NCAA Looks to Eliminate Immediate Eligibility of Graduate Transfers

[Muskie]

Link (http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/18/ncaa-council-aims-to-change-immediate-eligibility-waiver-policy/)

For those in favor of the rule that allows those athletes to play immediately, the positive is that the person is being rewarded for taking care of business in the classroom.
However detractors have cited the rule as one reason why there have been so many transfers, equating the current climate to that of free agency in professional sports. And with that in mind, the NCAA Division I Leadership Council has recommended changes to the current transfer system (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/council-recommends-transfer-policy-change) that would essentially do away with immediate eligibility waivers.

[throwbackmuskie]

about time. IMO this is one thing that has really taken away from the game. These kids become mercenaries

[GoMuskies]

I think it's a great rule. The kids should have the right to be mercenaries at that point.

[xu82]

I like some reward for graduating. There are enough restrictions on them already. I would be very unhappy if the coach who recruited me left right after I got on campus. I know, pick your school, but that's a bit naive.

[xubrew]

Link (http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/18/ncaa-council-aims-to-change-immediate-eligibility-waiver-policy/)

For those in favor of the rule that allows those athletes to play immediately, the positive is that the person is being rewarded for taking care of business in the classroom.
However detractors have cited the rule as one reason why there have been so many transfers, equating the current climate to that of free agency in professional sports. And with that in mind, the NCAA Division I Leadership Council has recommended changes to the current transfer system (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/council-recommends-transfer-policy-change) that would essentially do away with immediate eligibility waivers.

Just to clarify, Muskie is quoting the article, so I'm not saying he is a big crock of shit.

Having said that, this is an unbelievably big crock of shit. There were over 450 transfers in basketball last year. Less than thirty were eligible to play right away.

The reason the transfer rate is so high is because coaches force players out. It's not the reason for all of them, but I'd say it's easily the reason for close to 70 percent of them. Most sports don't have a rule that says kids have to sit out a year. Basketball and football do. It's funny that those are the sports with the highest transfer rates. Maybe if kids could play right away, and could go wherever they wanted, the coaches would be less likely to force them out and the transfer rate would actually go down.

This is a good rule. I'd hate to see it changed.

[throwbackmuskie]

I like some reward for graduating. There are enough restrictions on them already. I would be very unhappy if the coach who recruited me left right after I got on campus. I know, pick your school, but that's a bit naive.

they get one already, a dipolma

[blobfan]

I think this is terrible. I think things should be going the other direction. Kids who want to change should have a reasonable process by which they can get their transfer approved and not have to sit out. If the kid, coach and a representative of the university administration all agree to release the kid, and if the kids grades and attendance are good, let the kid transfer without penalty! How the hell is that a bad thing?

[xubrew]

This is so prototypical of the NCAA. At a time when there is a heightened awareness of student-athlete rights, and how they're not actually given the same academic opportunities as most normal students, they want to put yet an additional rule in place that makes it harder for them to do what a normal student can do without even thinking.

What a bunch of bozos. The players shouldn't need a union, but they're dealing with bozos. What are they supposed to do??

[D-West & PO-Z]

I think this is terrible. I think things should be going the other direction. Kids who want to change should have a reasonable process by which they can get their transfer approved and not have to sit out. If the kid, coach and a representative of the university administration all agree to release the kid, and if the kids grades and attendance are good, let the kid transfer without penalty! How the hell is that a bad thing?

Totally agree. I would hate the rule to be changed. There are kids who truly transfer because their current school does not offer a graduate program they are interested in. When they stay 4 years and graduate from undergrad their commitment to the school is fulfilled. They should be able to go wherever they want. It would be the opposite of having the best interest of the STUDENT-athlete at hand if they changed this rule. Total BS

[D-West & PO-Z]

This is so prototypical of the NCAA. At a time when there is a heightened awareness of student-athlete rights, and how they're not actually given the same academic opportunities as most normal students, they want to put yet an additional rule in place that makes it harder for them to do what a normal student can do without even thinking.

What a bunch of bozos. The players shouldn't need a union, but they're dealing with bozos. What are they supposed to do??

Agree 100%

[Juice]

about time. IMO this is one thing that has really taken away from the game. These kids become mercenaries

But don't mercenaries get paid?

[throwbackmuskie]

But don't mercenaries get paid?

as are these players, in education.

[NY44]

I agree with making students sit out a year for graduate transfers. One good way to do it is if an athlete graduates early (under 4 years at the school) then they can leave and not sit out. For example, Justin Martin and Mark Lyons weren't able to take advantage of the graduate transfer rule because they "took care of business in the classroom". They used a loop hole that fit their situations because they weren't academically eligible their first years. If anything, they didn't take care of business in the classroom and were rewarded as if they did.

Having transfers sit out a year may not be "just", but this adjustment would at least make the rule consistent.

[ammtd34]

I agree with making students sit out a year for graduate transfers. One good way to do it is if an athlete graduates early (under 4 years at the school) then they can leave and not sit out. For example, Justin Martin and Mark Lyons weren't able to take advantage of the graduate transfer rule because they "took care of business in the classroom". They used a loop hole that fit their situations because they weren't academically eligible their first years. If anything, they didn't take care of business in the classroom and were rewarded as if they did.

Having transfers sit out a year may not be "just", but this adjustment would at least make the rule consistent.

But they did take care of business. They graduated. The rule says they could transfer and be eligible.

[muskienick]

I like some reward for graduating. There are enough restrictions on them already. I would be very unhappy if the coach who recruited me left right after I got on campus. I know, pick your school, but that's a bit naive.

I think its a huge reward to get a free undergraduate degree and then be given the first year of one's masters degree free as well at the same school. The caveat in the rule was that a player could leave ONLY if his current school didn't offer the degree course at the graduate level that he preferred. I'm getting the impression that this part of the current rule is either being side-stepped, poorly monitored, or in some way given the knowing "eye-wink" indicating that "Yeah, we all know that he's signed up for the Hospital Administration program at Xavier that they don't have at Podunk U. even though he has no intention of ever completing his Masters in that field or ever using any courses he took there as a preparation for his life's work."

If the "caveat" portion of the rule were more strictly enforced, I would not be against keeping it in place. But it seems to be a farce as it is being used today and that makes me think it should be stopped (even though Xavier has profited from it more often than not).

[ammtd34]

If the "caveat" portion of the rule were more strictly enforced, I would not be against keeping it in place. But it seems to be a farce as it is being used today and that makes me think it should be stopped (even though Xavier has profited from it more often than not).

How can you judge intentions? What if someone enrolled in a Hotel Management program with every intention of pursuing it, then decided it wasn't for him? Is there a penalty?

[NY44]

But they did take care of business. They graduated. The rule says they could transfer and be eligible.

Yes, they did, but in 5 years. It's so stupid that we had to let Justin Martin and Mark Lyons hold scholarships while they were academically ineligible. Only for them to turn around and take advantage of a rule that was put in place to protect kids who want to go on to pursue a Masters degree. How is Cheekz's Masters coming along?

[NY44]

How can you judge intentions? What if someone enrolled in a Hotel Management program with every intention of pursuing it, then decided it wasn't for him? Is there a penalty?

Then making them sit out insures that they are going for the correct intention. If you really want a certain program and it is what you want to do, then you would have no qualms with sitting out a year of basketball to prove that.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I think its a huge reward to get a free undergraduate degree and then be given the first year of one's masters degree free as well at the same school. The caveat in the rule was that a player could leave ONLY if his current school didn't offer the degree course at the graduate level that he preferred. I'm getting the impression that this part of the current rule is either being side-stepped, poorly monitored, or in some way given the knowing "eye-wink" indicating that "Yeah, we all know that he's signed up for the Hospital Administration program at Xavier that they don't have at Podunk U. even though he has no intention of ever completing his Masters in that field or ever using any courses he took there as a preparation for his life's work."

If the "caveat" portion of the rule were more strictly enforced, I would not be against keeping it in place. But it seems to be a farce as it is being used today and that makes me think it should be stopped (even though Xavier has profited from it more often than not).

I've never been under the impression that the caveat is not enforced.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Then making them sit out insures that they are going for the correct intention. If you really want a certain program and it is what you want to do, then you would have no qualms with sitting out a year of basketball to prove that.

Other than that most of the people who use this rule don't have a future in basketball and may be in a grad program that only takes a year. What the hell do they do on the second?

Not to mention is a player allowed to take 6 years to use their eligibility with having an medical reason?

[OH.X.MI]

Yes, they did, but in 5 years. It's so stupid that we had to let Justin Martin and Mark Lyons hold scholarships while they were academically ineligible. Only for them to turn around and take advantage of a rule that was put in place to protect kids who want to go on to pursue a Masters degree. How is Cheekz's Masters coming along?

I happened to take a philosophy class on Modern Continental Thought with Mr. Lyons. His take on Phenomenology was unique and thought provoking!!

[NY44]

Other than that most of the people who use this rule don't have a future in basketball and may be in a grad program that only takes a year. What the hell do they do on the second?

Not to mention is a player allowed to take 6 years to use their eligibility with having an medical reason?

Not sure what you mean. One the second what?

What it really comes down to for me is that the NCAA is closing a loophole that only benefits top athletes. I'm sure the NCAA would allow them to take 6 years if there rule is the cause of them doing so.

[ammtd34]

Yes, they did, but in 5 years. It's so stupid that we had to let Justin Martin and Mark Lyons hold scholarships while they were academically ineligible. Only for them to turn around and take advantage of a rule that was put in place to protect kids who want to go on to pursue a Masters degree. How is Cheekz's Masters coming along?

Justin Martin and Mark Lyons sat out their first year and each played three seasons for Xavier. They graduated in four years.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Not sure what you mean. One the second what?

What it really comes down to for me is that the NCAA is closing a loophole that only benefits top athletes. I'm sure the NCAA would allow them to take 6 years if there rule is the cause of them doing so.

Second year of grad school

[NY44]

Justin Martin and Mark Lyons sat out their first year and each played three seasons for Xavier. They graduated in four years.

Oh yeah, you're right. The point remains though. They didn't graduate early, they graduated earlier than their eligibility ran out because they were behind in school coming in.

[NY44]

Second year of grad school

I don't know man. I'm not a college advisor. Get a second 1 year masters. Pick a program that's more than 1 year. Again, this rule change is not targeting students who are legitimately concerned with earning a Masters.

[Juice]

as are these players, in education.

(Bangs head against the wall) I repeat a point I've made on this board before...Can you buy things with this so called education? Can I exchange it for something else in a store? Macy's doesn't take "education" does it?

When I get paid, I get paid in dollars, not education.

[SM#24]

Totally agree. I would hate the rule to be changed. There are kids who truly transfer because their current school does not offer a graduate program they are interested in. When they stay 4 years and graduate from undergrad their commitment to the school is fulfilled. They should be able to go wherever they want. It would be the opposite of having the best interest of the STUDENT-athlete at hand if they changed this rule. Total BS

I believe this was the original intent of the rule, but now, like most things within the NCAA membership, it is being used and abused for other purposes.

The transfer rule is in place to guard aganst an elite group of players banding together for a season. So, work from that as the basis for setting a rule.
Chris Mack tells Kamall Richards, "I need your scholarship" - Richards should be able to transfer without sitting out.
Travis Taylor tells his Monmouth coach, "I want to play at a program better than this one" - Taylor should have to sit out a year.

It might be as simple as a transfer is requested and you check a box of either (1) player request, (2) coach request or (3) mutual request. Box (1) - you sit out a year; Box (2) & (3) - immediate eligibility

[D-West & PO-Z]

I don't know man. I'm not a college advisor. Get a second 1 year masters. Pick a program that's more than 1 year. Again, this rule change is not targeting students who are legitimately concerned with earning a Masters.

Yes it easily can be and is targeting those kids. Most of the kids taking advantage of this rule don't have a very bright future in basketball. Mostly all have no shot at the NBA and a lot don't have great options in European leagues either.

The proposed rule is beyond ridiculous. It's going in the opposite direction of where the rules should be going. It also isnt a mjor problem that is hurting the NCAA. That's why I suspect it won't pass.

[throwbackmuskie]

(Bangs head against the wall) I repeat a point I've made on this board before...Can you buy things with this so called education? Can I exchange it for something else in a store? Macy's doesn't take "education" does it?

When I get paid, I get paid in dollars, not education.

Payment is not always in the form of cash. And I bet if u have student loans your pocket book would be a little fuller without that payment.

[xubrew]

Oh yeah, you're right. The point remains though. They didn't graduate early, they graduated earlier than their eligibility ran out because they were behind in school coming in.

Both players were given a waiver by the NCAA which allowed them to receive academic aid the year they sat out. Why were they given that waiver if they were "behind in school coming in??" There is technically no such thing as a partial qualifier anymore. You're either a qualifier, or you're completely ineligible and aren't allowed to receive aid or to practice with any team. They both were allowed to do so. The reason waivers are given out is because the NCAA determines that the reason the kid did not meet initial eligibility was not the fault of the kid, but rather the fault of them not being in the right classes due to being advised incorrectly.

....and again, we're talking about 30 players out of 450+. It's a negligible number. How is this even an issue?? It's stupid to change this rule and think it's going to have any real impact on reducing the transfer rate.

[xubrew]

I believe this was the original intent of the rule, but now, like most things within the NCAA membership, it is being used and abused for other purposes.

