Link: Proposal to let athletes transfer instantly after a coaching change picks up steam

TomFromBama said:

Uh - respectfully - Coaches absolutely DO have the option to leave a school any time they want, and they can start coaching at another school the same DAY that they leave their current job. And it CAN be a school in the same conference, or a school his former employer will play in a few months - it happens ALL the time.

And that's the point. In America, typically we don't support ideas like indentured servitude.

There's not a single person here who'd accept an employment contract that required you to sit out of the workforce for a full year without compensation if you decided to take another job, OR if your boss decided to fire you. NONE of us would accept that kind of a restriction. And yet, for these young men seeking to make a career out of football (and isn't that true of many of the guys on our football team?) - well, they are second class citizens and don't deserve the same rights you and I demand???

Click to expand...

They still receive their more than fair compensation- scholarship, room, board, health care, some clothing, tutoring, professional training, etc. The only thing they do not receive is the ability to play for that one year.

I think the fear that the XFL potentially could allow 18-19 year old kids join is a driving force behind the transfer rule being on the table. Think about it... Noone watches NCAA baseball because most of the best young talent in the country has been drafted out of high school already. If the XFL starts to allow younger players in like some commentators are suggesting then it would be a massive blow to college football if the transfer rule and the NFL 3 year rules are still in place come 2020.

CrimsonProf said:

Players [emoji122] aren't [emoji122]employees [emoji122]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Sure, not in form, but in substance they absolutely are employees. They are sought for their skill in their sport (not for their good looks or their academic ability - so spare me the "Student-Athlete" mythology - there's not ONE guy on our football team who was recruited for his ACT score!!!), and if they don't perform up to the coaches' expectations, they are let go. Happens every year on our football team, whether we want to admit it or not.

So - Riddle me this, Batman!

Imagine a hypothetical situation where a young man - let's call him "Bob" is a 19 year old college student seeking a degree in a very specialized, very competitive academic program at a major University far from his home - maybe its Harvard or Yale - or let's just say its MIT. Bob is on full academic scholarship and even gets a stipend from the University, and the school spent a fair amount trying to recruit Bob to their program because of the skill Bob demonstrated on the SAT, in the very the competitive High School he attended, and at a summer academic camp hosted by MIT.

Bob had multiple offers from the leading schools in his chosen field of study, and he chose MIT largely because he wanted to study under the leading University professor in the country in his particular field of study, and just for fun let's call that professor, Dr. Saban.

Suppose this leading professor, Dr. Saban, is woo'd away from MIT to take a similar position with higher pay (and an endowed Chair) at another University, like maybe Stanford...... or Texas........

QUESTION 1: Bob was and is a highly prized recruit in his field of study, and MIT has invested a lot of money in Bob. Does that make Bob the Property of MIT, to be dealt with as MIT wishes, without regard to what Bob wants to do regarding his education?

QUESTION 2: If Bob wants to transfer to another school, should Bob be required to stay at MIT for any period of time? Should MIT have the power to prevent Bob from gaining admission at any other University to study in his chosen field for a full year? Would that be fair to Bob?

QUESTION 3: What's different about Bob verses any college athlete, OTHER than the fact that MIT isn't selling Bob's services to the highest bidder and making Tens of Millions of Dollars a year off of Bob?

Honest responses appreciated.

TomFromBama said:

Uh - respectfully - Coaches absolutely DO have the option to leave a school any time they want, and they can start coaching at another school the same DAY that they leave their current job. And it CAN be a school in the same conference, or a school his former employer will play in a few months - it happens ALL the time.

And that's the point. In America, typically we don't support ideas like indentured servitude.

There's not a single person here who'd accept an employment contract that required you to sit out of the workforce for a full year without compensation if you decided to take another job, OR if your boss decided to fire you. NONE of us would accept that kind of a restriction. And yet, for these young men seeking to make a career out of football (and isn't that true of many of the guys on our football team?) - well, they are second class citizens and don't deserve the same rights you and I demand???

Click to expand...

well, that's factually incorrect.
Lots and lots of people have to sign no-compete and nondisclosure agreements to get jobs.

I think what should be done is require the student to remain at their current school for one year after the coaching change and then allow unrestricted transfer. This way they will have a period to cool off and think about it. The school can have some stability for one year and get a better picture of who is staying and who is going thus helping with the next years recruiting. Maybe one exception would be allow students with only one year of eligibility remaining to transfer except to the outgoing coach's new school.

