Change sucks!

[Xuperman]

https://collegehoopstoday.com/index.php/rothstein-files/jay-wright-its-really-going-to-be-volatile-next-year-in-college-basketball/

This will not work out well for X. The no sit transfer rule, coupled with the NIL $$$ is a toxic cocktail for a program like us. For example, if Dwon Odom proves to be the expected "downhill assassin" and say Calipari wants a sure thing PG instead of gambling on his endless string of 5 Stars, it wouldn't take much to lure him away with guaranteed playing time on a National Championship contender and the smell of that NIL money that goes with it.

Simply put, the UKs of the world will easily be able to fill any need, at any position, simply based on far superior incentives. Unless there is a reasonable cap on the money, teams like X could not operate on a fair playing field and would surely lose top talent from time to time. Obviously, the sit out rule was the only thing keeping this craziness from happening. Along with the vast difference in revenue for jerseys and other merch generated by the Blue Bloods, all but ONE Big East School will likely suffer.........not a pleasant thought.

IMO these changes will make it almost impossible to win a NC.....Change Sucks!

[bleedXblue]

https://collegehoopstoday.com/index.php/rothstein-files/jay-wright-its-really-going-to-be-volatile-next-year-in-college-basketball/

This will not work out well for X. The no sit transfer rule, coupled with the NIL $$$ is a toxic cocktail for a program like us. For example, if Dwon Odom proves to be the expected "downhill assassin" and say Calipari wants a sure thing PG instead of gambling on his endless string of 5 Stars, it wouldn't take much to lure him away with guaranteed playing time on a National Championship contender and the smell of that NIL money that goes with it.

Simply put, the UKs of the world will easily be able to fill any need, at any position, simply based on far superior incentives. Unless there is a reasonable cap on the money, teams like X could not operate on a fair playing field and would surely lose top talent from time to time. Obviously, the sit out rule was the only thing keeping this craziness from happening. Along with the vast difference in revenue for jerseys and other merch generated by the Blue Bloods, all but ONE Big East School will likely suffer.........not a pleasant thought.

IMO these changes will make it almost impossible to win a NC.....Change Sucks!

Conversely we can grab a kid at a MAC school or A-10 school that wants an oppty at a higher level.......

For the record, I dont like this either......

[STL_XUfan]

In a vacuum I am all for this change. If every other college student in the country can transfer freely to another school they think is better for their career, why should basketball players be any different. If every other college student in the country can make money on the side freelancing in their area of study, why should basketball players be any different.

I am not as convinced that it will hurt X. If Player X is a stud, he is likely starting for us and has a chance to make a deep run into the tournament. If he changes scenery then there is a chance it doesn't work out and he rides the bench behind a slightly better player. Plus, these are college kids, the difference between him transferring or staying put could be where does his girlfriend go to school and if he likes the campus atmosphere.

[X-band '01]

In a vacuum I am all for this change. If every other college student in the country can transfer freely to another school they think is better for their career, why should basketball players be any different. If every other college student in the country can make money on the side freelancing in their area of study, why should basketball players be any different.

I am not as convinced that it will hurt X. If Player X is a stud, he is likely starting for us and has a chance to make a deep run into the tournament. If he changes scenery then there is a chance it doesn't work out and he rides the bench behind a slightly better player. Plus, these are college kids, the difference between him transferring or staying put could be where does his girlfriend go to school and if he likes the campus atmosphere.

Thank you. Basketball, baseball, football and hockey players are punished in comparison to students in other Olympic sports like volleyball, soccer, etc.

[XUGRAD80]

Thank you. Basketball, baseball, football and hockey players are punished in comparison to students in other Olympic sports like volleyball, soccer, etc.


Oh yeah they are “punished”. By what? The lack of scholarship money? The much lower travel budgets? The much lower equipment budgets? The lack of professional opportunities? Oh wait, that’s all the “Olympic” sports that have those problems.

[basket]

Conversely we can grab a kid at a MAC school or A-10 school that wants an oppty at a higher level.......

For the record, I dont like this either......


I guess it takes a fellow Missourian to agree with me even though Im from Cincy! STL I agree 100% with what you said!!

[basket]

Thank you. Basketball, baseball, football and hockey players are punished in comparison to students in other Olympic sports like volleyball, soccer, etc.

XBand agree with you as well!! Add Cross-Country, Track, Golf and the former Rifle team to that list!!

[XUGRAD80]

In a vacuum I am all for this change. If every other college student in the country can transfer freely to another school they think is better for their career, why should basketball players be any different. If every other college student in the country can make money on the side freelancing in their area of study, why should basketball players be any different.


