College Player Free Agency?

[orangepassion]

I just heard Bob Mckillop, Davidson HC, on CBS Sports radio and he mentioned there is debate about Players not having to sit out a year for a transfer. That would be chaos.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Coaches don't have to sit out a year when they leave, why should the players?

 

[Alsacs]

Players in non-revenue sports like lacrosse can transfer without sitting out year. The whole point of the 1 year wait is to prevent max exodus.

However, because college basketball and football makes no much money the NCAA wants even more control over its cattle. College players in basketball and football produce so much revenue for universities and conferences that they should be able to have as much leverage as they can.

Any time a coach leaves a school all of those scholarship kids on that team should be able to transfer without sitting out.

 

[texascpa]

Would you like it if you had to sit out a year as a result of changing companies you work for?

 

[RF2044]

Players in non-revenue sports like lacrosse can transfer without sitting out year. The whole point of the 1 year wait is to prevent max exodus.

However, because college basketball and football makes no much money the NCAA wants even more control over its cattle. College players in basketball and football produce so much revenue for universities and conferences that they should be able to have as much leverage as they can.

Any time a coach leaves a school all of those scholarship kids on that team should be able to transfer without sitting out.

I would definitely be in favor of something like your final sentence--that is a no brainer adjustment, IMO that would provide "fair" flexibility to players in a scenario where a coach leaves or is fired that they currently lack.

But I am not in favor of eliminating the 1 year transfer rule. The data on transfers already yields a disturbing pattern--turning things into full fleged free agency is not a desirable outcome for college sports.

 

[Brooky03]

Would you like it if you had to sit out a year as a result of changing companies you work for?

Do I get paid for that year? haha

 

[Alsacs]

I would definitely be in favor of something like your final sentence--that is a no brainer adjustment, IMO that would provide "fair" flexibility to players in a scenario where a coach leaves or is fired that they currently lack.

But I am not in favor of eliminating the 1 year transfer rule. The data on transfers already yields a disturbing pattern--turning things into full fleged free agency is not a desirable outcome for college sports.

I don't think college players are treated well by the NCAA. The NCAA can use their likeness on promotional pages on their own website.

Let's not kid ourselves NCAA football and NCAA basketball are free feeder systems for the NBA, NFL. Also, the NCAA protects the P5 schools and doesn't really care about the smaller schools. I don't think the NCAA transfer sit out rule would stand against lawsuits. The NCAA is just lucky kids don't file lawsuits every time they transfer.

If a kid has a great year at Manhattan or Murray State and could increase their brand exposure and make a name for themselves a t a bigger school they should be allowed to do so. The whole NCAA facade is a joke. These kids get their educations which is their benefit but they should be allowed to move freely. The transfer sit out rule is the small schools protecting themselves. The P5 having autonomy could vote to change it.

 

[texascpa]

I would definitely be in favor of something like your final sentence--that is a no brainer adjustment, IMO that would provide "fair" flexibility to players in a scenario where a coach leaves or is fired that they currently lack.

But I am not in favor of eliminating the 1 year transfer rule. The data on transfers already yields a disturbing pattern--turning things into full fleged free agency is not a desirable outcome for college sports.

It's a full fledge free agency prior to them signing with a college. How would it be any different? Let's face it, people just don't want the risk of losing one of their players. it's selfish. Nowhere else in America is this type of rule instituted.

 

[RF2044]

It's a full fledge free agency prior to them signing with a college. How would it be any different? Let's face it, people just don't want the risk of losing one of their players. it's selfish. Nowhere else in America is this type of rule instituted.

Making that comparison is a HUGE stretch.

 

[texascpa]

Making that comparison is a HUGE stretch.

Which comparison? The first? How so?

 

[RF2044]

Which comparison? The first? How so?

Because, free agency is associated with players switching teams.

College recruiting is not free agency. They are choosing where to play in the first place, based upon a variety of contextual factors that make each prospective destination the best option for them [which is similar], but not leaving one team to go to another.

Transferring is a much better comparison to free agency than players initially selecting colleges.

 

[RF2044]

It's a full fledge free agency prior to them signing with a college. How would it be any different? Let's face it, people just don't want the risk of losing one of their players. it's selfish. Nowhere else in America is this type of rule instituted.

