College Player Free Agency?

[RF2044]

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.

Not true--there can be fines / legal penalties associated with non-competes. Those have far more teeth than severance packages.

 

[jncuse]

If a player wants to transfer to get into a different academic program at another school he should be allowed to move without penalty -- after all according to the NCAA this is all about academics.

The NCAA loves to take advantage of the situation with its academic charade -- players should be allowed as well.

 

[IthacaMatt]

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.

You've never heard of non-compete clauses?

Edit - Sorry, didn't see someone beat me to the comment.

 

[jncuse]

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.

Schols only issue 4 separate one year scholarships. If you honour that one year, where is the chicanery in leaving?

 

[jncuse]

You've never heard of non-compete clauses?

Not for non employees or students.

 

[jncuse]

The archaic NCAA rules protect the universities, the coaches, and also fans of the sport. Who's missing from the list?

 

[RF2044]

The NCAA only issues 4 separate one year scholarships. If you honour that one year, where is the chicanery in leaving?

That is an issue that can certainly be debated--and has, ad nauseum, in many threads in the past.

BUT allowing things to devolve into free agency free for alls would not be a desirable outcome for NCAA basketball / football, and I believe that it would be the unintended outcome here if what you are advocating were implemented.

Not all college coaches leave after one year. I'm all in favor of players being free to transfer unencumbered if they do. Under other circumstances, players are still free to transfer, if they desire--with some minor restrictions that really aren't all that inhibitive. During the time they sit out, they are still on scholarship, they are still attending school for free, still have housing / meal plans paid for, etc. It isn't like they are being left on their own for a year.

 

[jncuse]

Are students on academic scholarships allowed to transfer?

If only athletic scholarships essentially have a non compete clause, then the players must be something -- either an employee, a contractor... Somehow no according to the NCAA.

 

[texascpa]

That is an issue that can certainly be debated--and has, ad nauseum, in many threads in the past.

BUT allowing things to devolve into free agency free for alls would not be a desirable outcome for NCAA basketball / football, and I believe that it would be the unintended outcome here if what you are advocating were implemented.

Not all college coaches leave after one year. I'm all in favor of players being free to transfer unencumbered if they do. Under other circumstances, players are still free to transfer, if they desire--with some minor restrictions that really aren't all that inhibitive. During the time they sit out, they are still on scholarship, they are still attending school for free, still have housing / meal plans paid for, etc. It isn't like they are being left on their own for a year.

Yes, it wouldn't be desirable for those in charge, but, I for one, am not an advocate of stifling one's opportunities.

 

[jncuse]

That is an issue that can certainly be debated--and has, ad nauseum, in many threads in the past.

BUT allowing things to devolve into free agency free for alls would not be a desirable outcome for NCAA basketball / football, and I believe that it would be the unintended outcome here if what you are advocating were implemented.

Not all college coaches leave after one year. I'm all in favor of players being free to transfer unencumbered if they do. Under other circumstances, players are still free to transfer, if they desire--with some minor restrictions that really aren't all that inhibitive. During the time they sit out, they are still on scholarship, they are still attending school for free, still have housing / meal plans paid for, etc. It isn't like they are being left on their own for a year.

If you only want to look at is what's best for the fan then I agree. And as long as you are OK with basketball / football players being taken advantage of.

Every major sport has a players association / union for a reason. Because the leagues have set up systems that restrict movement or allow unpermitted movement of its employees (drafts / caps / # of years to free agency / waivers / trades) that would be against employment law. But since a union agrees to them teams and leagues are able to have such rules to use against employees.

The great thing about the NCAA is that they refuse to treat players as employees. So they can restrict movement with no consequences. Amazing.

 

[texascpa]

You've never heard of non-compete clauses?

Edit - Sorry, didn't see someone beat me to the comment.

And my response? Not all non-competes have been found binding. Many have been thrown out by the courts. Yes, I acknowledge they exist, yes I acknowledge there are some parallels to the debate in this thread, but I don't agree that on one hand athletes are not employees (aren't in a profession), then on the other hand say they need to be bound to something similar to non-compete.

Personally, I don't believe they are employees, but I also don't believe they should have their freedom restricted.

 

[jncuse]

This is an interesting thread, because I can certainly the transfer rules being a foundation of a lawsuit that could really crush the NCAA's current framework.

 

[jncuse]

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

Didn't realize they had made changes to the scholarships being 4 years. I guess that invalidates one of the points I made above.

 

[Alsacs]

Schools have the option to now give 4 year scholarships. However, not all schools choose to do so.
THe NCAA tournament revenue from TV is over 80% of the NCAA's revenue generated.
They get very little from football because they control the 1-AA tournament not FBS football.

Schools either need to give their players the IP rights to make money off their name/likeliness while in school or give them freedom without penalty to jump from school to school.

Making transfers sit out is a non-compete. If I wanted to start a lawsuit against the NCAA I would contact all college athletes who wanted to transfer in MA/RI/NC where I am member of the bar and try to get that lawsuit filed myself. NCAA is a joke. They make money off college basketball players and nobody fights them.

 

[JLine]

If their coach leaves, fine. Otherwise, a free for all just turns it all into a giant mess. Basically an auction, who can throw in more chips to get the player for a year. Then another team ups the ante the year after. Chaotic. If there are circumstances that common sense says that a player should be able to transfer and be eligible immediately then I'm all for it. Not just a trading game.

 

[RF2044]

Yes, it wouldn't be desirable for those in charge, but, I for one, am not an advocate of stifling one's opportunities.

Decisions have consequences. In the free agency example you've chosen to apply to this situation, once those free agents choose a team, they are under contract and can't go play for other teams, since their rights are bound to the team they sign a contract with.

