Who wants to see recruiting extended another three or four years to the
distraction of all the best athletes?
Too much chaos. With no paid contracts, too many players would be coming, and
Good article, but I disagree with the proposition. Coaching changes have always
existed. Student athletes should be using a variety of reasons to choose a
school, not just on who the head coach is. Besides, position coaches are often
more influential in the recruiting process. The university can
included a buyout clause to protect themselves. The penalty for a coach leaving
is generally a financial decision which affects the athletic budget.
Coaches should not be able to break their contracts and
"Student-Athletes" should be able to transfer. Put all the coaches on a
1 year contract.
While unfettered transfers may, at first blush, seem to be student-athlete
friendly, there are some drawbacks:Scholarship Darwinism: Schools
will still have scholarship limits, so a team may have to take away a
player's scholarship to make room for a transferring player--fair to the
"bumped" player? Of course the bumped player (who didn't want to
transfer) can transfer to a smaller school and take someone else's
scholarship. Scholarship Darwinism would be chaos.Perpetual
Recruiting: Unfettered transfers would require open recruiting of scholarship
athletes (so they can make an informed decision re whether recruiting is in
their best interest). Imagine a world where a UofU wide receiver spends his bye
week Saturday attending a UCLA game on a recruiting trip (why not, it's a
free trip to LA). The NCAA struggles to police recruiting under the current
rules, they'd have no hope of doing so with perpetual recruiting.Interrupted Academics: Transferring students often can't transfer all
their credits. Without the benefit of the sit out year to replace the lost
credits, it's likely that an athlete's scholarship will run out before
they have the credits needed to graduate.
I can see Robinsons point but also I would hate to see Universities start
recruiting an athlete when they start performing on the field. Or a team has an
injured player so they start looking for a replacement from another team! The one a done scenario in basketball is bad enough. I don't want
to see it in football.
I think I would be okay with the rule change, but I do worry it would create a
free agency type market every off-season. There would still need to be a couple
of conditions in my mind: First, if a player transfers to a school in the same
conference he/she loses a year of eligibility. Second, a player can only
transfer once in his/her athletic career.
The other side of the coin with coaches is that they can be fired on a drop of a
hat, no matter what the contract says. College coaching is one of the most
unstable occupations out there. Win or else is the rule! I agree
that kids should be able to transfer eligibility issues in some cases. For
example if a kids goes from an FBS to FCS school AND vice versa. Or if that
coach leaves. Nice article, just anxious words put into action by
Give the SA a one-time "get out of jail" card to balance the fact that
what he was sold in recruiting isn't being fulfilled. They should be able
to transfer and play , no sit out year. And, if the head coach leaves, all the
players recruited by him should be able to transfer - and not count against
their "get out of jail" card count. So many athletes never
get to do what they were promised. If a school wants to let a
player play without a sit-out year who has transferred twice , make them give a
scholarship credit to the school he came from as a form of compensation.Kids should be able to play period; coaches don't have to wait to
coach...and non-SA students can jump right into full campus involvement without
restrictions. The NCAA preaches not treating athletes special in other ways,
why constrain them when non-SA students aren't. ?
The "student-athlete" should only be able to transfer if the coach
leaves or gets fired. Since so much of a coach's job is recruiting, and we
always hear the phrase "he is a great recruiter", then the athlete
should be able to follow the coach.
So for all of you who want to have unfettered transfers for athletes when their
coach leaves, if five Florida Gulf Coast College basketball players want to
follow him to USC, you don't have any problem with five USC basketball
players loosing their scholarships to make room for the transfers?And what if my position coach leaves, since he was the one who really
convinced me to enroll in my school, should I be able to follow him to another
school without having to sit out a year?
Coaches get "punished" if they leave early. Most have buyout or
payments if they leave early. Yes sometimes the new school pays the fee.Players get "punished" if they leave early, although National
Letters of Intent are a 1 year contract, the players are expected to be there 4
years. They have to sit out a year in most cases.It seems the
system if close to fair. However, life is not fair. College is supposed to get
young adults ready for the real world. If i quit my job because I got a new
boss, I have to apply for new job, maybe move etc... these are called
consequences of my action.