports, as well as athletes on scholarship. And it also applies to athletes who receive even the tiniest partial athletic scholarship. For example, a baseball player who gets a $2,000-a-year partial athletic scholarship is bound by the restrictions just like the future major league pitcher who has a full athletic scholarship.

(02-09-2020 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The NCAA's position loses all credibility when you realize the transfer sit-out rule only applies to the revenue sports athletes. That shows its true nature, totally unjustifiable.

**********
"One-time transfer exception: If you transfer from a four-year school, you may be immediately eligible to compete at your new school if you meet ALL the following conditions:

- You are transferring to a Division II or III school, or you are transferring to a Division I school in any sport other than baseball, men's or women's basketball, football (Football Bowl Subdivision) or men’s ice hockey. ...

http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/cur...sfer-terms
*************

You can in fact transfer to another FBS school so long as you have never been on athletic scholarship, LOL.

Absolutely zero "student protection" reason for treating these athletes different from those in the other sports.

Like they had credibility before this arose.

(02-09-2020 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The NCAA's position loses all credibility when you realize the transfer sit-out rule only applies to the revenue sports athletes. That shows its true nature, totally unjustifiable.

**********
"One-time transfer exception: If you transfer from a four-year school, you may be immediately eligible to compete at your new school if you meet ALL the following conditions:

- You are transferring to a Division II or III school, or you are transferring to a Division I school in any sport other than baseball, men's or women's basketball, football (Football Bowl Subdivision) or men’s ice hockey. ...

http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/cur...sfer-terms
*************

You can in fact transfer to another FBS school so long as you have never been on athletic scholarship, LOL.

Absolutely zero "student protection" reason for treating these athletes different from those in the other sports.

Agree. It can't be justified when it only applies to revenue sports. People cheat in other sports. And then it looks like these athletes are "professionals."

(02-07-2020 02:12 AM)chester Wrote:  

(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 did see those. I'm a little skeptical on the ACC version though as that might ironically let the more powerful programs bring in more talent each year.

I've always had sort of a pet idea to increase parity (it'll never happen) that schools that make the playoff should lose 5 counters the next year.

I think that the incoming freshmen need to stay at the school they stay sign with for 2 years before they can transfer without sitting. This proposed change is going to hurt the smaller schools, not just G5, even smaller p5 schools. The transfer portal is also hurting high school seniors, because schools are now holding on a spot for transfer or two.

(02-10-2020 05:22 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  I think that the incoming freshmen need to stay at the school they stay sign with for 2 years before they can transfer without sitting. This proposed change is going to hurt the smaller schools, not just G5, even smaller p5 schools. The transfer portal is also hurting high school seniors, because schools are now holding on a spot for transfer or two.

As long as the athletes can keep their scholarship, no matter the case, including career ending injuries I can live with this.

I knew of a person that was injured this way and the scholarship was dropped.

(02-10-2020 05:22 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  I think that the incoming freshmen need to stay at the school they stay sign with for 2 years before they can transfer without sitting. This proposed change is going to hurt the smaller schools, not just G5, even smaller p5 schools. The transfer portal is also hurting high school seniors, because schools are now holding on a spot for transfer or two.

To me, the issue should be what's best for the athletes, not the schools.

And transfers have worked both ways. E.g., SMU was able to build a 10-win team last year by smartly courting transfers from P5 schools. You have to remember, most P5 recruits were big stars in high school and many will be unhappy when they arrive on campus and it turns out they are now third on the depth-chart at the B1G or SEC school they signed with. Some will definitely decide that starting at Tulane or San Diego State is better than sitting on the bench at Tennessee or Oklahoma State. There has in fact been a lot of P5 to G5 movement.

(02-07-2020 03:32 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  So what the NCAA would have us believe is that it is in a position to make a determination of "fair market value" for every instance of an athlete exercising their NIL rights, which would inherently require analyzing the facts separately in every instance? Wow!

Doesn't make any kind of sense. The market value of an athlete's NIL is whatever one is willing to pay for it. Lawsuit waiting to happen... The NCAA just can't help itself. A glutton for litigation.

(02-10-2020 04:03 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 02:12 AM)chester Wrote:  

(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 did see those. I'm a little skeptical on the ACC version though as that might ironically let the more powerful programs bring in more talent each year.