The transfer rule is in place to guard aganst an elite group of players banding together for a season. So, work from that as the basis for setting a rule.
Chris Mack tells Kamall Richards, "I need your scholarship" - Richards should be able to transfer without sitting out.
Travis Taylor tells his Monmouth coach, "I want to play at a program better than this one" - Taylor should have to sit out a year.

It might be as simple as a transfer is requested and you check a box of either (1) player request, (2) coach request or (3) mutual request. Box (1) - you sit out a year; Box (2) & (3) - immediate eligibility

I don't consider less than 30 players abusing the rule.

If the rule is changed, it will also result in abuse. It will allow coaches to not renew scholarships in a player's final year, and therefore make it impossible for them to transfer and play anywhere else because they'll run out of time. At least if the players graduate, they have the option of going some place else if their scholarship isn't renewed.

Transfer rules are in place because the coaches and athletic departments want to have control over the players. That's it. The reason they want this rule changed is so they can have even more control than they already do. It's no coincidence that revenue sports have transfer rules, and non-revenue sports do not.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I don't consider less than 30 players abusing the rule.

If the rule is changed, it will also result in abuse. It will allow coaches to not renew scholarships in a player's final year, and therefore make it impossible for them to transfer and play anywhere else because they'll run out of time. At least if the players graduate, they have the option of going some place else if their scholarship isn't renewed.

Transfer rules are in place because the coaches and athletic departments want to have control over the players. That's it. The reason they want this rule changed is so they can have even more control than they already do. It's no coincidence that revenue sports have transfer rules, and non-revenue sports do not.

Great post.

Nothing like practically forcing a kid to stay somewhere he isn't happy.

[MHettel]

Just to clarify, Muskie is quoting the article, so I'm not saying he is a big crock of shit.

Having said that, this is an unbelievably big crock of shit. There were over 450 transfers in basketball last year. Less than thirty were eligible to play right away.

The reason the transfer rate is so high is because coaches force players out. It's not the reason for all of them, but I'd say it's easily the reason for close to 70 percent of them. Most sports don't have a rule that says kids have to sit out a year. Basketball and football do. It's funny that those are the sports with the highest transfer rates. Maybe if kids could play right away, and could go wherever they wanted, the coaches would be less likely to force them out and the transfer rate would actually go down.

This is a good rule. I'd hate to see it changed.

That makes no sense. so 420 players transferred in spite of the "penalty" of sitting out a year. So, you propose removing that penalty because you think it will result in less transfers?

If they do your idea, they might as well just conduct a draft every year.

I proposed an idea on this very message board several years ago. The idea is that eligibility related to transferring is based on "playing time." Basically, you would need a committe that would group all the D1 teams into about 4-5 "tiers" each year. The tiers would not be equal size, with the highest and lowest tiers being smaller and the middle tier making up about 40% of the total. Lets say 10%-20%-40%-20%-10%. Next, you would set a standard of "playing time percent" that could trigger immediate eligibility for a transfer from a higher tier to a lower tier. Something like if a freshman played less than 10% of the available minutes in the previous year, they could transfer and be immediately eligible. For a sophomore to transfer, it would be more like 25% of the minutes. A junior would be 40%....

the idea here is to let kids transfer to play, when the circumstances suggest they may have initially chosen a school that might have been a little out of their reach. So a kid that accepts a scholarship at Duke and finds himself glued to the bench, can transfer to a middle tier school like Dayton and become immediately eligible. No sense punishing a kid because they were not good enough to play. the kid will probably be happy. the old school would be happy. The new school would be happy...

Pertaining to the issue at hand, I wouldnt mind seeing this rule go away. The rule can apply to various scenarios. Lyons and Martin had academic eligibility issues that later played in their favor and allowed them to transfer. I dont think the rule was designed with this situation in mind. Another kid might have been injured and had a medical redshirt and graduated in 4 years, and in that scenario the rule to some degree is applicable. I think the real shame will be the rare student athelete that graduates in 3 years and is genuinely interested in playing their 4th year AND legitimately pursuing a Masters degree. Those kids are few and far between, and will be teh ones who get screwed. Unless you consider that they CAN transfer and go ahead and sit out a year and STILL get their opportunity to play while they are in year 2 of the masters program.

[NY44]

It's no coincidence that revenue sports have transfer rules, and non-revenue sports do not.

So why not only apply this to revenue sports?

[xubrew]

That makes no sense. so 420 players transferred in spite of the "penalty" of sitting out a year. So, you propose removing that penalty because you think it will result in less transfers?

If they do your idea, they might as well just conduct a draft every year.

Of the 420 that transferred, I'd say about 270 of them transferred because they were forced out by the coaches. The coaches, not the players, initiate most transfers.

The sports non revenue sports have drastically lower transfer rates. Even though they can play right away and potentially get a better scholarship (they are equivalency sports. Most aren't on full rides), the transfer rate is still lower. Now, why do you suppose that is?? Why is it that the sports that don't have that rule have LOWER transfer rates??

The coaches aren't as likely to force them out, so fewer of them want to leave. If coaches knew that a kid could play anywhere he wanted to play right away, they are going to be less likely to force them out.

I don't see how that doesn't make any sense. It makes perfect sense. That's why the transfer rates are higher for the sports that have that restriction.

[Juice]

Payment is not always in the form of cash. And I bet if u have student loans your pocket book would be a little fuller without that payment.

I do have student loans that Ill be paying off for awhile. And you know who I blame for that? Myself. I wasn't good enough at sports or smart enough to get a scholarship. Just because I have student loans, how in the hell does that affect a small number of athletes making an insane amount of money? And who sees these profits? Overpaid presidents, ADs, and administrators.

[xubrew]

So why not only apply this to revenue sports?

The proposal was to only apply it to revenue sports. I don't think they should have it at all.

[xubrew]

I do have student loans that Ill be paying off for awhile. And you know who I blame for that? Myself. I wasn't good enough at sports or smart enough to get a scholarship. Just because I have student loans, how in the hell does that affect a small number of athletes making an insane amount of money? And who sees these profits? Overpaid presidents, ADs, and administrators.

Don't forget the multimillionaire coaches who coach these athletes, all in the name of amateurism.

[xu82]

But don't mercenaries get paid?

It depends, is Calapari involved?

[NY44]

The proposal was to only apply it to revenue sports. I don't think they should have it at all.

Just like MHettel said, there's a big difference between graduating early and having to be waived a season and thus just graduating before your eligibility is up. The only possible victims of this change are players who want to get a 1 year Masters degree that their current school doesn't offer and who also graduated in their first 3 years of school. IF they are in a 2 year program you have to sit out a year of your time there anyway. So I really don't see this legitimately hurting anyone.

Also, if you think Martin and Lyons were waived only because of some terrible advising they got while in high school AND prep school, then I got a bridge to sell you.

[throwbackmuskie]

I do have student loans that Ill be paying off for awhile. And you know who I blame for that? Myself. I wasn't good enough at sports or smart enough to get a scholarship. Just because I have student loans, how in the hell does that affect a small number of athletes making an insane amount of money? And who sees these profits? Overpaid presidents, ADs, and administrators.

Lol how many of these students would go to school if it wasn't for sports? And like the commercial says, most of these kids will never make the pros so they have a degree and no student loans to pay off for the most part. And there is only about 30 schools who make money off these kids.

[Juice]

Lol how many of these students would go to school if it wasn't for sports? And like the commercial says, most of these kids will never make the pros so they have a degree and no student loans to pay off for the most part. And there is only about 30 schools who make money off these kids.

What's your point? The schools get so so much more out of them then they get from the school. If the schools are so hurt by these athletes why don't they all move to D3 or cancel athletics as a whole? They pay everyone else's bills.

[throwbackmuskie]

What's your point? The schools get so so much more out of them then they get from the school. If the schools are so hurt by these athletes why don't they all move to D3 or cancel athletics as a whole? They pay everyone else's bills.

You realize most schools loose money right? Yes football and some hoops programs pay for the others but again outside of like 30 schools or so most are losing money. So there are a lot of schools you don't get a whole lot more out of them.

[Juice]

You realize most schools loose money right? Yes football and some hoops programs pay for the others but again outside of like 30 schools or so most are losing money. So there are a lot of schools you don't get a whole lot more out of them.

But the schools gain that back in exposure, higher enrollment, more money from donors, etc. The athletes are a billboard for the school.

[D-West & PO-Z]

But the schools gain that back in exposure, higher enrollment, more money from donors, etc. The athletes are a billboard for the school.

Exactly. That's the misleading part about "only 30 schools make money" argument. If that was the case and the school didn't benefit greatly in other ways because of athletics then we would have no bubble teams bitching about not making the tournament because there would be only 30 schools to play.

[throwbackmuskie]

This is true, but it still costs money. The school benefits as does the athlete

[xubrew]

Just like MHettel said, there's a big difference between graduating early and having to be waived a season and thus just graduating before your eligibility is up. The only possible victims of this change are players who want to get a 1 year Masters degree that their current school doesn't offer and who also graduated in their first 3 years of school. IF they are in a 2 year program you have to sit out a year of your time there anyway. So I really don't see this legitimately hurting anyone.

Also, if you think Martin and Lyons were waived only because of some terrible advising they got while in high school AND prep school, then I got a bridge to sell you.

Okay, why did the NCAA grant them a waiver, then?? I get that Xavier had other reasons for filing for it other than terrible advising. But, what other reasons did the NCAA have for granting it??

They got through Xavier in four years. Either they actually were capable of handling their business at a college level, or Xavier had someone doing their work for them, or Xavier is just ridiculously easy to get through these days.

Players have five years to play four seasons. If you've played less than four seasons and graduated in less than five years, then you're allowed to go to grad school at another university and still play. Why change that?? Who's abusing that?? It's crazy to look at all the reasons players transfer, and conclude that this rule is why the transfer rate is so high.

Getting rid of this rule means that coaches can not renew a scholarship in a player's final year, and they're unable to go anywhere else and play. At least if they graduate, they can.

[wkrq59]

Anybody remember Andre Walker??? I believe one of the reasons he left Vandy was a superabundance of Kevin Stallings and the kid was pretty damned smart to boot. As he said on more than one occasion, he wasn't going to play basktball professionally after college, so the transfer rule benefitted him and Xavier. Yes, abuses of the rule have cropped up. Player Alpha at State U., a genuine basketball power, graduates in three years. He is also a damned good basketball player. But lately, because of an influx of recruits at his position and because he wants to pursue a Masters degree, he wants to take advantage of the rule. But his coach, who is a control freak, wants him around as both an example to independent minded players that he is the boss. And player Alpha is a good insurance policy. That's why the coach has been spearheading a group of like-minded coaches who wnt the rule changed...NOW. Let's face facts. The only reason there is a transfer rule (sit out a year) is to keep coaches from poaching and players from leaving if the coach won't cow tow. Opposing the "graduate" rule is just another attempt by coaches to retain their athority.

[NY44]

Okay, why did the NCAA grant them a waiver, then?? I get that Xavier had other reasons for filing for it other than terrible advising. But, what other reasons did the NCAA have for granting it??

They got through Xavier in four years. Either they actually were capable of handling their business at a college level, or Xavier had someone doing their work for them, or Xavier is just ridiculously easy to get through these days.

They got waived because they weren't college level students.That's fine. We all know that the admission processes and school work for star athletes is easier and they have a lot of help along the way to graduation. I like that Xavier helps these guys get through their degrees, but as it is right now, they are being punished for doing that.

[xubrew]

They got waived because they weren't college level students.That's fine. We all know that the admission processes and school work for star athletes is easier and they have a lot of help along the way to graduation. I like that Xavier helps these guys get through their degrees, but as it is right now, they are being punished for doing that.

You're saying that the NCAA gave them a waiver because they were not college level students?? I think you're way off the planet on this one, and that perhaps you are the one that should consider buying my bridge. What about all the other non-qualifiers that are not college level students??

Is it possible you're confusing Xavier's admissions office with the NCAA Eligibility Center?? I can see why you would think Xavier would let them in even if they did not meet the normal admission standards. What makes no sense at all is to say the NCAA would give them a waiver for the same reason Xavier would. You don't get a waiver from the NCAA for NOT being a college level student. You get one FOR being a college level student that simply did not take the right classes prior to college. In order to get that waiver from the eligibility center, you actually have to make that argument, and make it convincingly.

....and how did Xavier get burned?? Without the waiver, they would not have been able to receive any aid to a div1 school. Since they couldn't have afforded to pay their own way, they would have probably gone to JUCO, or they could have gone some place else and paid their own way for a year, and played the second year so long as they were eligible going into the second year. Had htey done that, and graduated in four years, they'd still be able to leave early they wanted to.

[NY44]

Is it possible you're confusing Xavier's admissions office with the NCAA Eligibility Center?? I can see why you would think Xavier would let them in even if they did not meet the normal admission standards. What makes no sense at all is to say the NCAA would give them a waiver for the same reason Xavier would. You don't get a waiver from the NCAA for NOT being a college level student. You get one FOR being a college level student that simply did not take the right classes prior to college. In order to get that waiver from the eligibility center, you actually have to make that argument, and make it convincingly.

....and how did Xavier get burned?? Without the waiver, they would not have been able to receive any aid to a div1 school. Since they couldn't have afforded to pay their own way, they would have probably gone to JUCO, or they could have gone some place else and paid their own way for a year, and played the second year so long as they were eligible going into the second year. Had htey done that, and graduated in four years, they'd still be able to leave early they wanted to.

You're deeming them college level students because Xavier said so. Since a school gains on fudging admissions standards that really means nothing.