TomFromBama said:

Sure, not in form, but in substance they absolutely are employees. They are sought for their skill in their sport (not for their good looks or their academic ability - so spare me the "Student-Athlete" mythology - there's not ONE guy on our football team who was recruited for his ACT score!!!), and if they don't perform up to the coaches' expectations, they are let go. Happens every year on our football team, whether we want to admit it or not.

So - Riddle me this, Batman!

Imagine a hypothetical situation where a young man - let's call him "Bob" is a 19 year old college student seeking a degree in a very specialized, very competitive academic program at a major University far from his home - maybe its Harvard or Yale - or let's just say its MIT. Bob is on full academic scholarship and even gets a stipend from the University, and the school spent a fair amount trying to recruit Bob to their program because of the skill Bob demonstrated on the SAT, in the very the competitive High School he attended, and at a summer academic camp hosted by MIT.

Bob had multiple offers from the leading schools in his chosen field of study, and he chose MIT largely because he wanted to study under the leading University professor in the country in his particular field of study, and just for fun let's call that professor, Dr. Saban.

Suppose this leading professor, Dr. Saban, is woo'd away from MIT to take a similar position with higher pay (and an endowed Chair) at another University, like maybe Stanford...... or Texas........

QUESTION 1: Bob was and is a highly prized recruit in his field of study, and MIT has invested a lot of money in Bob. Does that make Bob the Property of MIT, to be dealt with as MIT wishes, without regard to what Bob wants to do regarding his education?

QUESTION 2: If Bob wants to transfer to another school, should Bob be required to stay at MIT for any period of time? Should MIT have the power to prevent Bob from gaining admission at any other University to study in his chosen field for a full year? Would that be fair to Bob?

QUESTION 3: What's different about Bob verses any college athlete, OTHER than the fact that MIT isn't selling Bob's services to the highest bidder and making Tens of Millions of Dollars a year off of Bob?

Honest responses appreciated.

Click to expand...

If Bob's, or for that matter the professor's, research was conducted under the auspices of an institute paid for by MIT, there may well be situations where neither can just take the research results and bolt for another institution. Depends on contracts and the prior agreements, but just because you do research does not automatically mean you own the results, patents, profits, rights, etc. The people are free to leave, but they are not free to leave without honoring their contracts, which may well entail no longer doing the same exact work at another place.

LA4Bama said:

well, that's factually incorrect.
Lots and lots of people have to sign no-compete and nondisclosure agreements to get jobs.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, can you name any coach who was prevented from walking off one college campus and onto another college campus to begin coaching the next day, due to a contractual clause, be it a "non-compete" or a "nondisclosure" agreement?

I again would suggest to you that people in tough circumstances will often do things that aren't in their best interest - but pretty much everyone who has ever signed a contract with a Non-compete clause was also being paid a cash salary.

Look, I'm a college graduate, and I assume most of us probably are. And all or nearly all of us probably went to college because we wanted an academic degree.

Like it or not, "fair" or not, "wise" or not, MANY of the guys playing P-5 college football (and basketball for that matter) or ONLY at college because they want or need to advance their sports career, regardless of whether it pans out or not.

Yes, a college scholarship is a HUGE and Valuable benefit.... to people like us who desire and value education. But to someone who doesn't value their education - and again, we can deny it all we want - but this includes many athletes - its of no value at all.
Sorry if that offends. But in the real world, that's the reality.

TomFromBama said:

Respectfully, can you name any coach who was prevented from walking off one college campus and onto another college campus to begin coaching the next day, due to a contractual clause, be it a "non-compete" or a "nondisclosure" agreement?

I again would suggest to you that people in tough circumstances will often do things that aren't in their best interest - but pretty much everyone who has ever signed a contract with a Non-compete clause was also being paid a cash salary.

Look, I'm a college graduate, and I assume most of us probably are. And all or nearly all of us probably went to college because we wanted an academic degree.

Like it or not, "fair" or not, "wise" or not, MANY of the guys playing P-5 college football (and basketball for that matter) or ONLY at college because they want or need to advance their sports career, regardless of whether it pans out or not.

Yes, a college scholarship is a HUGE and Valuable benefit.... to people like us who desire and value education. But to someone who doesn't value their education - and again, we can deny it all we want - but this includes many athletes - its of no value at all.
Sorry if that offends. But in the real world, that's the reality.

Click to expand...

Yes - Dan Enos. Bama had wanted to hire him, but couldn't because he had a non-compete at Ark - couldn't go to an SEC school. There have been plenty of others.

BamaInBham said:

Yes - Dan Enos. Bama had wanted to hire him, but couldn't because he had a non-compete at Ark - couldn't go to an SEC school. There have been plenty of others.

Click to expand...

Starting to consider if Saban needs to implement a similar policy so we don't keep filling the ranks of the SEC with our assistant coaches.