Isn't that not "stifling one's opportunities?" At some point, common sense needs to take hold. People aren't always free to do whatever they want, whenever whim strikes them.

 

[RF2044]

If you only want to look at is what's best for the fan then I agree. And as long as you are OK with basketball / football players being taken advantage of.

Every major sport has a players association / union for a reason. Because the leagues have set up systems that restrict movement or allow unpermitted movement of its employees (drafts / caps / # of years to free agency / waivers / trades) that would be against employment law. But since a union agrees to them teams and leagues are able to have such rules to use against employees.

The great thing about the NCAA is that they refuse to treat players as employees. So they can restrict movement with no consequences. Amazing.

Exploitation rhetoric aside, there is nothing wrong with freedom within structured parameters.

The alternative is anarchy.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't a place for debating whether players are "being taken advantage of," whether they should be paid, etc. but this thread isn't necessarily about those topics.

Can the system be tweaked? Sure. Should players be afforded more freedom in terms of transferring? Maybe--it's debatable, but I don't agree with the notion that structured rules that slightly restrict player movement is bad. Let's keep in perspective that we're talking about having to sit out for a year, during which time the player is still under scholarship, still getting free room / meal plans, etc.

 

[RF2044]

If their coach leaves, fine. Otherwise, a free for all just turns it all into a giant mess. Basically an auction, who can throw in more chips to get the player for a year. Then another team ups the ante the year after. Chaotic. If there are circumstances that common sense says that a player should be able to transfer and be eligible immediately then I'm all for it. Not just a trading game.

Spot on. to say nothing of the malfeasance that could ensue if programs began to "bid" for players [it's already bad enough under the current system].

 

[jncuse]

Exploitation rhetoric aside, there is nothing wrong with freedom within structured parameters.

The alternative is anarchy.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't a place for debating whether players are "being taken advantage of," whether they should be paid, etc. but this thread isn't necessarily about those topics.

Can the system be tweaked? Sure. Should players be afforded more freedom in terms of transferring? Maybe--it's debatable, but I don't agree with the notion that structured rules that slightly restrict player movement is bad. Let's keep in perspective that we're talking about having to sit out for a year, during which time the player is still under scholarship, still getting free room / meal plans, etc.

That's a fair enough point.

In my view free agency is fair, only because of the lack of fairness that the NCAA iteself demonstrates -- so I am justifying only from that perspective, i.e. "If the NCAA can get away with things, let's turn there own justifications against them".

If the NCAA corrected some of their wrongs, and athletes were treated more fairly, I certainly agree this would be chaotic and something to work around in another way.

 

[Scooch]

If coaches and ADs can leave at will and start a new gig immediately then it's total BS that players can't do the same.

This rule is entirely about a school protecting an asset. And that's exactly how "student athletes" are viewed: a commodity.

I mean, what's more disruptive and chaotic for a school... one athlete leaving, or a head coach leaving?

 

[RF2044]

If coaches and ADs can leave at will and start a new gig immediately then it's total BS that players can't do the same.

This rule is entirely about a school protecting an asset. And that's exactly how "student athletes" are viewed: a commodity.

I mean, what's more disruptive and chaotic for a school... one athlete leaving, or a head coach leaving?

Except that under the anarchy being advocated by some in this thread, it wouldn't just be one athlete leaving.

The schools view student athletes as a commodity--so what? Unrestricted free agency is the wrong approach to seeking to correct some of the issues that some are pointing out.

Again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even the most well-meaning rules / legislation gets exploited and pushed to the extreme.

 

[Scooch]

Except that under the anarchy being advocated by some in this thread, it wouldn't just be one athlete leaving. The schools view student athletes as a commodity--so what? Unrestricted free agency is the wrong approach to seeking to correct some of the issues that some are pointing out. Again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even the most well-meaning rules / legislation gets exploited and pushed to the extreme.

The hypocrisy and blatant manipulation of the power dynamic bothers me.

Just tell school's they can't accept more than 2 or 3 "free agency" transfers a year, or whatever makes sense. Chaos limited.

 

[RF2044]

The hypocrisy and blatant manipulation of the power dynamic bothers me.

Just tell school's they can't accept more than 2 or 3 "free agency" transfers a year, or whatever makes sense. Chaos limited.

But that just restricts player choice on the opposite end.

And what happens to the coach who unexpectedly loses 3-4 or more players at the end of a season, when it is too late to recruit replacements of quality?

I'm all for changing certain aspects of the power dynamic some are decrying, but people need to think about the consequences when pandora's box is opened. Personally, I think unfettered transfers with zero restrictions would suck. And probably sink college athletics as we know it.

If people want that kind of system, go watch minor league baseball or some other professional endeavor.

 

[Scooch]

To be honest, I'm not particularly passionate about this. I just think the argument for limiting transfers is a bit disingenuous. Mostly we just don't want good players leaving it favorite team. Just like we want the 1-and-done rule used to 2-or-3-and-done mostly so kids like Mali can't leave us.

 

[Scooch]

But that just restricts player choice on the opposite end. And what happens to the coach who unexpectedly loses 3-4 or more players at the end of a season, when it is too late to recruit replacements of quality? I'm all for changing certain aspects of the power dynamic some are decrying, but people need to think about the consequences when pandora's box is opened. Personally, I think unfettered transfers with zero restrictions would suck. And probably sink college athletics as we know it. If people want that kind of system, go watch minor league baseball or some other professional endeavor.

In all honesty, and I've said this on this forum before, college athletics turns me off more and more all the time. If not for how awesome game day is if have abandoned it long ago. At least pro sports are transparent about the business aspect.