You really make it seem like graduating high school with the correct credits is hard. The truth is, if an average student had an academic transcript that didn't live up to the NCAA's eligibility standards, they wouldn't get into the school. The waiver system is in place so schools have to uphold some level of academic honesty. As a school is profiting off of letting players in that are athletically prepared and not academically, the NCAA tries to protect an academic standard.

Xavier got burned because they got 3 years of basketball for 4 years of scholarship.

[Masterofreality]

Xavier helps a lot more kids than just athletes.

Pablo was very open in the fact that he was let into school on a "Bridge" program, graduated well and went on to good things. My own daughter wasn't a primo student, but got in by the skin of her teeth and Thank Goodness for Dr. Long who mentored her all through her program...helping her learn in "her way". Now she is very successful in her chosen field. Not every student learns in the traditional "book learning" way. Really good institutions that truly care about their enrollees pay attention to student needs. Xavier does that across the spectrum, not just for the athletic department.

[xubrew]

You're deeming them college level students because Xavier said so. Since a school gains on fudging admissions standards that really means nothing.

You really make it seem like graduating high school with the correct credits is hard. The truth is, if an average student had an academic transcript that didn't live up to the NCAA's eligibility standards, they wouldn't get into the school. The waiver system is in place so schools have to uphold some level of academic honesty. As a school is profiting off of letting players in that are athletically prepared and not academically, the NCAA tries to protect an academic standard.

Xavier got burned because they got 3 years of basketball for 4 years of scholarship.

You're still not making the distinction between Xavier admitting them, and the NCAA clearing them to receive aid.

Xavier can fudge the admission standards all they want. Just because a school admits a player doesn't mean they met initial eligibility. The waiver was for initial eligibility from the NCAA. It was not for admission to Xavier. Without the NCAA granting it, they could not have received any sort of scholarship that first year at any div1 schools. They reason they got it is because they successfully argued that they had been poorly advised in high school.

Graduating with the correct credits isn't hard if you take the correct classes. Most high school guidance counselors don't even know what initial eligibility is. If you asked them to name the necessary requirements and the necessary 16 core credits, they wouldn't be able to do it. They know all about the high school's standards, but not the NCAA's. If a kid has been to multiple high schools, it gets even more confusing because they may have taken two different core classes at two different schools, but they end up being articulated as the same class by the NCAA.

The only reason kids get that kind of a waiver from the NCAA is this. Their test scores look alright. Their GPA looks alright. Their core GPA looks alright. The only thing that doesn't look alright was that they were not put into the right classes. And, since that isn't their fault, they're still ineligible to play for a year, but they are allowed to receive a scholarship.

They were given waivers, and graduated from Xavier in four years. They must have been somewhat capable of getting through college. I'm not deeming them college level students because Xavier said so. I'm deeming them college level students because the NCAA eligibility center said so, and because they were able to graduate in four years.

[94GRAD]

Xavier helps a lot more kids than just athletes.

Pablo was very open in the fact that he was let into school on a "Bridge" program, graduated well and went on to good things. My own daughter wasn't a primo student, but got in by the skin of her teeth and Thank Goodness for Dr. Long who mentored her all through her program...helping her learn in "her way". Now she is very successful in her chosen field. Not every student learns in the traditional "book learning" way. Really good institutions that truly care about their enrollees pay attention to student needs. Xavier does that across the spectrum, not just for the athletic department.


For some reason, X admitted me with a 2.75 GPA and a 990 SAT. I graduated with a 3.24. Pretty sure it worked out OK for them/me.

[xu82]

For some reason, X admitted me with a 2.75 GPA and a 990 SAT. I graduated with a 3.24. Pretty sure it worked out OK for them/me.

I had a higher GPA and SAT, but I'm pretty sure that I got accepted because checks for my older sister didn't bounce. No essay, just a phone call and a follow up application. Notre Dame and Bucknell were a little more fussy. Maybe a sign of the times.

[NY44]

You're still not making the distinction between Xavier admitting them, and the NCAA clearing them to receive aid.

That's exactly what I'm doing.


You're deeming them college level students because Xavier said so. Since a school gains on fudging admissions standards that really means nothing.

At the end of the day, if you really think that Martin or Lyons are college level students, let alone Masters level students, then we're never going to agree.

[D-West & PO-Z]

That's exactly what I'm doing.



At the end of the day, if you really think that Martin or Lyons are college level students, let alone Masters level students, then we're never going to agree.

How the hell are they not college level students? They both have degrees from Xavier. You think xavier faked their grades? What the hell are you talking about? You are really sounding like an ass.

[NY44]

How the hell are they not college level students? They both have degrees from Xavier. You think xavier faked their grades? What the hell are you talking about? You are really sounding like an ass.

No, they probably don't fake their grades, but they definitely do everything short of that. Here's some reading material on the state of academics for college athletes:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/ncaa-athletes-reading-scores/

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-27/in-fake-classes-scandal-unc-fails-its-athletes-whistle-blower


I'm not too much of a homer to be ignorant to the fact that this stuff probably does, or at least has happened at X. As a fan I appreciate it because you need to do it to stay competitive. However, letting this proliferate into post-graduate studies is ridiculous. There is oversight on the admissions and eligibility of undergraduate freshman. Why not post-graduate studies? It doesn't make sense for higher education to have lower levels of oversight.

[xubrew]

That's exactly what I'm doing.



At the end of the day, if you really think that Martin or Lyons are college level students, let alone Masters level students, then we're never going to agree.


You're deeming them college level students because Xavier said so. Since a school gains on fudging admissions standards that really means nothing.

For the THIRD time, I'm not. I don't give a shit what XAVIER said. If it were up to the schools to grant waivers, then everyone would get one. I give a shit what the NCAA Eligibility Center said. That's the distinction you're not making. Earlier, you said this, and it is hilarious how misinformed it is....


They got waived because they weren't college level students.That's fine.

The NCAA Eligibility Center would never give someone a waiver because they felt they were not college level students. In order to get it, you have to make the case that you are a college level student, and were misadvised on what classes were the required core classes by the NCAA. That's pretty much the only reason they give them out. The vast majority of players who fail to meet initial eligibility have to either play in JUCO, or pay their own way that first year. Very few of them get waivers.

Martin was given a wavier by the NCAA, which allowed him to receive aid his first year of college. They wouldn't have given it to him unless they believed he had been mis-advised. That's pretty much the only reason they give them out.

You seem to be under the impression that it was Xavier's call. It wasn't. So, given that he did in fact, graduate in four years, and did in fact receive a waiver, it's kind of stupid to continue to insist he was not college level students. They may not have been Cum Laude level students, but they were definitely capable of graduating from college.

[NY44]

The NCAA Eligibility Center would never give someone a waiver because they felt they were not college level students. In order to get it, you have to make the case that you are a college level student, and were misadvised on what classes were the required core classes by the NCAA. That's pretty much the only reason they give them out. The vast majority of players who fail to meet initial eligibility have to either play in JUCO, or pay their own way that first year. Very few of them get waivers.

You seem to be under the impression that it was Xavier's call. It wasn't. So, given that he did in fact, graduate in four years, and did in fact receive a waiver, it's kind of stupid to continue to insist he was not college level students. They may not have been Cum Laude level students, but they were definitely capable of graduating from college.

It's not misinformed. If you don't have the credits required to be eligible you're literally not a college level student. The eligibility requirements are insanely low, you have to take a whopping 16 core classes and fit the sliding GPA/SAT/ACT scale which has proven to be incredibly easy to cut. It's almost mind boggling that you could graduate an accredited high school without taking those 16 core classes. Also, as cited above, it's pretty easy for players to skate through to a degree once in the school.

I think the pretty simple solution to this is to enforce some eligibility standard at the post-graduate level. That way you're not punishing the athletes that are actually going to college to earn a degree.

[xubrew]

It's not misinformed. If you don't have the credits required to be eligible you're literally not a college level student. The eligibility requirements are insanely low, you have to take a whopping 16 core classes and fit the sliding GPA/SAT/ACT scale which has proven to be incredibly easy to cut. It's almost mind boggling that you could graduate an accredited high school without taking those 16 core classes. Also, as cited above, it's pretty easy for players to skate through to a degree once in the school.

I think the pretty simple solution to this is to enforce some eligibility standard at the post-graduate level. That way you're not punishing the athletes that are actually going to college to earn a degree.


Think about what you're saying. You're saying that schools make it easy for athletes to skate through to a degree, and because of that a kid should have to stay at that school after he's graduated rather than go someplace else to play his final season. I mean....doesn't that sound ridiculous to you??

The NCAA is not going to grant a waiver on the grounds that a kid is not college material. That's what you said. "They were waived because they weren't college level students." That's ridiculous, because if the standard for a waiver is not being a college level student, then everyone who failed to meet initial eligibility would get one.

The 16 core credits is the minimum amount that you need, but you need specific ones. You could have 28 core credits and still not be eligible if you haven't taken the right classes.

Here is an example of why I kid would be given a waiver.

A kid needs a minimum of 4 English credits. He takes a literature class at his current high school, and the NCAA does not consider it to be a core class. He then transfers high schools, and the new high school articulates the literature class as meeting one of their English requirements. The requirement that it meets at the new school IS considered to be a core class by the NCAA. He's told he doesn't need to take an additional English class, because as far as his high school is concerned, he doesn't have to. If he were a normal student, he wouldn't have to. The guidance counselor probably doesn't know that the NCAA didn't consider it a core class at the old school, and you can't really expect him to. He probably doesn't understand initial eligibility, and he probably doesn't know the rule that if a non-core class at one high school is articulated as a core class at a new high school, the NCAA still doesn't count it.

You could have a fantastic SAT and ACT score, a 3.7 GPA, and 30 other core classes that you have passed. If four of them aren't English core classes, you're not eligible. It's happened before. But, because it wasn't the kid's fault, they can get a waiver.

A lot of high schools don't update their core curriculum with the NCAA. You get on to check everything, and it's three or four years old. So, an English or Math class that should be a core class doesn't count as a core class simply because they have not given the updated curriculum to the NCAA. That's another way kids can get waivers.

Kids will never get waivers if the NCAA does not deem them to be college material. No way, no chance, no how. To say otherwise is flat out wrong.

[RoseyMuskie]

How students fail to take the acceptable number of "core classes" flat out blows my mind. But then again, I think many (not all) prep schools are just a sham.

[STL_XUfan]

How students fail to take the acceptable number of "core classes" flat out blows my mind. But then again, I think many (not all) prep schools are just a sham.
It is surprisingly more complicated than you may think, especially with high school transfers. But yes, the students should be better advised.

[Juice]

How students fail to take the acceptable number of "core classes" flat out blows my mind. But then again, I think many (not all) prep schools are just a sham.

I think many times the kids are told that certain classes fill the core class requirement when in fact they don't and it's too late to rectify the situation.

[xubrew]

How students fail to take the acceptable number of "core classes" flat out blows my mind. But then again, I think many (not all) prep schools are just a sham.

The vast majority of those who fail to meet initial eligibility do not get a waiver. It has to be a special circumstance, and even then they're typically only allowed to receive aid. They're still not allowed to play.

Having said that, most high school guidance counselors don't understand initial eligibility, and you can't really expect them to. What's required by the high school isn't necessarily what is required for initial eligibility. Some times the school just doesn't have an updated list of core classes on file with the NCAA, so some of what should be core isn't counted as core. When players transfer, it gets even more complicated because sometimes things are articulated by a high school in a way that it appears a student has more core than they actually do.

Another thing you sometime see is that a school is on semesters, so each class is 0.5 credits instead of 1 credit. They'll fail the first part of it, and then pass the second part of it, and have an overall average that's passing, so they graduate to the next grade. But, they didn't get the full credit, they only got half a credit, and if it's in a subject like English where you need four full credits, you're basically screwed if you don't realize it in time.

I know it sounds easy, but there are hundreds of ways it can go wrong.

[xubrew]

I think many times the kids are told that certain classes fill the core class requirement when in fact they don't and it's too late to rectify the situation.

That too.

[RoseyMuskie]

There are a hundred ways it could go wrong. Fully admit that. And for the most part, I don't blame the student. They shouldn't have to know the ins and out of attaining eligibility. But I do think you have to put some of the onus on the student/their family. Many, many prep schools have had histories of inadequate advising. Perform your due diligence on the school and your transcript if you're going to transfer to one.

[xu82]

I think many times the kids are told that certain classes fill the core class requirement when in fact they don't and it's too late to rectify the situation.

Exactly, and that's on the adults, not the 16-18 year old kid. You can blame the parents if you want, but the "education professionals" are where I point the finger. A lot of these parents don't have that much education themselves, and even if they have a phd, they should have reason to think they can trust the advice given to them by the people chosen to get their kid ready for college. I'm surprised how some schools have this happen repeatedly and still get top flight kids.

[NY44]

Think about what you're saying. You're saying that schools make it easy for athletes to skate through to a degree, and because of that a kid should have to stay at that school after he's graduated rather than go someplace else to play his final season. I mean....doesn't that sound ridiculous to you??

No, it doesn't sound ridiculous at all. I believe this rule is intended for students who graduated early and want to get a specific degree which their current school doesn't offer. I don't see how a player who was waived their first season and then wants to transfer and drop out after 1 year in graduate school is any different from a regular athlete transferring in their junior year/3rd season. So I think they should be treated the same way.

[xubrew]

No, it doesn't sound ridiculous at all. I believe this rule is intended for students who graduated early and want to get a specific degree which their current school doesn't offer. I don't see how a player who was waived their first season and then wants to transfer and drop out after 1 year in graduate school is any different from a regular athlete transferring in their junior year/3rd season. So I think they should be treated the same way.