TomFromBama said:

Respectfully, can you name any coach who was prevented from walking off one college campus and onto another college campus to begin coaching the next day, due to a contractual clause, be it a "non-compete" or a "nondisclosure" agreement?

I again would suggest to you that people in tough circumstances will often do things that aren't in their best interest - but pretty much everyone who has ever signed a contract with a Non-compete clause was also being paid a cash salary.

Look, I'm a college graduate, and I assume most of us probably are. And all or nearly all of us probably went to college because we wanted an academic degree.

Like it or not, "fair" or not, "wise" or not, MANY of the guys playing P-5 college football (and basketball for that matter) or ONLY at college because they want or need to advance their sports career, regardless of whether it pans out or not.

Yes, a college scholarship is a HUGE and Valuable benefit.... to people like us who desire and value education. But to someone who doesn't value their education - and again, we can deny it all we want - but this includes many athletes - its of no value at all.
Sorry if that offends. But in the real world, that's the reality.

Click to expand...

The rules are not always made by the individual schools. They are made by the NCAA, which is the body that governs the good of the game. It's not just about the good of a single player or the good of a single school, it's about the good of the organization as a whole to function according to rules which make the functionality of the whole possible. The reason student athletes are restricted from transferring is not because University X owns them, but because the system would not be orderly if it were a free for all. There is no necessity that players sign up for D1 football, but if they do then they also sign up for the rules that make D1 football able to exist. It's as simple as that. Now, that doesn't mean we can't make better rules that help more people more of the time, but your rhetoric about individuality and indentured servitude is so far from reality that it's impossible to have a constructive conversation. Unless and until the NCAA implements forced conscription, there is no point talking about servitude.

rgw said:

f a kid is told in his "entrance interview" with the new staff that he may not fit what they're doing and he's only a 3rd year player (or earlier), I think he should be able to transfer without damage to his eligibility counter though he will have to sit out the transfer year.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I think what might make the most sense is if an incoming coach had the potential to release a player in such a way that he wouldn't have to sit out a year. The problem them is that the coach might get railroaded into releasing players he intended to play (much like Saban had to do with Smith). In theory though it certainly makes sense that if the player wants to go and the coach doesn't want them, to let them go.

TomFromBama said:

And that's the point. In America, typically we don't support ideas like indentured servitude.

Click to expand...

That is an extreme use of hyperbole. Let's consider the reality of the situation.

First off a coach has contractual obligations and he has to meet those. The exact terms vary, but he can't just quit and become exempt from them. That is exactly what a college player can do.

To reiterate, they are on four year scholarships now, that are not performance based. They can't get "fired" for sucking at football, that's your idea of indentured servitude? It's a guaranteed contract, which the player can void at any time! They player can quit, at any point, with no real penalty! None at all! Ask Blake Barnett, he's on scholarship, the guy quits in the middle of the season! That's your idea of indentured servitude? Heck, he didn't even have to sit out a year.

So, the school has an obligation to provide a full ride for the player, and that obligation is a fairly concrete one. On the other hand, the player can always quit, at any point, with no repercussions beyond the loss of their scholarship. That's not how servitude works, the whole key to servitude is you can't quit. So that was just absolutely incorrect to claim. Not only that though, it isn't as though the player's done for if they quit. They can quit, but they then have a variety of options.

A player who despite obligating the university to a four year scholarship, decides to quit, has a plethora of options available to him. He can continue his education at the university and pay for it, like you know, everyone else. He can leave and go to a lower level and play college football again without having to sit out a year. He can transfer to another FBS program, getting another full ride scholarship. He can also immediately go into a profession, if it's not professional football nothing is stopping him from any other employment. I should add that while a university is obligated to a player for 4 years, they can and often do leave to go pro after 3, which if you think about it is a relationship that if anything puts the university into servitude. The university is the one that has to give the guy a full ride no matter what, the player all along has plenty of options and to claim otherwise is to either be ignorant or misleading.

81usaf92 said:

I think the fear that the XFL potentially could allow 18-19 year old kids join is a driving force behind the transfer rule being on the table. Think about it... Noone watches NCAA baseball because most of the best young talent in the country has been drafted out of high school already. If the XFL starts to allow younger players in like some commentators are suggesting then it would be a massive blow to college football if the transfer rule and the NFL 3 year rules are still in place come 2020.

Click to expand...

I've wished for years that the NFL would start a minor league football league. I wish kids who had no interest in education would go play for the NFL so other kids who wanted the opportunity to get a free education could do so. I enjoy college football and will watch Alabama play even if it's only two and three star guys playing.