Why shouldn't it be? Colleges are committing a significant amount of value to bringing these players in--in some cases, to the tune of nearly half a million dollars. They have a right to protect that investment.

That's why the one year transfer makes sense. It gives players the option of making a change, while also building in a minor deterrent to discourage unnecessary transfers.

I'm not suggesting that players don't deserve more "rights" -- that's why some of us advocating the full four year scholarship approach when it has been discussed in the past.

 

[Dave85]

I thought I read two years sitting within the ACC if you do not get permission from the sourcing coach.

 

[texascpa]

Why shouldn't it be? Colleges are committing a significant amount of value to bringing these players in--in some cases, to the tune of nearly half a million dollars. They have a right to protect that investment.

That's why the one year transfer makes sense. It gives players the option of making a change, while also building in a minor deterrent to discourage unnecessary transfers.

I'm not suggesting that players don't deserve more "rights" -- that's why some of us advocating the full four year scholarship approach when it has been discussed in the past.

Again, there is no other "profession" or situation, not even within the NCAA (ie, only basketball and football have this arrangement), that has this rule. Any employer spends tens of thousands of dollars per employee in recruiting, training, etc. I am an investment to my company, you are, as well. Yet, there is nothing stopping either of us, no law or employer rule, from leaving at a whim and to work elsewhere. There is no one year penalty.

 

[texascpa]

Because, free agency is associated with players switching teams.

College recruiting is not free agency. They are choosing where to play in the first place, based upon a variety of contextual factors that make each prospective destination the best option for them [which is similar], but not leaving one team to go to another.

Transferring is a much better comparison to free agency than players initially selecting colleges.

Sure, it is. Free agency is choice. After college, if you don't get drafted, you have a choice amongst several teams that want your service. Same thing before. You generally have a choice amongst several college teams that want your service. If a player decided to leave a program after their first year, you will have several schools plying for his service. He has a choice. It's all free agency.

 

[RF2044]

Again, there is no other "profession" or situation, not even within the NCAA (ie, only basketball and football have this arrangement), that has this rule. Any employer spends tens of thousands of dollars per employee in recruiting, training, etc. I am an investment to my company, you are, as well. Yet, there is nothing stopping either of us, no law or employer rule, from leaving at a whim and to work elsewhere. There is no one year penalty.

Sorry, but that isn't true. Many companies impose penalties for bailing within one year. I.E., you might have to return signing bonus money, etc. Or you might be on the hook to pay back tuition assistance money utilized if you leave within a certain timeframe after utilizing those perks. Very common.

That doesn't "stop" you, me, or anyone else from leaving necessarily--but it is a deterrent to prevent unnecessary job hopping or "take the money and run" chicanery. Similarly, a one-year transfer sit out rule doesn't unduly restrict players from seeking different situations to continue their career if they chose to transfer.

Secondly, being an NCAA athlete is not a "profession" in the literal sense, despite the time commitment associated with being a high major D1 athlete.

 

[RF2044]

Sure, it is. Free agency is choice. After college, if you don't get drafted, you have a choice amongst several teams that want your service. Same thing before. You generally have a choice amongst several college teams that want your service. If a player decided to leave a program after their first year, you will have several schools plying for his service. He has a choice. It's all free agency.

You've taken it to the lowest common denominator--which is why I pointed out above that this comparison is a stretch.

Qualitatively, there is very little in common between choosing a college initially and free agency, other than making a choice.

 

[Alsacs]

The one year sit out rule is akin to a one year non-compete clause. College basketball and football players should not have a non-compete clause. If coaches can move freely then players should as well.
College coaches contracts can be gottevn out of easily moving from one team to another thus players should have the same rights. It might suck for lower teams to be feeder for higher teams but that is how it works now.

The NCAA doesn't want Akron vs. Western Kentucky in the Final Four. They want Ohio State vs. Kentucky.

 

[HyattsCuse]

Again, there is no other "profession" or situation, not even within the NCAA (ie, only basketball and football have this arrangement), that has this rule. Any employer spends tens of thousands of dollars per employee in recruiting, training, etc. I am an investment to my company, you are, as well. Yet, there is nothing stopping either of us, no law or employer rule, from leaving at a whim and to work elsewhere. There is no one year penalty.

Some non-compete clauses would do exactly that.