They are treated the same way. A player who transfers after their third year and has to sit out, can transfer again and play after their fourth year if they graduate within four years. Do you feel better about it now knowing that they're treated the same??

NY44, I get what your feelings are. You don't want to see players abuse the system. The problem is that by changing the rules to keep what has got to be about 0.5% of the transfers from abusing the rule, you're going to screw over nearly everyone who isn't abusing the rule. After reading several of your posts, I also don't think you have a strong understanding of what the rules actually are.

Understand this, though....

The only reason people want this rule in place is so they can have more control over the players than they already do. The arguments they're making for changing the rule are complete crap. Coaches who routinely force kids out of their programs cannot gripe about how high the transfer rate is, and then offer this as a way of lowering it without being completely full of crap. If a kid graduated in four years, it's obvious they're capable of getting through college since, yunno, they actually did get through college. That's who this rule benefits. The people who are capable of getting through college, because the only way to benefit from this is to actually get through college in four years. It makes no sense to want to put limitations on what their options are.

The best way to lower the transfer rate is to put something in place that prevents coaches from running players off. If you're going to make players sit a year, then how about taking that scholarship away from the school he transferred from for a year?? Instead of 13, they only get 12 or 11 (depending on how many kids left the team). If they don't want to lose the scholarship, then the school must apply for a waiver. That would cut the transfer rate by way more than half. If they're really concerned about the transfer rate, then that's what they should do. But, you know as well as I do that is not what they're really concerned about. They're only concerned about their control, and that's why they want this rule changed.

[NY44]

They are treated the same way. A player who transfers after their third year and has to sit out, can transfer again and play after their fourth year if they graduate within four years. Do you feel better about it now knowing that they're treated the same??

NY44, I get what your feelings are. You don't want to see players abuse the system. The problem is that by changing the rules to keep what has got to be about 0.5% of the transfers from abusing the rule, you're going to screw over nearly everyone who isn't abusing the rule. After reading several of your posts, I also don't think you have a strong understanding of what the rules actually are.

Understand this, though....

The only reason people want this rule in place is so they can have more control over the players than they already do. The arguments they're making for changing the rule are complete crap. Coaches who routinely force kids out of their programs cannot gripe about how high the transfer rate is, and then offer this as a way of lowering it without being completely full of crap. If a kid graduated in four years, it's obvious they're capable of getting through college since, yunno, they actually did get through college. That's who this rule benefits. The people who are capable of getting through college, because the only way to benefit from this is to actually get through college in four years. It makes no sense to want to put limitations on what their options are.

The best way to lower the transfer rate is to put something in place that prevents coaches from running players off. If you're going to make players sit a year, then how about taking that scholarship away from the school he transferred from for a year?? Instead of 13, they only get 12 or 11 (depending on how many kids left the team). If they don't want to lose the scholarship, then the school must apply for a waiver. That would cut the transfer rate by way more than half. If they're really concerned about the transfer rate, then that's what they should do. But, you know as well as I do that is not what they're really concerned about. They're only concerned about their control, and that's why they want this rule changed.

Oh ok! Now I get it! I have been wrong and misguided this entire time. Thanks for not giving up on me!

[Kahns Krazy]

(Bangs head against the wall) I repeat a point I've made on this board before...Can you buy things with this so called education? Can I exchange it for something else in a store? Macy's doesn't take "education" does it?

When I get paid, I get paid in dollars, not education.


But the schools gain that back in exposure, higher enrollment, more money from donors, etc. The athletes are a billboard for the school.

Do schools pay professors now in this so called exposure? The county auditor doesn't accept property tax payment in "billboards" does it?

I don't think you can play both sides of this argument like this.

[Juice]

Do schools pay professors now in this so called exposure? The county auditor doesn't accept property tax payment in "billboards" does it?

I don't think you can play both sides of this argument like this.

If things are so horrible financially for schools to have football and basketball programs why do they continue to do it?

Nike pays Kobe Bryant and Lebron James for exposure, attention, etc. But they pay them with money, not an education.

[throwbackmuskie]

If things are so horrible financially for schools to have football and basketball programs why do they continue to do it?

Nike pays Kobe Bryant and Lebron James for exposure, attention, etc. But they pay them with money, not an education.

Love how you keep devaluing education. It is really simple, no one is forcing these kids to go to college. At the end of the day they have a choice, go get a free education or fine a job.

[xubrew]

If coaches were only allowed to make $500k a year, but were offered tuition remission to earn as many degrees as they wanted, and who's families could also receive tuition remission, would that be a better set up than what we have now??

Should a coach be able to make three or four times as much as the highest paid faculty member if education is what we're valuing??

[Juice]

Love how you keep devaluing education. It is really simple, no one is forcing these kids to go to college. At the end of the day they have a choice, go get a free education or fine a job.

I'm devaluing it because the schools themselves devalue it. They take them away from class during the tournament and for bowl games, they make them practice more than the rules allow and thus take them away from their studies, they pass them with substandard work (i.e. UNC and Michigan), etc. So if the education is so god damn valuable, why are the schools showing the "student-athletes" that it's not that important?

Edit: Let me also add that the schools also devalue the education by steering the student-athletes to bullshit classes simply to keep them eligible. Schools will also take any person who can play sports regardless of whether they are qualified to succeed and properly take advantage of their education. They'll run them through the school, pass them, give them a degree without truly educating them.

Also, the value of a degree devalues each day.

[Masterofreality]

Love how you keep devaluing education. It is really simple, no one is forcing these kids to go to college. At the end of the day they have a choice, go get a free education or fine a job.

This.

And, by the way. at he players get "exposure" from being in college, thereby increasing their market value. Exposure is a two way street.

[Juice]

This.

And, by the way. at he players get "exposure" from being in college, thereby increasing their market value. Exposure is a two way street.


Really? The NBA and NFL aren't aware of these guys when they're in high school? If you're good enough, the pros find you. Colleges find everyone and they have infinitely less resources than pro franchises.

[xubrew]

Love how you keep devaluing education. It is really simple, no one is forcing these kids to go to college. At the end of the day they have a choice, go get a free education or fine a job.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm the last person that should be calling out the grammar police, but I still couldn't resist.

With that said, the changing the graduation transfer rule does more to devalue education than it does to value it. It limits what educational and academic options a player has. So, it's kind of hypocritical for schools to trumpet the value of an education when they repeatedly do things to limit a student-athlete's options.

[throwbackmuskie]

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm the last person that should be calling out the grammar police, but I still couldn't resist.

With that said, the changing the graduation transfer rule does more to devalue education than it does to value it. It limits what educational and academic options a player has. So, it's kind of hypocritical for schools to trumpet the value of an education when they repeatedly do things to limit a student-athlete's options.

tryping with one hand, have a broken hand.
If anything it enhances it. That year they sit out they will actually have to go to class and do the class work so they are able to play the following year.

[Juice]

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm the last person that should be calling out the grammar police, but I still couldn't resist.

With that said, the changing the graduation transfer rule does more to devalue education than it does to value it. It limits what educational and academic options a player has. So, it's kind of hypocritical for schools to trumpet the value of an education when they repeatedly do things to limit a student-athlete's options.

Amen. When the schools attach restrictions they readily admit that it's more about athletics than it is about academics. When a school won't let a person transfer to a rival, conference opponent, etc. they show how full of shit they are.

[throwbackmuskie]

I'm devaluing it because the schools themselves devalue it. They take them away from class during the tournament and for bowl games, they make them practice more than the rules allow and thus take them away from their studies, they pass them with substandard work (i.e. UNC and Michigan), etc. So if the education is so god damn valuable, why are the schools showing the "student-athletes" that it's not that important?

Edit: Let me also add that the schools also devalue the education by steering the student-athletes to bullshit classes simply to keep them eligible. Schools will also take any person who can play sports regardless of whether they are qualified to succeed and properly take advantage of their education. They'll run them through the school, pass them, give them a degree without truly educating them.

Also, the value of a degree devalues each day.

yet all those free tudors, study session to help them make it through thier classes. For every unc there is a sister Rose making sure they complete thier school work. Those bullshit classes are also open to any and every student, it is part of a "whole education" schools offer. And schools do not accept any student who can play a sport. They do have NCAA standards, minimual yes, but they have to meet requirements to get in and play.

[throwbackmuskie]

Bottom line, No one is forcing the kids to go to school or play college sports. If they don't like it, then don't do it.

[Juice]

Bottom line, No one is forcing the kids to go to school or play college sports. If they don't like it, then don't do it.

"Hey 18 year old kid, that thing you are really good at? Nope, you got to wait until you're at least 19 to do that. But in the meantime, you can go to this place and make millions of dollars for other people, but you won't receive any type of payment for it. Take it or leave it."

In what other field in the United States do we not properly compensate people for what they create?

[throwbackmuskie]

"Hey 18 year old kid, that thing you are really good at? Nope, you got to wait until you're at least 19 to do that. But in the meantime, you can go to this place and make millions of dollars for other people, but you won't receive any type of payment for it. Take it or leave it."

In what other field in the United States do we not properly compensate people for what they create?

Europe, sit out a year till they can play. and once again, if they don't like the deal being offered, turn it down. I know I can go get paid better at a different job, but I accepted the terms my employer offered.


And the employer, NBA, NFL ect, set the standards as to which employees they will hire.

[Juice]

Europe, sit out a year till they can play. and once again, if they don't like the deal being offered, turn it down. I know I can go get paid better at a different job, but I accepted the terms my employer offered.


And the employer, NBA, NFL ect, set the standards as to which employees they will hire.

http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/post/60451610779/you-need-to-take-market-power-collusion-into-account

But sure, keep making this argument and supporting an immoral system.

[throwbackmuskie]

http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/post/60451610779/you-need-to-take-market-power-collusion-into-account

But sure, keep making this argument and supporting an immoral system.

immoral? LOL, last time I checked no one was forcing the kids to pick up a ball and play a sport.

I got an idea, if you don't like how they are being treated stop watching and supporting the system till it is changed. It is esay to bi+ch and moan, but do you have the balls to start a movement? If rating drop and people stop supporting till the kids are paid then some changes could happen. Or if the top athletes decide to go overseas or take a year off then go pro maybe changes will happen.

You can whine about this all you want, but unless you actually do something about it, stop watching/supporting, all you are doing is feeding the machine.

[xubrew]

tryping with one hand, have a broken hand.
If anything it enhances it. That year they sit out they will actually have to go to class and do the class work so they are able to play the following year.

They're not able to play the following year if it's their fifth year of school because their clock would expire. It's four seasons, or five years. Whichever comes first. So, their options are definitely limited, which is exactly the way those who are trying to get this rule passed want it.

[xubrew]

immoral? LOL, last time I checked no one was forcing the kids to pick up a ball and play a sport.

I got an idea, if you don't like how they are being treated stop watching and supporting the system till it is changed. It is esay to bi+ch and moan, but do you have the balls to start a movement? If rating drop and people stop supporting till the kids are paid then some changes could happen. Or if the top athletes decide to go overseas or take a year off then go pro maybe changes will happen.

You can whine about this all you want, but unless you actually do something about it, stop watching/supporting, all you are doing is feeding the machine.

They guys at Northwestern are trying to do something about it.

[throwbackmuskie]

They guys at Northwestern are trying to do something about it.

They are not trying to get paid though. And it is more like unions are trying to do something about it. But they are going to be in a world of hurt when that tax bill comes. If they really want to make noise, reject the scholarship.

[throwbackmuskie]

They're not able to play the following year if it's their fifth year of school because their clock would expire. It's four seasons, or five years. Whichever comes first. So, their options are definitely limited, which is exactly the way those who are trying to get this rule passed want it.

so then it is time to move on in life, like everyother college graduate.

[xubrew]

so then it is time to move on in life, like everyother college graduate.

So, you see value in a player losing a season because they graduated early and wanted to go to grad school someplace else as opposed to being able to play if he stayed where he was so long as he re-enroll as an undergraduate and take classes that are completely meaningless?? That's how the rule would shake out. You can't be a grad student at another school and play, but you're allowed to be an undergraduate after you've graduated so long as you remain at your current institution.

If you really value education, then why would you want to restrict someone's options who has another year left to play?? That makes no sense.

Why is it that people feel players should be made to sit out a year if they transfer at any point, much less after they've graduated?? What is that accomplishing?? What is that doing to make the game better?? It sure as hell isn't keeping the transfer rate down because the sports that don't have that rule have much lower transfer rates.

[throwbackmuskie]

Still on scholarship? A free year for grad school? Also if they are going to re write the rule, can re write it to allow them a 6th year if the graduate, transfer, sit out a year, then have another year to play. Also if they did stay at their school, finish their undergrad and still have eligilibty, they can take grad level classes, example, Matt Leinhart.

Basketball is the main transfer headache. If they were to expand the scholarship limit to 15, you might see less transfers. However kids want PT, if they don't get it they transfer to seek other places to play.

[Juice]

immoral? LOL, last time I checked no one was forcing the kids to pick up a ball and play a sport.

I got an idea, if you don't like how they are being treated stop watching and supporting the system till it is changed. It is esay to bi+ch and moan, but do you have the balls to start a movement? If rating drop and people stop supporting till the kids are paid then some changes could happen. Or if the top athletes decide to go overseas or take a year off then go pro maybe changes will happen.

You can whine about this all you want, but unless you actually do something about it, stop watching/supporting, all you are doing is feeding the machine.