A former coach and current D-II Conference Commissioner (and close friend) taught me years ago that the system is set up to favor the schools and not the players. Even something as innocuous as signing a LOI binds the athlete more than the school. You can go to a school and receive a scholarship but never sign an LOI. (See Demarcus Cousins.)

As a father of 2 former D-1 athletes I can only say that scholarships are great, but the system does favor the school and therefore the NCAA. Personally I would like to see any athlete who is not on a full scholarship have full freedom to transfer...without sitting out...and all athletes have a one time transfer -- or pro eligibility -- after their 2nd year on campus.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If coaches are free to move then athletes must have at least some of that ability to do the same.

I cannot imagine this being passed as currently authored. I won't worry about it until something actually gets passed.

BamaInBham said:

Yes - Dan Enos. Bama had wanted to hire him, but couldn't because he had a non-compete at Ark - couldn't go to an SEC school. There have been plenty of others.

Click to expand...

That is new information to me, and I STAND CORRECTED! Yes, one SEC asst. coach was barred from immediately taking a job at another SEC school.

But he wasn't barred from immediately taking an on-field coaching job at Michigan, was he?

So lets see - that's ONE asst. coach in the collective memory of this board, and he wasn't prevented from all "Coaching", but only "Coaching" at a small number (13) other schools (and he received a very high cash salary in exchange for signing that contract at Arkansas).

By way of comparison, as of the second week of last December, at least TWENTY (20) FBS college football programs had changed Head Coaches, and possibly as many as 3-5 times+ as many asst. coaching positions had changed. So far as I can tell (and I admit I could be wrong) but apparently none of these new hires were prevented from leaving their last job and immediately taking a new one.

But virtually NONE of the players they recruited enjoyed the same freedom (barring very limited current transfer rules for graduates and certain other limited circumstances).

I fully "get" the arguments for the current system. I get it. I just respectfully disagree.

LA4Bama said:

If Bob's, or for that matter the professor's, research was conducted under the auspices of an institute paid for by MIT, there may well be situations where neither can just take the research results and bolt for another institution. Depends on contracts and the prior agreements, but just because you do research does not automatically mean you own the results, patents, profits, rights, etc. The people are free to leave, but they are not free to leave without honoring their contracts, which may well entail no longer doing the same exact work at another place.

Click to expand...

I agree, but in my hypothetical, Bob's major professor was able to change jobs. So that circumstance wouldn't apply.

Is Bob still the property of MIT to be dealt with as MIT sees fit, regardless of Bob's wishes regarding his education?

OR how about this one - your kid is a junior (6 semesters in) at UCLA on an academic scholarship, but NOT doing research "under the auspices of an institute." He or she is studying accounting or chemistry or psychology, and he or she calls you up and says, "Hey, I'm homesick. I want to come back to a school closer to my home, but my faculty advisor says if I transfer I can't take any classes in my major for a full year."

Do you tell your child - "Well, tough break, kid. I guess you can spend the year taking useless electives and maybe get a job at Walmart until the year is over?"

Not trying to be snarky, but seriously - what parent would sit still for that? But if your kid played Football, well - what choice would you have?
Pretty much no choice at all.

teamplayer said:

I've wished for years that the NFL would start a minor league football league. I wish kids who had no interest in education would go play for the NFL so other kids who wanted the opportunity to get a free education could do so. I enjoy college football and will watch Alabama play even if it's only two and three star guys playing.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Let college be for kids who WANT an education. And there WOULD be many "star" players who still went to college because they and/or their families recognize the value of an education. And there would be some who don't value the education (or are willing to postpone it) and prefer to focus on their prospective sports careers. And that's FINE.

Last time I checked, colleges still have baseball, golf, and tennis teams - even though athletes in those sports (and every other sport) are not forced to attend college.

Coach Saban himself recently commented on this very subject - that the NFL, in his words, is the only pro-sport without a minor league or developmental league.

And if you think about it - why should they bother? They'd got a pretty sweet deal with the NZAA.

No. A player should not be allowed to transfer to a competitor school, or a potential competitor school, without sitting out a season of competition. If they want to go to a different division, then fine. The player is NOT prevented from going to another school and attending class. They can change sports. They can earn a scholarship the same as the rest of that school's student body. But they should be prevented from giving their new team a competitive advantage by virtue of their knowledge, much less their participation.

We are already on the cusp of collegiate free agency. So far as I can tell, sitting out a season is the ONLY deterrent to wholesale transfers. I suppose the scholarship limits per team/class creates sort of a functional limit. You really cannot have a situation where 10 players leave team X and all move to team Y, without Y school having to somehow get rid of players to make room for them, which seems unlikely.