 

[texascpa]

Sorry, but that isn't true. Many companies impose penalties for bailing within one year. I.E., you might have to return signing bonus money, etc. Or you might be on the hook to pay back tuition assistance money utilized if you leave within a certain timeframe after utilizing those perks. Very common.

C'mon, in the big scope of employment, very few employees get signing bonuses and tuition assistance. Those are the exception to the rule.

That doesn't "stop" you, me, or anyone else from leaving necessarily--but it is a deterrent to prevent unnecessary job hopping or "take the money and run" chicanery. Similarly, a one-year transfer sit out rule doesn't unduly restrict players from seeking different situations to continue their career if they chose to transfer.

I don't agree. It does restrict. If not, then why a year, why not make it three or four.

Secondly, being an NCAA athlete is not a "profession" in the literal sense, despite the time commitment associated with being a high major D1 athlete.

Is it a hobby then? An activity? This gets back to the argument about college players getting paid or if their tuition is compensation enough. Either way, there is an exchange of compensation (free education/scholarship) for services. It's not a profession that you and I would think of, but it is a job. If they can't perform that job, many times they lose their compensation.

 

[texascpa]

Some non-compete clauses would do exactly that.

Non-competes are generally tied to severance payments or some other benefit an employee would receive. Someone could still break the non-compete if they felt it was worth losing the severance payment. Additionally, more state courts are starting to rule against non-competes as unreasonable. You generally can't have one that is too long or too geographically expansive.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I just heard Bob Mckillop, Davidson HC, on CBS Sports radio and he mentioned there is debate about Players not having to sit out a year for a transfer. That would be chaos.

If you are in good academic standing, there should be no sitting out if tranfer is for next academic year.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I just heard Bob Mckillop, Davidson HC, on CBS Sports radio and he mentioned there is debate about Players not having to sit out a year for a transfer. That would be chaos.

This rule negatively impacts primarily African American athletes. I believe it would fail any court challenge because of the disparate impact when viewed against the lack of transfer penalty in the other sports, which are primarily white.
Also, this is akin to baseball's old reserve clause. Perhpas not as much with the new 4 year scholarships, but it's still an unreasonable restriction.
The over riding purpose of this stuff is supposed to be education

 

[RF2044]

Some non-compete clauses would do exactly that.

Beat me to it--there's another example.

 

[RF2044]

C'mon, in the big scope of employment, very few employees get signing bonuses and tuition assistance. Those are the exception to the rule.


I don't agree. It does restrict. If not, then why a year, why not make it three or four.


Is it a hobby then? An activity? This gets back to the argument about college players getting paid or if their tuition is compensation enough. Either way, there is an exchange of compensation (free education/scholarship) for services. It's not a profession that you and I would think of, but it is a job. If they can't perform that job, many times they lose their compensation.

C'mon what? You said that there weren't restrictions:

Again, there is no other "profession" or situation, not even within the NCAA (ie, only basketball and football have this arrangement), that has this rule. Any employer spends tens of thousands of dollars per employee in recruiting, training, etc. I am an investment to my company, you are, as well. Yet, there is nothing stopping either of us, no law or employer rule, from leaving at a whim and to work elsewhere. There is no one year penalty.​

I suppose that you are TECHNICALLY correct--there is no professional penalty that makes working people sit out for a year of college. ; )

But in the main, that point is incorrect. There ARE protections that companies can employ that restrict movement at the professional level. Non-compete clauses are a great example of a professional in a sales / consulting / etc. profession not being able to peddle their wares in a certain space for a year or longer. Isn't that a basic equivalent to what you are suggesting doesn't exist?

One more reason why the free agency comparison doesn't work for me: once you sign scholarship papers, you are obligated. In high school--which is much more like free agency, if you ask me--players can often transfer indiscriminately between schools without penalty. Some districts DO have rules that require players from out of region to sit out a year--and while you could certainly make the argument that this is unnecessarily "restrictive" or somehow "penalizes" the player, the intent of such rules is to prevent things from turning into free agency.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even the best-meaning laws / rules generally end up being exploited. Think about the family emergency rule that eliminates having to sit out a year, and then consider examples of players who've utilized that rule. What percentage of them do you think actually met the spirit and intent of those rules [extremely low, I'd say]?