Immoral, yes. It's system of collusion that purposely keeps young people poor and to the mercy of what the system of rich administrators will give them. Let's also not forget that most of these young people are African American.

No other business or field exists like this in the United States.

Who hurt you in college? You really seem to hate college athletes. Did one steal your girlfriend or call you a nerd?

[xubrew]

Still on scholarship? A free year for grad school? Also if they are going to re write the rule, can re write it to allow them a 6th year if the graduate, transfer, sit out a year, then have another year to play. Also if they did stay at their school, finish their undergrad and still have eligilibty, they can take grad level classes, example, Matt Leinhart.

Basketball is the main transfer headache. If they were to expand the scholarship limit to 15, you might see less transfers. However kids want PT, if they don't get it they transfer to seek other places to play.

Matt Leinart only took one class in his final year, and it was a meaningless ball room dancing class. But, he was still allowed to play. Under the new proposed rule, he would not have the option of transferring to another school and taking real classes as a grad student, but staying behind and taking a bunch of ballroom dancing classes at his current school would be fine. Again, if the options are that you can stay and continue to play even if you take nothing but crap classes, but are not allowed to play if you transfer, enroll in a grad program and take real classes, then you can't say they value education.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2143657

I'd feel better about the rule if they allowed for a sixth year on their clock, but that is not part of the proposal, and it never will be. The whole point is to have more control over the players, and allowing for a sixth year doesn't give them more control. If they actually valued education they may consider adding a sixth year once you've graduated, but since it's about control, they will never change that rule.

[throwbackmuskie]

Immoral, yes. It's system of collusion that purposely keeps young people poor and to the mercy of what the system of rich administrators will give them. Let's also not forget that most of these young people are African American.

No other business or field exists like this in the United States.

Who hurt you in college? You really seem to hate college athletes. Did one steal your girlfriend or call you a nerd?

LOL the attack the person who doesn't agree with you defense. And then the race card. Man epic post!

I have no hate toward these kids, however they accepted the terms, by their own free will.

Let's not forget these schools are giving these kids an opprotunity that they may otherwise never have been afforded.

[throwbackmuskie]

Matt Leinart only took one class in his final year, and it was a meaningless ball room dancing class. But, he was still allowed to play. Under the new proposed rule, he would not have the option of transferring to another school and taking real classes as a grad student, but staying behind and taking a bunch of ballroom dancing classes at his current school would be fine. Again, if the options are that you can stay and continue to play even if you take nothing but crap classes, but are not allowed to play if you transfer, enroll in a grad program and take real classes, then you can't say they value education.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2143657

I'd feel better about the rule if they allowed for a sixth year on their clock, but that is not part of the proposal, and it never will be. The whole point is to have more control over the players, and allowing for a sixth year doesn't give them more control.

Who is to say a kid would take "real" classes once they transfer? In basketball all they have to do is skim thought for a semester, then 2nd semester do nothing.

So basically Leinhart used the system to help futher his football career at the expense of the college.

[Juice]

LOL the attack the person who doesn't agree with you defense. And then the race card. Man epic post!

Let's not forget these schools are giving these kids an opprotunity that they may otherwise never have been afforded.

To ignore the race issue would be naive.

Oh yes, the benevolent schools are saving them!

[throwbackmuskie]

To ignore the race issue would be naive.

Oh yes, the benevolent schools are saving them!

LOL, so white athletes are not affected by this? 62% of all college athletes are white. You can take the race nonissue out of this.

[xubrew]

Still on scholarship? A free year for grad school? Also if they are going to re write the rule, can re write it to allow them a 6th year if the graduate, transfer, sit out a year, then have another year to play. Also if they did stay at their school, finish their undergrad and still have eligilibty, they can take grad level classes, example, Matt Leinhart.

Basketball is the main transfer headache. If they were to expand the scholarship limit to 15, you might see less transfers. However kids want PT, if they don't get it they transfer to seek other places to play.


Who is to say a kid would take "real" classes once they transfer? In basketball all they have to do is skim thought for a semester, then 2nd semester do nothing.

So basically Leinhart used the system to help futher his football career at the expense of the college.

Please tell me you can see why you couldn't have used a worse example than Matt Leinart. Playing for the current school and "using the system by not taking real classes" is allowed, but going to another school to take real classes and play isn't allowed. Yet, people are trying to argue this is about education.

As far as them taking real classes at another school, the rule is that it has to be a graduate program. You can't go there and enroll as an undergrad. Who's to say they are going to take real classes?? Who is to say that they won't?? You don't want the rule changed because of you're simply supposing that they won't take real classes. Okay, whatever.

If they don't want to take real classes, then it makes no sense to leave because they can re-enroll as an undergrad at your current school and take all the crappy classes you want. That's allowed now, and it would continue to be allowed. What wouldn't be allowed is for someone who actually wants to work toward a specific master's degree to be able to do that and keep playing.

[xubrew]

LOL, so white athletes are not affected by this? 62% of all college athletes are white. You can take the race nonissue out of this.

The rule would just be for the head count sports, which are not 62% white. I don't think it's about race, but I do think it's about wanting to control the players in the revenue sports. That's why it's only being implemented in the revenue sports.

[throwbackmuskie]

I showed you why it is flawed, they don't have to do class work after the 1st semester. I would like to see the number of how many 5th year transfers have a graduate degree.

[OH.X.MI]

Immoral, yes. It's system of collusion that purposely keeps young people poor and to the mercy of what the system of rich administrators will give them. Let's also not forget that most of these young people are African American.

That's not just in sports though, thats the entire system of higher education. What about all the students who take out outlandish student loans to pay for college only to get jobs that barley keep them afloat. Universities present false statistics all the time. The seriousness of student loans is not fully explained to kids at all. They feel pressure from peers, parents, and a society who just doesn’t fully understand how things really work.

Is that immoral? Should those students be rallying to form some sort of union? Should they demand some sort of guaranteed return from their university?

I'm doing fine, I loved my time at Xavier and I believe it has paid off and will continue to do so. But I know kids who I graduated with who are really struggling. I don't know how much revenue player X Y or Z on the woman's basketball team earned for Xavier, but she probably got a full ride while I paid close to $100,000 to get a degree from Xavier. Athletes get 4 years of free education, the same degree as everyone else, all the clothes in the world, 2 meals a day which is more than most college students eat, and you know what, they are lucky enough to play a sports in a way that ended for all of us after we turned 18.

I don't give a damn about any transfer rule or whether or not Justin Martin should be allowed to pursue a Masters in bread making at Pillsbury Dough Boy University or whatever he is going to do. But these kids have it a lot better than the hundreds of thousands of regular kids (Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Arab and all else).

I love watching college sports. But I am not going to throw a goddamn pity party someone if they have to sit out another year to continue playing a sport while simultaneously getting a free masters degree. If that makes me an immoral racist moron whatever, then so be it.

[Kahns Krazy]

"Hey 18 year old kid, that thing you are really good at? Nope, you got to wait until you're at least 19 to do that. But in the meantime, you can go to this place and make millions of dollars for other people, but you won't receive any type of payment for it. Take it or leave it."

In what other field in the United States do we not properly compensate people for what they create?

Every field. We compensate based on what the market will bear. My work generates tens of millions of dollars of profit for my company, but there's someone else willing to do the work for my salary, so that's what I get paid.

I think the real question is in what field is compensation based on anything other than what someone else is willing to do the job for? If it was based on what they create, no company would make or lose money. If someone else is willing to play for a free education, well then that's what the job pays. Would you argue that unpaid interns create zero value?

[xubrew]

I showed you why it is flawed, they don't have to do class work after the 1st semester. I would like to see the number of how many 5th year transfers have a graduate degree.

They don't have to do class work after the first semester if they stay either.

So, in your mind, transferring after graduating and enrolling into a graduate program is a flawed system because they don't have to do any class work after the first semester, but staying some how isn't flawed even though they can just re-enroll as an undergrad, take classes that don't matter for a semester, and also not have to do any class work the second semester??

I can guarantee you that fifth year transfers who earn graduate degrees is infinitely higher than those who stayed for a second year and re-enrolled as an undergrad and ended up earning a second undergraduate degree. The latter will still be allowed. The former will not be. Yet, you're saying the former is some how more flawed?? That makes no sense.

Is it some how flawed that softball players, and soccer players, and swimmers, and tennis players can transfer right away without having to sit out?? Do you feel that those rules should be changed??

[Kahns Krazy]

I can guarantee you that fifth year transfers who earn graduate degrees is infinitely higher than those who stayed for a second year

I'll take that guarantee since both populations are finite (and relatively tiny), one can not be infinitely higher than the other.

[Juice]

Every field. We compensate based on what the market will bear. My work generates tens of millions of dollars of profit for my company, but there's someone else willing to do the work for my salary, so that's what I get paid.

I think the real question is in what field is compensation based on anything other than what someone else is willing to do the job for? If it was based on what they create, no company would make or lose money. If someone else is willing to play for a free education, well then that's what the job pays. Would you argue that unpaid interns create zero value?

I'd argue that the market is not paying them what they're worth because there is collusion. In pro sports or in the business world, collusion is guarded against with laws and collective bargaining. For college sports (basketball and football) it is supported.

[Juice]

That's not just in sports though, thats the entire system of higher education. What about all the students who take out outlandish student loans to pay for college only to get jobs that barley keep them afloat. Universities present false statistics all the time. The seriousness of student loans is not fully explained to kids at all. They feel pressure from peers, parents, and a society who just doesn’t fully understand how things really work.

Is that immoral? Should those students be rallying to form some sort of union? Should they demand some sort of guaranteed return from their university?

I'm doing fine, I loved my time at Xavier and I believe it has paid off and will continue to do so. But I know kids who I graduated with who are really struggling. I don't know how much revenue player X Y or Z on the woman's basketball team earned for Xavier, but she probably got a full ride while I paid close to $100,000 to get a degree from Xavier. Athletes get 4 years of free education, the same degree as everyone else, all the clothes in the world, 2 meals a day which is more than most college students eat, and you know what, they are lucky enough to play a sports in a way that ended for all of us after we turned 18.

I don't give a damn about any transfer rule or whether or not Justin Martin should be allowed to pursue a Masters in bread making at Pillsbury Dough Boy University or whatever he is going to do. But these kids have it a lot better than the hundreds of thousands of regular kids (Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Arab and all else).

I love watching college sports. But I am not going to throw a goddamn pity party someone if they have to sit out another year to continue playing a sport while simultaneously getting a free masters degree. If that makes me an immoral racist moron whatever, then so be it.
Comparing yourself or someone who was in non revenue sports isn't a valid comparison to someone to a male college football or basketball player.

[GoMuskies]

I'll take that guarantee since both populations are finite (and relatively tiny), one can not be infinitely higher than the other.

'brew's only hope is that "those who stayed for a second year" number 0.

[NY44]

Is it some how flawed that softball players, and soccer players, and swimmers, and tennis players can transfer right away without having to sit out?? Do you feel that those rules should be changed??

No, because they're most likely paying at least part of there education.

[Kahns Krazy]

'brew's only hope is that "those who stayed for a second year" number 0.

And that he goes back and modifies to make it a percentage rather than a number. Even so, in the function y=1/x, while Y approaches infinity as X approaches zero, division by zero is always undefined, as it would approach both positive and negative infinity.

Just sayin.

[LA Muskie]

I'd argue that the market is not paying them what they're worth because there is collusion. In pro sports or in the business world, collusion is guarded against with laws and collective bargaining. For college sports (basketball and football) it is supported.

Tell that to medical interns. And production assistants. And plumbing apprentices. And...

[OH.X.MI]

Comparing yourself or someone who was in non revenue sports isn't a valid comparison to someone to a male college football or basketball player.

Your right. The rest of us are in debt. The rest of us eat ramen for dinner. The rest of us have two pairs of shoes and 4 pairs of shorts. The rest of us were stuck in a shitty house in Norwood doing accounting homework on a Tuesday night while "male revenue" college basketball or football players were eating at a five star stake house in NYC. Sorry, if you don't find me dripping with sympathy. I am not AT ALL saying they don't deserve what they have. But lets get real about sympathy for college athletes and them possibly having to sit out for a transfer a year. I am very supportive of college athletes and am the first to criticize the NCAA, but the specific topic of this thread is insane.

[xubrew]

I'll take that guarantee since both populations are finite (and relatively tiny), one can not be infinitely higher than the other.

Point made. You win on technicality.

[X-band '01]

And that he goes back and modifies to make it a percentage rather than a number. Even so, in the function y=1/x, while Y approaches infinity as X approaches zero, division by zero is always undefined, as it would approach both positive and negative infinity.

Just sayin.

Spoken like a true student-mathlete.

[xubrew]

No, because they're most likely paying at least part of there education.

What about the ones that are on full scholarship?? What about football players at FCS schools that are on full scholarship?? They don't have to sit out if they transfer from one FCS school to another.

It's a double standard that only effects the revenue sports, and the reason is because coaches and administrators want more control over the basketball and football players (at the FBS level). Changing this rule will do nothing to lower the transfer rate, and will limit what their academic options are. I don't see how any reasonable person can disagree with that. Why do you think they only have this for revenue sports??

[xu82]

Tell that to medical interns. And production assistants. And plumbing apprentices. And...

And.... finance and accounting majors. My son is finishing his junior year, near the top of his class, incoming president of the business ethics club and active in numerous similar activities. And yet he is, so far, unable to get a summer internship. We don't need for him to be paid. The experience is far more important than the pay. He's bright and hard working and willing to give his time to be productive. He had a college pre-paid program and "Bright Futures" for a supposedly free ride due to good grades, and it still costs a fortune!

