yeah but which one? Transfer if the price is right? Transfer in Jeopardy? Wheel of Transfers? Hollywood Transfers? Let’s make a transfer? Deal or no Transfer? i mean you cant just say any game show. Be specific please. It may sway my vote on this!
In pro sports, players sign with teams committing to a coach, a GM, a scheme, etc, and those players are still expected to honor their contracts even in the event of a coaching or management change. If we're going so far as to claim that college athletes should be treated like the pros, why shouldn't the expectations be comparable?
I've always liked the 3-years before draft eligibility rule. I would extend that rule to apply to no-penalty transfers. If you want to transfer before you've been in school 3 years, you're red-shirting (I would make an exception for players who have already taken a red-shirt season). Once you've been in for 3 years, then go for it.
because the compensation is not comparable. pro athletes get wages as compensation. Up until recently college players got nothing….legally. If im a volunteer employee and i sign on to an organization and that organization takes a turn i don't like, i should be able to walk away at any time. If i signed a contract to be compensated for x amount of time then, I should have to honor such a contract regardless of the turns the organization makes. Edit: scholarships could complicate this.
Yes, scholarships do complicate this, because they are, in fact, compensation. The fact that the compensation is significantly less than the pros make doesn't make the responsibilities any less. WNBA players are compensated comparably to NCAA football players--they operate under those same contract-honoring regulations. Now, I understand that the prevailing sentiment (with which I disagree) is that it is not sufficient compensation--whatever, that's what the NIL BS is there for. My point is that the reason that NIL is allowed now is because courts have ruled that student-athletes are employees now, not "volunteers" as you compared them to.
it is pretty much comparable now Players sign with a school and there is no longer a 4-5 year full-ride scholarship guarantee; at least not like there used to be. It's a year to year deal, for the most part, now. Players are getting 'processed' all the time at Power-/Power-4 programs. I think that's how it should be. Undergraduate academic scholarships are usually for an academic year; almost never a 4-year full ride. Students have to hit fairly high standards to get scholarships renewed. Athletes should face similar merit-based thresholds or maybe I'm all wet on this
The conflict i see is all pro players sign contracts. Not all college players have scholarships. I have no clue of the transfer students that are on scholarships or the percent of, but i would expect it is a fairly high percentage. I see a major overhaul coming of how scholarships are issued in the future, as all of this gets ironed out. So in the mean time though, what about non scholarship players?
I have no clue how those regulations do, can, or should apply to walk-ons. I believe in managing to the rule rather than to the exception.
I agree that is a problem as well. Players should not be penalized for accepting a scholarship to a top-tier program and not "living up to the hype".
D Is it an exception though? Whats the percent of athletes on scholarships? Id imagine the big three are high but the balance of sports programs, very low. fairly complex situation the more i think about it. But i think if all sports are combined, its probably closer to an equal split vs an exception ?
Why not? If I'm hired and don't live up to expected performance I'm let go. If we are paying college players, shouldn't they be held to a similar standard?
If you're asking my opinion, the fact that education is tied to athletics should result in stronger commitments from both parts of the transaction. I am not and have never been in favor of the "student-athletes-as-employees" concept. As I said above, I think that a scholarship offer/acceptance should come with a 3-year commitment from both sides.
but are they really penalized if the expectation is they have to earn the scholarship the next season? if a player fails at Oregon but secures a scholarship to Eastern Washington or UC Davis or SE Louisiana exactly how have they been 'penalized'? They can still get a 'free' college degree if they are so inclined. These players being processed have options below FBS there are: * 128 FCS Division 1 teams (similar scholarships as FBS) * 169 FCS Division 2 teams (While there is a cap at 36 full scholarships, each of those can be split up any way the school would like. For example, a school can give 36 full scholarships or 72 half scholarships. They can also give 30 full scholarships and 10 half scholarships and 4 quarter scholarships, etc) * 95 NAIA teams (similar in scholarship parameters as FCS Div. 2; but often have higher academic standards; like Willamette or Linfield) * 249 FCS Division 3 teams (While not mandated by the NCAA, Division 3 schools have some of the toughest GPA requirements because of the academic caliber of schools in the division (see article). These schools focus largely on regional recruits. While D3 schools do not offer athletic scholarships, they combine need-based financial aid with academic scholarships in order to reduce the cost for their athletes. In many cases, the combined financial package from a D3 school can be a better deal than a small athletic scholarship from a D2 team) you also have to factor that a lot of processed players still manage to land on other FBS teams, just not the Power-5 teams. A player processed by Oregon still might end up at Wyoming or San Jose State
but they already do don't they? Despite having all sorts of advantages like personal tutors & private centrally located luxury study halls included in their scholarships, athletes still occasionally fall below a set line(s) and lose their ability to play & even their scholarship completely. Maybe some want the stick motivational approach to raise that achievement line just to maintain a scholarship but I'm more of a carrot guy. Being a D1 athlete is very time consuming & it's tough to balance training with being serious about academics let alone maintaining any sort of social life. I'd love to see a high merit carrot provided to reward excellence like an additional full ride year of college post eligibility. The proven best and brightest earning a final year to focus on academics & become even better/more rounded before joining the work force would seem a win win. As competitive as D1 athletes are, I bet this would raise the academics overall. STOMP
Stars given by the media are fairly accurate but certainly not foolproof. Whether or not it is 247 Sports, Rivals, or ESPN, a lot of time they base the *s on how they project in the NFL as opposed to how they can be in college. And that means that size and speed in HS are huge factors in the evaluations. But much like the NBA draft, for whatever reason..... some do not pan out. Now with NIL money, you can't afford to pay players who don't excel. But it has had some benefits. Before players left early for the draft because their family's finances put pressure on them to get paid. Now many are getting paid more in college than they would in the pros. (i.e Darron Thomas who went undrafted) So I think in some ways it helps the college game as more good players remain in school and graduate....somewhere. However, I have often wondered how the difference in pay among the various players affects the team chemistry. Unfortunately, the pressure on coaches is also high so they need to dip into the portal and pay for better players every year to compete at a high level. That helps some players like a Tez Johnson or a Noah Wittington who worked hard at a lower-level school to move up and get paid. But it also hurts some players who are good but get pushed out. I do hate that part.
Even for guys who commit, and the entire coaching staff bails on them in the first year? You see plenty of examples where a new staff comes in and some of the odd players don't fit their style. In your scenario, the player would have to eat up two years of eligibility and then sit out another year until they could get into a system that fits them. I don't see who benefits from that. I'm open to a strict one transfer rule. Players could still got hosed by it, but it would more-or-less eliminate the behind the scenes free agency for all 85 players every season.