I've always had sort of a pet idea to increase parity (it'll never happen) that schools that make the playoff should lose 5 counters the next year.

Yeah, those with the advantage have no interest in parity. Those at a disadvatage would have no interest in parity if the roles were reversed. That idea is interesting, though. Double-edged sword type deal.

(02-10-2020 05:22 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  I think that the incoming freshmen need to stay at the school they stay sign with for 2 years before they can transfer without sitting. This proposed change is going to hurt the smaller schools, not just G5, even smaller p5 schools. The transfer portal is also hurting high school seniors, because schools are now holding on a spot for transfer or two.

I wouldn't mind this as the rule but with a add on of the player can transfer in the 2 year time period if the head coach is fired or moves to a new school. A new coaching system might not fit a playerS playing style or skill set. Why should a player going to his sophomore year be the only one penalized for a coaching change.

(02-13-2020 12:53 AM)46566 Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 05:22 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  I think that the incoming freshmen need to stay at the school they stay sign with for 2 years before they can transfer without sitting. This proposed change is going to hurt the smaller schools, not just G5, even smaller p5 schools. The transfer portal is also hurting high school seniors, because schools are now holding on a spot for transfer or two.

I wouldn't mind this as the rule but with a add on of the player can transfer in the 2 year time period if the head coach is fired or moves to a new school. A new coaching system might not fit a playerS playing style or skill set. Why should a player going to his sophomore year be the only one penalized for a coaching change.

For starters, the rule whatever it is has to be the same for all athletes in all sports. Can't have separate rules for football and basketball.

(02-13-2020 12:02 AM)chester Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:32 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  So what the NCAA would have us believe is that it is in a position to make a determination of "fair market value" for every instance of an athlete exercising their NIL rights, which would inherently require analyzing the facts separately in every instance? Wow!

Doesn't make any kind of sense. The market value of an athlete's NIL is whatever one is willing to pay for it. Lawsuit waiting to happen... The NCAA just can't help itself. A glutton for litigation.

In a TRUE free market, what you wrote would be true. However, it's also true that naming rights only have value if you actually USE the name or image that you paid for, correct? Yet what's to stop boosters of a school like, say, Alabama, from buying up the NIL for 85 blue chip players - most of whom they have no intention of every playing or promoting - just to keep those players away from the competition? It would be 1972 all over again...

DON'T KID YOURSELF: THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FREE MARKET ABOUT COLLEGE FOOTBALL. IF A BLUEBLOOD TEAM CAN "BUY" A CHAMPIONSHIP, THEY WILL - AND THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE GAME AT ALL.

(02-17-2020 02:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 12:02 AM)chester Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:32 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  So what the NCAA would have us believe is that it is in a position to make a determination of "fair market value" for every instance of an athlete exercising their NIL rights, which would inherently require analyzing the facts separately in every instance? Wow!

Doesn't make any kind of sense. The market value of an athlete's NIL is whatever one is willing to pay for it. Lawsuit waiting to happen... The NCAA just can't help itself. A glutton for litigation.

In a TRUE free market, what you wrote would be true. However, it's also true that naming rights only have value if you actually USE the name or image that you paid for, correct?

Not necessarily, in the free market, individuals and companies often bid on rights to things strategically, to block competitors from using them even if they don't immediately, or in the forseeable future, intend to themselves.

Also, as someone (maybe Tank) once said, there may be big opportunities for striver schools here. E.g., if money for attendance is equal, such that schools are competing for talent based on athletic history and status and prestige, well Alabama has it all over a Houston and there's really nothing Houston can do about that, as stuff like status and prestige are difficult to develop and generally emerge only over a long period of time. Ditto if if it is hoops and the comparison is Kansas vs USF. Competition based on prestige basically ensures that the existing hierarchy will remain stable.

But if money comes in to play, that could change things, as a school like Houston or USF may have very deep pocket boosters or alumni who may very well be able to compete with a Kansas or an Alabama in that domain. That could shake things up. It would only take one Boone Pickens or Mike Bloomberg with money to burn to make their school competitive.

Brett McMurphy‏Verified account @Brett_McMurphy


Follow Follow @Brett_McMurphy

ACC announces it “supports a one-time transfer opportunity for all student-athletes, regardless of sport. As a conference, we look forward to continuing the discussion nationally.”



12:38 PM - 17 Feb 2020