Bottom line.... there's no collusion among the Big Four accounting firms. People want what you have and you can afford to be picky. You can blame the NCAA if you want, but it's the NBA calling the shots on much of this. If the kids have no shot at the NBA (as 99% do not), they should be thanking their lucky stars for the chance at a free education! Most of these kids won a mini-lottery. Yep, some rules work against some kids. Life is far from perfect.

[xu82]

It's like winning the Powerball then complaining you have to pay taxes (albeit on a much smaller scale). You knew the rules coming in and you were happy with the terms. If you want to take on Washington (or the NCAA) before accepting, feel free. I get that a lot of the rules are unfair, but all things considered it's still a nice win. The NCAA will probably see significant changes in coming years but it's still a pretty good deal today.

[xubrew]

Tell that to medical interns. And production assistants. And plumbing apprentices. And...

Do hospitals bend over backwards to recruit medical interns the way football and basketball coaches go after players?? Are movie studios spending tens of thousands of dollars to recruit production assistants??

There is an entire industry that is quite profitable that is entirely focused on football and basketball recruiting. A medical intern, or an accounting intern, is not going to impact a hospital or a firm the way a football or basketball player can impact a university's athletic department. It's not the same thing. It's not an application process where schools decide which ones they'd like to have. If schools are going to put all that money and effort into recruiting, it must be because there is something in it for the schools. Hospitals, television stations, plumbers and accounting firms probably couldn't care less who their interns turn out to be.

[LA Muskie]

Do hospitals bend over backwards to recruit medical interns the way football and basketball coaches go after players?? Are movie studios spending tens of thousands of dollars to recruit production assistants??

There is an entire industry that is quite profitable that is entirely focused on football and basketball recruiting. A medical intern, or an accounting intern, is not going to impact a hospital or a firm the way a football or basketball player can impact a university's athletic department. It's not the same thing. It's not an application process where schools decide which ones they'd like to have. If schools are going to put all that money and effort into recruiting, it must be because there is something in it for the schools. Hospitals, television stations, plumbers and accounting firms probably couldn't care less who their interns turn out to be.
I think you would be surprised at how wrong you are about the bold part in particular. Most of those (save, perhaps, the plumbers) care very much who their interns are, because they end up being their surgeons, producers, and partners. And while the recruiting process may be different (by and large, the pool of applicants come to them), they spend a lot of time and money figuring out which ones to hire and they compete with a host of others for the top talent. Frankly even in that regard it's not all that different -- players often seek out the attention of schools, but it's the "top of the class" who get all the attention.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Do hospitals bend over backwards to recruit medical interns the way football and basketball coaches go after players?? Are movie studios spending tens of thousands of dollars to recruit production assistants??

There is an entire industry that is quite profitable that is entirely focused on football and basketball recruiting. A medical intern, or an accounting intern, is not going to impact a hospital or a firm the way a football or basketball player can impact a university's athletic department. It's not the same thing. It's not an application process where schools decide which ones they'd like to have. If schools are going to put all that money and effort into recruiting, it must be because there is something in it for the schools. Hospitals, television stations, plumbers and accounting firms probably couldn't care less who their interns turn out to be.

Yeah this is actually a really good point. Its apples to oranges when comparing a college basketball or football player to an unpaid intern.

Also, the "they knew the terms so they arent allowed to try and change it" argument is a terrible one. Just because someone knew the terms of an agreement and accepted them doesnt mean they arent ever allowed to want changes down the road. It also doesnt make the terms agreed to right.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I think you would be surprised at how wrong you are about the bold part in particular. Most of those (save, perhaps, the plumbers) care very much who their interns are, because they end up being their surgeons, producers, and partners. And while the recruiting process may be different (by and large, the pool of applicants come to them), they spend a lot of time and money figuring out which ones to hire and they compete with a host of others for the top talent. Frankly even in that regard it's not all that different -- players often seek out the attention of schools, but it's the "top of the class" who get all the attention.

I dont know. I know a lot of people who have been med students, psychology interns, law students and when applying for internships or fellowships, etc they get a plethora of applicants and many who would fit very well and do very well for them. Lets just say the intern wants the "job" or "facility" more than the job or facility want the one or two specific interns.

Match day is way more stressful for the intern than the facility. When recruiting for college sports signing day is way more stressful for the school than the recruit.

[LA Muskie]

For the record, I'm not in the "scholarship is payment enough" camp. My point was simply that basketball players aren't necessarily in a unique position in that regard. Interns in many industries are under-compensated compared to their profitability; medical interns being a perfect example (production assistants, admittedly, maybe not).

[xu82]

Do hospitals bend over backwards to recruit medical interns the way football and basketball coaches go after players?? Are movie studios spending tens of thousands of dollars to recruit production assistants??

There is an entire industry that is quite profitable that is entirely focused on football and basketball recruiting. A medical intern, or an accounting intern, is not going to impact a hospital or a firm the way a football or basketball player can impact a university's athletic department. It's not the same thing. It's not an application process where schools decide which ones they'd like to have. If schools are going to put all that money and effort into recruiting, it must be because there is something in it for the schools. Hospitals, television stations, plumbers and accounting firms probably couldn't care less who their interns turn out to be.

It's certainly true that one or two top recruits will affect Kentucky basketball more than one or two accountants affect KPMG. And that's because college basketball, while lucrative for the schools and networks, is small potatoes compared to the larger world of accounting/medical/other forms of entertainment, etc. If you think these companies could care less who they take as interns, you are uninformed. The interns then get jobs (if they pan out) and are generally on a fast track to becoming leaders/partners. It is extremely competitive and they have entire departments to scout and recruit the best talent. The style of recruitment might be a bit different, but that's because the basketball "stars" are generally less informed, more self-important and misguided. The med-school/accounting intern has a better picture of the big picture and knows they need a good situation more than the situation needs them.

[Juice]

Your right. The rest of us are in debt. The rest of us eat ramen for dinner. The rest of us have two pairs of shoes and 4 pairs of shorts. The rest of us were stuck in a shitty house in Norwood doing accounting homework on a Tuesday night while "male revenue" college basketball or football players were eating at a five star stake house in NYC. Sorry, if you don't find me dripping with sympathy. I am not AT ALL saying they don't deserve what they have. But lets get real about sympathy for college athletes and them possibly having to sit out for a transfer a year. I am very supportive of college athletes and am the first to criticize the NCAA, but the specific topic of this thread is insane.

You know how you could get a college scholarship? Be smarter. Be better at sports.

I didn't get one and I'm not crying about it.

[xu82]

Also, the "they knew the terms so they arent allowed to try and change it" argument is a terrible one. Just because someone knew the terms of an agreement and accepted them doesnt mean they arent ever allowed to want changes down the road. It also doesnt make the terms agreed to right.

I have zero problem with them challenging. One thing we know about life is things will change. Hopefully for the better. My point is it was good enough coming in that they accepted. If they can make it better and more fair, great!

[xubrew]

I think you would be surprised at how wrong you are about the bold part in particular. Most of those (save, perhaps, the plumbers) care very much who their interns are, because they end up being their surgeons, producers, and partners. And while the recruiting process may be different (by and large, the pool of applicants come to them), they spend a lot of time and money figuring out which ones to hire and they compete with a host of others for the top talent. Frankly even in that regard it's not all that different -- players often seek out the attention of schools, but it's the "top of the class" who get all the attention.

Fair enough. I'll take your word for it.

Getting back to the rule change, it's just that. A rule change. You can't say that the players knew the deal when they signed up, and then advocate a rule change that doesn't benefit the players and somehow think that's fair.

Secondly, I know Xavier has been effected by the graduation transfer rule twice. I believe that it is a VEEERRRY likely hypothetical that in at least one of those cases, they had no intention of bringing the player back. So, hypothetically speaking, say it's October, and you have a fourth year senior who redshirted, but can graduate, and you're doing your APR and scholarship forecasts, and a decision is made that this person will not be back.

It's one thing for coaches to be able to say you can't play here. It sucks, but I get it. Coaches would rather use the scholarship for a younger player, and maybe they don't like the guy and just don't want to deal with him for another year.

It's another to say that not only can you not play here, but you can't play anywhere. If you transfer and go to grad school, your clock will run out. That's what this rule change will allow them to do, and this would occur much more frequently than guys just wanting to go to a different school, applying to a grad program, being accepted into a grad program, and then just blowing it off.

[xu82]

For the record, I'm not in the "scholarship is payment enough" camp. My point was simply that basketball players aren't necessarily in a unique position in that regard. Interns in many industries are under-compensated compared to their profitability; medical interns being a perfect example (production assistants, admittedly, maybe not).

I am a free market kind of guy, for the most part. If they can no longer get medical interns, or production assistants, or accounting interns that will generally work itself out, or otherwise be resolved. If a scholarship is not enough maybe kids go to Europe or another league pops up. It's happened before. Lose the best kids to Europe and the landscape changes. Then you need to re-think to stay on top. The AFL, ABA and the USFL paid to attract top talent. And things changed. (Europe is obviously the most immediate option to arise if they want to do that.) Best deal will win.

[xu82]

I think you would be surprised at how wrong you are about the bold part in particular. Most of those (save, perhaps, the plumbers) care very much who their interns are, because they end up being their surgeons, producers, and partners. And while the recruiting process may be different (by and large, the pool of applicants come to them), they spend a lot of time and money figuring out which ones to hire and they compete with a host of others for the top talent. Frankly even in that regard it's not all that different -- players often seek out the attention of schools, but it's the "top of the class" who get all the attention.

You said that much better than I did. Very well done.

[xu82]

Speaking of recruiting, I read and watched The Firm. You could wind up at Kentucky! Going to the highest bidder is not always best...

[xu82]

Getting back to the rule change, it's just that. A rule change. You can't say that the players knew the deal when they signed up, and then advocate a rule change that doesn't benefit the players and somehow think that's fair.


As for rule changes, it's unfair to not grandfather in players who could be affected. I'm certainly with you there. As well as in general, I believe.... if they have graduated enough of the NCAA BS - good for you, you can get a year to play where you want without delay.

[xubrew]

For the record, I'm not in the "scholarship is payment enough" camp. My point was simply that basketball players aren't necessarily in a unique position in that regard. Interns in many industries are under-compensated compared to their profitability; medical interns being a perfect example (production assistants, admittedly, maybe not).

I just don't think college athletics is anything like an internship. I'm not sure if you're making that comparison, but it is a comparison people commonly make.

For starters, you can pay interns. Interns can also leave without having to wait a year to intern someplace else, even if they're undergraduate students who are on full or partial scholarship.

Secondly, internships offer specific training for a specific job or career path, and it's even considered work experience. Playing a sport in college really isn't like that because it doesn't offer training for a specific career, and doesn't really lead into a specific career. There aren't too many jobs (actually, none that I can think of) that consider being a college athlete actual work experience.

Also, being a college athlete is not something people apply for the way people apply for internships. They're recruited by coaches who badly and specifically want them. A coach doesn't just sit back, see who applies to be on his team, and pick his team out of a pool of applicants. Colleges actually have to go out and get players, and if they're willing to spend the time and energy on it that they do, then it must be because they are getting something selfish (I don't mean that in a derogatory way) out of it. I believe you when you say they care who their interns are, but I still don't think it's the same as coaches recruiting players.

Really, I just don't think there are any similarities whatsoever between interns and student athletes. In an athletic department, coaches are hoping to get the players they're recruiting, and applicants are hoping to get the internships they applied for. I think that's a little bit of a contrast.

[LA Muskie]

I just don't think college athletics is anything like an internship. I'm not sure if you're making that comparison, but it is a comparison people commonly make.

For starters, you can pay interns. Interns can also leave without having to wait a year to intern someplace else, even if they're undergraduate students who are on full or partial scholarship.

Secondly, internships offer specific training for a specific job or career path, and it's even considered work experience. Playing a sport in college really isn't like that because it doesn't offer training for a specific career, and doesn't really lead into a specific career. There aren't too many jobs (actually, none that I can think of) that consider being a college athlete actual work experience.

Also, being a college athlete is not something people apply for the way people apply for internships. They're recruited by coaches who badly and specifically want them. A coach doesn't just sit back, see who applies to be on his team, and pick his team out of a pool of applicants. Colleges actually have to go out and get players, and if they're willing to spend the time and energy on it that they do, then it must be because they are getting something selfish (I don't mean that in a derogatory way) out of it. I believe you when you say they care who their interns are, but I still don't think it's the same as coaches recruiting players.

Really, I just don't think there are any similarities whatsoever between interns and student athletes. In an athletic department, coaches are hoping to get the players they're recruiting, and applicants are hoping to get the internships they applied for. I think that's a little bit of a contrast.
Again, I think there are more similarities than you realize. I didn't apply for law firm jobs while in law school. They recruited me (yes, in fact, much like in "The Firm" but with far less attractive people involved). And playing college basketball is as much an "internship" for a pro basketball career as most other "traditional" internships -- you are working on perfecting on-the-job skills necessary to eventually make a living. I will grant you that they are not perfectly analogous, but I do think they are closer than you appreciate.

All of that said, I think the proposed rule change sucks for all the reasons you have articulated. Among other things, it is protectionist on the part of the coaches and schools to the detriment of the student-athletes. But that's nothing new; that motive drives a lot of the one-sided NCAA rules and procedures.

[NY44]

Do hospitals bend over backwards to recruit medical interns the way football and basketball coaches go after players?? Are movie studios spending tens of thousands of dollars to recruit production assistants??