And yes, I'd change the grad transfer rule the same way, though I doubt this ever happens. If you are on a team at a school in Year 0, then you should not play for another school in Year 1, though it should not count against a player's total eligibility -- if he leaves after two seasons of competition, he should still have two seasons to play after he sits out if he chooses to do so. I do not limit this to football. In fact, it would be worse in basketball where a player or two can have a much more significant impact on a team. I feel less strongly about non-revenue sports where individual performances are more featured -- say the golf or tennis team.

I think it is important to balance what is "fair" to the player who wants to transfer with what is fair to his (or her) now former teammates who are honoring their original commitment.

TomFromBama said:

I agree 100%. Let college be for kids who WANT an education. And there WOULD be many "star" players who still went to college because they and/or their families recognize the value of an education. And there would be some who don't value the education (or are willing to postpone it) and prefer to focus on their prospective sports careers. And that's FINE.

Last time I checked, colleges still have baseball, golf, and tennis teams - even though athletes in those sports (and every other sport) are not forced to attend college.

Coach Saban himself recently commented on this very subject - that the NFL, in his words, is the only pro-sport without a minor league or developmental league.

And if you think about it - why should they bother? They'd got a pretty sweet deal with the NZAA.

Click to expand...

The problem with allowing the XFL to operate that way is it inevitably waters down college football. Let’s be honest, who is going to turn down 100k salaries for 3 years to get to the show for just being an underpaid student athlete. Allowing an MLB like minor league is bad for college football if it allows kids to bypass the NFL 3 Years out of high school rule.

LA4Bama said:

The rules are not always made by the individual schools. They are made by the NCAA, which is the body that governs the good of the game. It's not just about the good of a single player or the good of a single school, it's about the good of the organization as a whole to function according to rules which make the functionality of the whole possible. The reason student athletes are restricted from transferring is not because University X owns them, but because the system would not be orderly if it were a free for all. There is no necessity that players sign up for D1 football, but if they do then they also sign up for the rules that make D1 football able to exist. It's as simple as that. Now, that doesn't mean we can't make better rules that help more people more of the time, but your rhetoric about individuality and indentured servitude is so far from reality that it's impossible to have a constructive conversation. Unless and until the NCAA implements forced conscription, there is no point talking about servitude.

Click to expand...

I respect your opinion. And I agree - the rules are set up for the good of the people who make the rules. And I agree that the rules do make it easier for schools to dispose of coaches and other staff with much more ease.
And yes, I do employ hyperbole. Guilty as charged. :cool2:

But here's the thing- I can't help but wonder why it is that an athlete in ANY other sport for which a professional league exists, is not forced to attend college, or at least not forced to attend college for three years? I don't think it's destroyed college golf or tennis or hockey or soccer or baseball or basketball. Tiger Woods still went to college and played for his college team - because he WANTED to go to college. Koby Bryant and LeBron James DIDN'T want to go to college. Last time I checked, we still have college golf and basketball teams.

My point being - if a college golfer thinks he has the skill to play professionally, and his college coach leaves for a better job - he/she has an option: They can stay put and hope things work out with the new coach, they can transfer and sit out of their chosen sport for a year - or they can go pro the next day. To one degree or another, the same is true for athletes in every other college sport for which a professional league exists.

But not for football players. What option does the football player have?

Sure, he can go play lower division ball. And yes, sometimes lower division players get drafted or otherwise get on NFL rosters. But realistically it can have a Significant impact on his Draft prospects. He can't go into the NFL Developmental league - because no such league exists. And he can't simply put his name of the "Draft Eligible" List - unless he's served his full Three Year "sentence".

We don't do that to an Accounting major who wants to change schools (a lot of them are on scholarships) - But they don't have to go to a Div-II school to pursue their Accounting degree. If a kid is majoring in Engineering (and a lot of them are on scholarships, too) and wants to transfer, we don't prevent him from taking Engineering classes for a full year.
So what's the huge difference with football players?
Is it just because P-5 schools make Tens of Millions of Dollars off these guys?

Colin Peek is the perfect example. Why should he be penalized because of a coaching change?

I'm not promoting full-on, wide-open "free agency". All I'm saying is - if the guy has no reasonable alternative, why does he have to be tied to a school, or get penalized a year?

Coaches, AD's and even College Presidents are hired and fired, retire, or take better jobs all the time. Trainers, dieticians, analysts, managers - none (or nearly none) of them are held to a single school IF they really want to move.

I understand the rules, and I understand why they exist, and I RESPECT that many people LIKE the current rules. I'm just respectfully disagreeing. That's all.