The Big 4 Accounting firms do 100%. They go to colleges and ask for the best freshmen and sophomores and then they go all out trying to convince them to come to join their firm. I know PWC brings every intern for a training course/vacation in Florida and will parade their famous clients in front of them. The rewards aren't guaranteed, just like their performance isn't. The point of all of this being that it is an opportunity and you can achieve certain levels of success if you take advantage of it, just like in college sports. These interns will do a lot more work than the partners they work under and receive a low wage. Meanwhile, they are more than qualified to go work in private accounting and make more money now. They contribute significantly and may not even get a job, but they understand that getting "just" pay isn't relevant because they're lucky to be in the door and there are thousands of other kids willing to do what they do for even less money. It's the same thing in college basketball except there are a lot more kids willing to do what they do for less.

[Juice]

The Big 4 Accounting firms do 100%. They go to colleges and ask for the best freshmen and sophomores and then they go all out trying to convince them to come to join their firm. I know PWC brings every intern for a training course/vacation in Florida and will parade their famous clients in front of them. The rewards aren't guaranteed, just like their performance isn't. The point of all of this being that it is an opportunity and you can achieve certain levels of success if you take advantage of it, just like in college sports. These interns will do a lot more work than the partners they work under and receive a low wage. Meanwhile, they are more than qualified to go work in private accounting and make more money now. They contribute significantly and may not even get a job, but they understand that getting "just" pay isn't relevant because they're lucky to be in the door and there are thousands of other kids willing to do what they do for even less money. It's the same thing in college basketball except there are a lot more kids willing to do what they do for less.

The difference is that while interns do work and create some value for the firms; college football/basketball players create millions of dollar bowl payouts, multimillion dollar TV deals, millions from sold out stadiums and arenas, etc. The value they create is infinitely larger.

[throwbackmuskie]

They don't have to do class work after the first semester if they stay either.

So, in your mind, transferring after graduating and enrolling into a graduate program is a flawed system because they don't have to do any class work after the first semester, but staying some how isn't flawed even though they can just re-enroll as an undergrad, take classes that don't matter for a semester, and also not have to do any class work the second semester??

I can guarantee you that fifth year transfers who earn graduate degrees is infinitely higher than those who stayed for a second year and re-enrolled as an undergrad and ended up earning a second undergraduate degree. The latter will still be allowed. The former will not be. Yet, you're saying the former is some how more flawed?? That makes no sense.

Is it some how flawed that softball players, and soccer players, and swimmers, and tennis players can transfer right away without having to sit out?? Do you feel that those rules should be changed??

It is flawed, they can get a "masters" at the school the are currently at, they do not have to take undergrad if they stay at their original school. My point about transfering and not really doing work was to show/say thay are transfering to play, not for an education.

[throwbackmuskie]

The difference is that while interns do work and create some value for the firms; college football/basketball players create millions of dollar bowl payouts, multimillion dollar TV deals, millions from sold out stadiums and arenas, etc. The value they create is infinitely larger.

UMM those compaines/alumni donate millions of dollars to universities. Those students pay a ton of money in tuition. I am all for a full cost of tuition schooling scholarship. Paying athletes, no way it should or will happen.

[D-West & PO-Z]

UMM those compaines/alumni donate millions of dollars to universities. Those students pay a ton of money in tuition. I am all for a full cost of tuition schooling scholarship. Paying athletes, no way it should or will happen.

You completely missed his point. He wasn't talking about what the interns do for the school tuition wise or later in life in the form of donations he was talking about what they do for the firms they are interning for, for not a lot of money.

[throwbackmuskie]

You completely missed his point. He wasn't talking about what the interns do for the school tuition wise or later in life in the form of donations he was talking about what they do for the firms they are interning for, for not a lot of money.

You don't think those compines looking for the best interns don't donate money to the school?

[xubrew]

It is flawed, they can get a "masters" at the school the are currently at, they do not have to take undergrad if they stay at their original school. My point about transfering and not really doing work was to show/say thay are transfering to play, not for an education.

They don't have to take undergrad classes, but they're allowed to. The new rule would continue to allow them to do this, but not allow them to go to another school as a graduate student. And that's valuing education how??

The rule is that you have to be accepted into a master's program that your old school does not offer. They cannot get a master's degree at the school they're currently at if they degree they want isn't offered.

Players that don't transfer don't have to do any work either. No one in any sport who is in their last year of eligibility has to do any work their last semester in order to stay eligible. Changing the graduation transfer rule accomplishes nothing.

Again, you can't say they're valuing education if they're going to allow players to stay at their current school and re-enroll as an undergrad, but not let them transfer to another school as a graduate student. That's not valuing education.

[throwbackmuskie]

They don't have to take undergrad classes, but they're allowed to. The new rule would continue to allow them to do this, but not allow them to go to another school as a graduate student. And that's valuing education how??

The rule is that you have to be accepted into a master's program that your old school does not offer. They cannot get a master's degree at the school they're currently at if they degree they want isn't offered.

Players that don't transfer don't have to do any work either. No one in any sport who is in their last year of eligibility has to do any work their last semester in order to stay eligible. Changing the graduation transfer rule accomplishes nothing.

Again, you can't say they're valuing education if they're going to allow players to stay at their current school and re-enroll as an undergrad, but not let them transfer to another school as a graduate student. That's not valuing education.

No, by having them sit out a year, they will have to do a year’s worth of school work to stay eligible. It is a simple way of seeing that they really are transferring for an educational opportunity.

[xubrew]

No, by having them sit out a year, they will have to do a year’s worth of school work to stay eligible. It is a simple way of seeing that they really are transferring for an educational opportunity

You've said this before. By having to sit a year, they're five year clock runs out. And, yes, they could change that rule, but they won't because they don't give a shit about education. They want control over the players by limiting their options.

If they value education, then why don't they expand the clock to six years for someone who has finished undergrad and is now a grad student??

What if there were a rule that said players had to pay back the money if they didn't finish the degree?? There is not a rule like that. They're not going to implement a rule like that. To bring it up is pointless. Continuing to bring up letting them play after they've sat a year as a grad student is pointless as well.

[throwbackmuskie]

You've said this before. By having to sit a year, they're five year clock runs out. And, yes, they could change that rule, but they won't because they don't give a shit about education. They want control over the players by limiting their options.

If they value education, then why don't they expand the clock to six years for someone who has finished undergrad and is now a grad student??

They grant exceptions and 6th years all the time.

[xubrew]

They grant exceptions and 6th years all the time.

Name one exemption that wasn't a medical hardship waiver, a religious mission, or military service.

If they do it all the time, you should have no trouble finding an example.

[NY44]

The difference is that while interns do work and create some value for the firms; college football/basketball players create millions of dollar bowl payouts, multimillion dollar TV deals, millions from sold out stadiums and arenas, etc. The value they create is infinitely larger.

Some interns do contribute and some interns don't, just as in college athletics. It is mutually beneficial to both the firm and the intern for them to succeed, just like in college athletics. Once an intern proves he is capable of being a normal associate he leaves the intern program and makes real money, just like in college athletics.

[throwbackmuskie]

Name one exemption that wasn't a medical hardship waiver, a religious mission, or military service.

If they do it all the time, you should have no trouble finding an example.

Didn't say it was for academics did I? But the fact is they do grant waivers for 6th years, so saying they wouldn't do so in this case is a unknown. To make an assumption that wouldn't is just that, an assumption.

[xubrew]

Some interns do contribute and some interns don't, just as in college athletics. It is mutually beneficial to both the firm and the intern for them to succeed, just like in college athletics. Once an intern proves he is capable of being a normal associate he leaves the intern program and makes real money, just like in college athletics.

Other than the less than one-percent of college athletes who go pro, how does college athletics serve as a direct and specific career path, and work experience toward that career path, the way an internship does??

[xubrew]

Didn't say it was for academics did I? But the fact is they do grant waivers for 6th years, so saying they wouldn't do so in this case is a unknown. To make an assumption that wouldn't is just that, an assumption.

I'm not making an assumption, you are. And the assumption you're making is extremely far fetched. The proposed rule change makes no mention of extending the clock to a sixth year. I know for a fact that's not part of the plan.

[throwbackmuskie]

Other than the less than one-percent of college athletes who go pro, how does college athletics serve as a direct and specific career path the way an internship does??

You don't think a lot of kids do not get jobs based on the fact they played and such and such school?

[throwbackmuskie]

I'm not making an assumption, you are. And the assumption you're making is extremely far fetched. The proposed rule change makes no mention of extending the clock to a sixth year. I know for a fact that's not part of the plan.

You know for a fact? you are in the meetings and discussions? Please share how you know this to be a fact?

And I never assumed anything, i simply stated that the NCAA has granted 6th year waviers before, for the reasons you stated, but the FACT is they have granted a 6th year.

[xubrew]

You know for a fact? you are in the meetings and discussions? Please share how you know this to be a fact?

I work in athletics (I'll just leave it at that), and I know who's writing the proposed legislation, and I know exactly what it says. Just trust me on this. They have no intention of extending the clock an extra year.

[throwbackmuskie]

I work in athletics, and I know who's writing the proposed legislation, and I know exactly what it says. Just trust me on this. They have no intention of extending the clock an extra year.

You and juice must be good friends? Another messege board favorite, I work for so and so, or I do this or that so trust me. LOL

"Council members propose that student-athletes who cannot transfer and play immediately without a waiver be allowed a sixth year to complete their four years of eligibility, if they qualify. "

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/council-recommends-transfer-policy-change

[NY44]

Other than the less than one-percent of college athletes who go pro, how does college athletics serve as a direct and specific career path, and work experience toward that career path, the way an internship does??

Just like in an internship, those who don't succeed have gained valuable knowledge and experience (education) and are much better off. Just because many college athletes don't use their education, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. The reason you can make the claim it doesn't have value is because they have drastically devalued it by not taking advantage of it, and they deserve compensation for this?

EDIT: It's not the job of the NCAA to guarantee success and compensation. They provide a golden opportunity to do that. The rest is up to the player to seize. That's life.

And for the love of God, please stop using double question marks.

[xubrew]

Think about this.

A player graduates in four years, and has been with the program for that long, and has only one year left to play, and they're not going pro. How excited are most coaches to have a guy who is not a top level player (because if they were, they'd be looking to go pro) on their roster who only has one more year to develop?? Most would rather get rid of him, free up the scholarship, and use it on an incoming freshman with potential.

The reason the coaches want this rule in place is so they can not renew the scholarship for the last year, and not lose an APR point because they didn't renew it, and not have to worry about them going someplace else and being a contributing player for a competitor. That's the reason they want this rule. I know some of you don't believe it, but that is the fact of the matter. Everything else they say about it being better for the game, and lowering the transfer rate, and valuing education is complete nonsense. It really is. I wish more people could see that.

I'm not saying that's every case, but it is a lot of cases. The fact of the matter is that most (certainly not all) who transfer out and enroll in grad school do actually finish their degrees.

[xubrew]

And for the love of God, please stop using double question marks.

Why?? ;)

[GoMuskies]

Again, I think there are more similarities than you realize. I didn't apply for law firm jobs while in law school. They recruited me (yes, in fact, much like in "The Firm" but with far less attractive people involved). And playing college basketball is as much an "internship" for a pro basketball career as most other "traditional" internships -- you are working on perfecting on-the-job skills necessary to eventually make a living. I will grant you that they are not perfectly analogous, but I do think they are closer than you appreciate.


I don't think summer associates create a whole lot of value for their firms while getting drunk and peeing off duck boats and/or falling into the Hudson River.

[xubrew]

EDIT: It's not the job of the NCAA to guarantee success and compensation. They provide a golden opportunity to do that. They rest is up to the player to seize. That's life.

I agree with that, but I also think that if the schools and the NCAA are going to come out and say they value education, then they need to do a much better job of monitoring things to ensure their educational opportunities are not being limited.

And the point I was getting at is that internships are basically like apprenticeships. It's the starting point of a specific career path that offers specific training, work experience, and contacts. College athletics is not like that at all. You don't go out there, major in Biology, or Communication, or whatever, and count the fact that you were a baseball player as specific work experience and job training.

[GoMuskies]

And the point I was getting at is that internships are basically like apprenticeships. It's the starting point of a specific career path that offers specific training, work experience, and contacts. College athletics is not like that at all. You don't go out there, major in Biology, or Communication, or whatever, and count the fact that you were a baseball player as specific work experience and job training.

Fair, but "scholarship football player at Alabama" is better on the resume than "Interned at Ernst & Young".

[xubrew]

You and juice must be good friends? Another messege board favorite, I work for so and so, or I do this or that so trust me. LOL

"Council members propose that student-athletes who cannot transfer and play immediately without a waiver be allowed a sixth year to complete their four years of eligibility, if they qualify. "

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/council-recommends-transfer-policy-change

That's a different proposal. This deals with hardship waivers, not the graduation transfer rule.

This is the rule that currently allows players to play right away if they transfer for hardship reasons (IE sick family member and wants to be closer to home). The new proposal would be to make them sit a year and extend their clock to a sixth year rather than allowing them to play right away.

[throwbackmuskie]

That's a different proposal. This deals with hardship waivers, not the graduation transfer rule.

This is the rule that currently allows players to play right away if they transfer for hardship reasons (IE sick family member and wants to be closer to home). The new proposal would be to make them sit a year and extend their clock to a sixth year rather than allowing them to play right away.

But it shows again that a 6th year is a possibility.

"One potential change to the rule would be to grant transferring graduate students an extra year of eligibility and then force them to sit out a season before they use it."

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/29/sports/la-sp-0130-college-basketball-graduates-20140130

[NY44]

I agree with that, but I also think that if the schools and the NCAA are going to come out and say they value education, then they need to do a much better job of monitoring things to ensure their educational opportunities are not being limited.

I very much so agree. The NCAA's best way out of it's PR mess is to be more strict on academics. A key part of the Northwestern suit was that players had been instructed over and over that football took precedence over school and therefore they are employees, not students.

I also don't think upholding the sanctity of Masters degrees is a bad place to start.

[xubrew]

I very much so agree. The NCAA's best way out of it's PR mess is to be more strict on academics. A key part of the Northwestern suit was that players had been instructed over and over that football took precedence over school and therefore they are employees, not students.

I also don't think upholding the sanctity of Masters degrees is a bad place to start.

Answer this honestly. Do you really think the reason coaches and athletic directors favor this proposed rule change is so they can uphold the sanctity of a Master's degree??

[NY44]

Answer this honestly. Do you really think the reason coaches and athletic directors favor this proposed rule change is so they can uphold the sanctity of a Master's degree??

No, absolutely not, but that would be one side effect of it. I think they like it because it is an eligibility loop hole that they are closing.

[D-West & PO-Z]

You don't think those compines looking for the best interns don't donate money to the school?

That's not the point of the comparison at all. Has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. It's about what they do for the company or firm.

[throwbackmuskie]

That's not the point of the comparison at all. Has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. It's about what they do for the company or firm.

My point was the companies help the schools of the interns.

[muskienick]

I'm devaluing it because the schools themselves devalue it. They take them away from class during the tournament and for bowl games, they make them practice more than the rules allow and thus take them away from their studies, they pass them with substandard work (i.e. UNC and Michigan), etc. So if the education is so god damn valuable, why are the schools showing the "student-athletes" that it's not that important?

Edit: Let me also add that the schools also devalue the education by steering the student-athletes to bullshit classes simply to keep them eligible. Schools will also take any person who can play sports regardless of whether they are qualified to succeed and properly take advantage of their education. They'll run them through the school, pass them, give them a degree without truly educating them.

Also, the value of a degree devalues each day.

On the other hand, Juice, Xavier does provide Sister Rose and her staff to see to it that our athletes have everything they need to assist them in making progress toward their ultimate goal: a well-earned degree from a fine University. So there is a bit more to the picture than the one you are painting!

[xubrew]

But it shows again that a 6th year is a possibility.

"One potential change to the rule would be to grant transferring graduate students an extra year of eligibility and then force them to sit out a season before they use it."

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/29/sports/la-sp-0130-college-basketball-graduates-20140130

That article was written back in January. It has no knowledge whatsoever to the recent proposed rule change because it was written three months prior to the proposal. It serves as no indication at all that there will be a sixth year added to the clock.

Do you honestly think they're going to extend the five year clock to six years or are you just being argumentative? You can argue it's possible all you want. The MLB and NBA cold merge. Hey, it's possible. I think they made a really stupid movie about that.

I don't think they will because there is no language whatsoever in the proposed legislation that deals with extending the clock. If it passes as is, the clock will not be extended. But, I guess it's still possible they'll amend it at the last second.

[throwbackmuskie]

That article was written back in January. It has no knowledge whatsoever to the recent proposed rule change because it was written three months prior to the proposal. It serves as no indication at all that there will be a sixth year added to the clock.

Do you honestly think they're going to extend the five year clock to six years or are you just being argumentative? You can argue it's possible all you want. The MLB and NBA cold merge. Hey, it's possible. I think they made a really stupid movie about that.

I don't think they will because there is no language whatsoever in the proposed legislation that deals with extending the clock. If it passes as is, the clock will not be extended. But, I guess it's still possible they'll amend it at the last second.

You will see a 6th year added.

[xubrew]

You will see a 6th year added.

Well, good. I hope you're right. I'll feel a lot better about it if they do add a sixth year. That would actually be better for the player in some ways, because it ensures that they get two years paid for, and by then they'll likely be done with their Master's.

If it's not added, I'm blaming you.

[xu82]

I don't think summer associates create a whole lot of value for their firms while getting drunk and peeing off duck boats and/or falling into the Hudson River.

Hmmm? Sounds rather specific... like someone may have some amusing tales to tell... (about someone else, I'm sure).

[throwbackmuskie]

Also looking back at the original post, and reading through the link, unless I missed something I still see where graduated are exempt.

[throwbackmuskie]

Well, good. I hope you're right. I'll feel a lot better about it if they do add a sixth year. That would actually be better for the player in some ways, because it ensures that they get two years paid for, and by then they'll likely be done with their Master's.

If it's not added, I'm blaming you.

shouldn't you blame yourself since you work in athletics?

[xubrew]

shouldn't you blame yourself since you work in athletics?

Like most people who have any sort of job, I just do what I'm told.

[LA Muskie]

Well, good. I hope you're right. I'll feel a lot better about it if they do add a sixth year. That would actually be better for the player in some ways, because it ensures that they get two years paid for, and by then they'll likely be done with their Master's.

If it's not added, I'm blaming you.
I don't recall where I saw it, but I too saw an article suggesting that the NCAA would add a 6th year for graduate transfers if they have to sit out a year. I believe it may have been in an ESPN article about comments Emmert made during Final Four weekend about possible rules changes. In fact it may have been for anyone who wants to transfer but would lose their last year to the sit-out year.

But I'm still not sold -- I think allowing grads to play immediately is a great incentive to graduate and open up new options for the student athlete while simultaneously furthering their education -- but I agree the 6th year makes it somewhat more palatable.

[xubrew]

I don't recall where I saw it, but I too saw an article suggesting that the NCAA would add a 6th year for graduate transfers if they have to sit out a year. I believe it may have been in an ESPN article about comments Emmert made during Final Four weekend about possible rules changes. In fact it may have been for anyone who wants to transfer but would lose their last year to the sit-out year.

But I'm still not sold -- I think allowing grads to play immediately is a great incentive to graduate and open up new options for the student athlete while simultaneously furthering their education -- but I agree the 6th year makes it somewhat more palatable.

There are a ton of proposals, but much of it doesn't get far. There was one idea about a year ago that involved changing it to five seasons in six years instead of four seasons in five years so long as they were graduate students in that fifth season of play. That'd be interesting. That was across the board, not just for football and basketball.

I could live with it if they added a sixth year and made them sit out a year. Like you, I rather them be able to play immediately, but letting them play a fourth season is better than just letting their clock expire.

[xubrew]

Full disclosure, there are days of my life that can best be described as "nervous waiting." That's typically when I come on here and involve myself in some sort of impassioned argument. I'm not nearly as fanatical as I probably come across. I'm really just passing the time.

Having said that, I don't understand why people get so up in arms about the graduation transfer rule. I also don't understand why they like the idea that players in revenue sports have to sit out a year if they transfer, yet don't seem to care at all about FCS football, soccer, softball, swimming, golf, tennis, and most other sports not having to sit a year, even if they are on full scholarship. Hell, some are on partial scholarship, and transfer because they want a better scholarship, and they don't have to sit for a year, and no one cares.

I don't like the idea that a coach can decide to not renew a scholarship and because of that a player needs to go somewhere else and sit a year before they can play again. I get that players do transfer for selfish reasons, and I can see wanting to make them wait. But, the vast majority of the reason players transfer is because their current coaches force them out because they'd rather have someone else. Why make them sit a year??

[Juice]

On the other hand, Juice, Xavier does provide Sister Rose and her staff to see to it that our athletes have everything they need to assist them in making progress toward their ultimate goal: a well-earned degree from a fine University. So there is a bit more to the picture than the one you are painting!

I do think XU basketball is an exception, but I also think we would be naive in assuming that every XU basketball was truly educated. My point is to the overall state college athletics in the big sports (college basketball and football). UNC and Michigan, which are awesome schools, have shown that they simply pushed athletes through and kept them eligible while steering them to fake classes, easy classes, or by simply changing their grades.

[Juice]

Full disclosure, there are days of my life that can best be described as "nervous waiting." That's typically when I come on here and involve myself in some sort of impassioned argument. I'm not nearly as fanatical as I probably come across. I'm really just passing the time.

Having said that, I don't understand why people get so up in arms about the graduation transfer rule. I also don't understand why they like the idea that players in revenue sports have to sit out a year if they transfer, yet don't seem to care at all about FCS football, soccer, softball, swimming, golf, tennis, and most other sports not having to sit a year, even if they are on full scholarship. Hell, some are on partial scholarship, and transfer because they want a better scholarship, and they don't have to sit for a year, and no one cares.

I don't like the idea that a coach can decide to not renew a scholarship and because of that a player needs to go somewhere else and sit a year before they can play again. I get that players do transfer for selfish reasons, and I can see wanting to make them wait. But, the vast majority of the reason players transfer is because their current coaches force them out because they'd rather have someone else. Why make them sit a year??

Also, coaches leave for other schools without any repercussions, but again, when a student-athlete does then they must sit.

[LA Muskie]

Full disclosure, there are days of my life that can best be described as "nervous waiting." That's typically when I come on here and involve myself in some sort of impassioned argument. I'm not nearly as fanatical as I probably come across. I'm really just passing the time.

Having said that, I don't understand why people get so up in arms about the graduation transfer rule. I also don't understand why they like the idea that players in revenue sports have to sit out a year if they transfer, yet don't seem to care at all about FCS football, soccer, softball, swimming, golf, tennis, and most other sports not having to sit a year, even if they are on full scholarship. Hell, some are on partial scholarship, and transfer because they want a better scholarship, and they don't have to sit for a year, and no one cares.

I don't like the idea that a coach can decide to not renew a scholarship and because of that a player needs to go somewhere else and sit a year before they can play again. I get that players do transfer for selfish reasons, and I can see wanting to make them wait. But, the vast majority of the reason players transfer is because their current coaches force them out because they'd rather have someone else. Why make them sit a year??
I agree 100%. The rule should be reciprocal: Either make both coaches and players sit out a year, or let them both move freely.

[xubrew]

What does everyone think of this idea??

A lot of times you see coaches who plan to cut players, but do not tell them until the very end of classes in May or June, so they don't have time to find a place to transfer to. I can easily see how eliminating the rule where players have to sit a year making this worse, because coaches will try and prevent them from being able to play for a competitor the very next year.

What if the rules were like this??

-Players who announce their intention to transfer a month (or six weeks, or however long is deemed a fair amount of time) before the end of classes can play right away?? That way, the coaches still have time to recruit someone else.

-Players who transfer after that deadline can play right away, but ONLY if the team has signed more incoming freshmen than there are scholarships available?? My thinking on this is that any coach that over-signs clearly intends to cut someone, and that person should not have to sit out a year. So, if a coach oversigns, then anyone who transfers out after they oversign can play right away.

-Now, players who transfer out of the program after the deadline, and who's coaches have not oversigned, must sit out a year before they can play (or, to be technically correct, they must "complete a year of residency).

[GoMuskies]

Hmmm? Sounds rather specific... like someone may have some amusing tales to tell... (about someone else, I'm sure).

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/07/greatest-hits-collection-classic-summer-associate-scandal-of-the-day/

http://householdname.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-new-york-summer-associate-got.html

[LA Muskie]

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/07/greatest-hits-collection-classic-summer-associate-scandal-of-the-day/

http://householdname.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-new-york-summer-associate-got.html

Those stories are pretty tame, actually. (Although pissing off the boat is pretty idiotic even as these things go...)

[xu82]

Those stories are pretty tame, actually. (Although pissing off the boat is pretty idiotic even as these things go...)

Sounds like a terriffic way to impress potential employers. (Not all impressions are good.) Curious stuff...

[MHettel]

What does everyone think of this idea??

A lot of times you see coaches who plan to cut players, but do not tell them until the very end of classes in May or June, so they don't have time to find a place to transfer to.
.

You state this as a fact. I do not agree.

I dont think for one minute a coach decided that he's going to cut a player, then chooses not to let the player know until much later than necessary just to stick it to a kid. Why would he do that? If he's going to cut a kid then why would he be worried about where the kid winds up? I would WANT to play against the kids I cut since, well, the assumption is that they arent as good as the players I kept....

I do think it's possible that coaches look at players on their team and arrive at the conclusion that they would be fine without those guys, but wouldn't necessarily plan cut them unless the situation continues to develop. In other words, a coach has his returning squad and 4 incoming freshmen. Late in the school year a stud player from another program decides they want to transfer, and is strongly considering the school in question. I think there is no doubt that a coach would make a late decision to cut a returning player under those circumstances.

[xubrew]

You state this as a fact. I do not agree.

I dont think for one minute a coach decided that he's going to cut a player, then chooses not to let the player know until much later than necessary just to stick it to a kid.

People say politicians are liars, but I don't see why they would be.

I tried to come up with something that I believed was as naïve as what you just said, and that's the best I could do. Good coaches aren't always good people.

But, even if you don't believe that to be true, then you should have no problem with those being the transfer rules. Since no one is ever told they're being cut in an untimely manner, it won't have a negative impact.

EDIT: to be fair, it isn't ALWAYS about sticking it to a kid, but they do end up having it stuck to them without any thought or guilt on the part of the coach. Signing day ends May 21st. From there, there is initial eligibility to sort out. Then, they'll get around to cutting players that they wanted to cut and intended to cut all along, but didn't want to tell them because they wanted to make sure everything fell into place first.