The difference is that while the regular student is actually purchasing a service from the university, they aren’t being compensated by the university. Scholarship athletes are. So for them it’s no different than an employee of a regular company having to sign a non competitive agreement as a condition of their employment. Nothing is stopping a scholarship athlete from transferring and purchasing education services from another school, or of even being compensated by another university. They are only being stopped from competing for a certain length of time (1 year).

I’m in favor of allowing scholarship athletes to transfer freely 1X during their college career and to be immediately eligible. I’m also in favor of allowing non-scholarship athletes to transfer as often as they want and have immediate eligibility to compete.

[STL_XUfan]

The difference is that while the regular student is actually purchasing a service from the university, they aren’t being compensated by the university. Scholarship athletes are. So for them it’s no different than an employee of a regular company having to sign a non competitive agreement as a condition of their employment. Nothing is stopping a scholarship athlete from transferring and purchasing education services from another school, or of even being compensated by another university. They are only being stopped from competing for a certain length of time (1 year).

I’m in favor of allowing scholarship athletes to transfer freely 1X during their college career and to be immediately eligible. I’m also in favor of allowing non-scholarship athletes to transfer as often as they want and have immediate eligibility to compete.

There is the difference in our view points. I do not see the student athletes as employees of the University, I see them as students. As such, I am not for paying them for their services to the University (I am fine with them making money on their own name, image, and likeness). If we move to a system where they are compensated as professional athletes then I am ok with holding them to their "employment contract."

Just to suss out the differences between our two view points (which I think are both very valid), what is your opinion on a student who is at the University on a full scholarship for music or computer science. In your scenario these students are also not "purchasing a service" but instead are being compensated by the University. Should they be restricted in their ability to transfer to another school? If they do transfer should they be limited in their ability to perform on behalf of the university for a 1 year period after the transfer? Finally, should they be prohibited from taking on side gigs or freelance work outside of the University in which they are compensated?

Or is the difference that "revenue generating" sports are a wholly different animal, since they are generating revenue that the University relies on to support other aspects of the University mission.

[XUGRAD80]

Yes, the difference is in what they do and how it benefits the university.

Stop thinking of Xavier University (or any other college or university) as a “school”. Think of them as a business. The service they perform is educational in form, but it is still a service that they offer to their customers (the students). They use big time sports like basketball to attract more customers (students) and to raise the profile of the company to the general public. And it works. Xavier is much larger and well known today than it was 30 years ago. The people they are using to raise this profile (members of the basketball program) are paid....they get room, board, tuition, and a stipend to perform on the court. They sign a contract. They have free medical insurance. They get taken on trips. They have access to tutors free of charge. They have access to doctors and training facilities that other “students” don’t have.

Now the University (the business) says this is great, we have a basketball team that is very talented. We want to show them off. But against who? Are people going to pay to watch them practice or scrimmage against themselves? Will they pay money to watch them play other “students”? No, they won’t! So let’s get in touch with the other businesses in town, or out of town, that also have a basketball team, and see if we can play against each other! We can sell tickets, we can see if someone wants to pay us to broadcast it on TV and radio! If we win a lot of games, we will become famous and everyone will want to come to my business and pay for my services (classes). After they use my service enough (take enough classes) I’ll give them a piece of paper that proves they did (a transcript, a degree) And they can get a job.

But we don’t want our basketball players leaving us and going to the competition, do we? NO! So like many other businesses we will put a non-competitive stipulation in the contract, saying that they can’t work for another business at the same time they are working for us, and if they leave then they have to wait a year until they can go work for our competition. And we will get all of our competitors to put the same clause in the contracts they give their workers. To make sure this happens we will form a trade conglomerate (the NCAA), and agree to only compete against other members of the conglomerate. We will give the management of the trade conglomerate the power to make sure that all the members follow the rules we have all agreed to, including the non competitive agreements between our workers and ourselves.

However, for those workers that are not getting full compensation (non-scholarship athletes) we won’t enforce a non competitive stipulation. Most of the people in “secondary” sports fall into this category, as unlike basketball and football they don’t have rosters filled with players on scholarship.

I can guarantee none of the Xavier basketball players know what it’s like to travel to a 2-day tournament and have to spend the night sleeping in a locker room because there wasn’t enough money in the program budget to pay for hotel rooms. So don’t begin to tell me that the basketball players are “penalized” because their freedom of moment is less than some others. They are very well taken care of and compensated for their loss, and nobody is forcing them to sign the contract that carries that stipulation. Trouble is, they want it all their way. They want all of the perks that go with being a scholarship athlete, but they don’t want all of the responsibilities. While I have no problem with granting a player a 1X waiver to transfer and become immediately eligible, I also have no problem with telling them that they only get to do it ONE time. If a player can’t accept that, take your “talents” to another conglomerate.

[94GRAD]

Yes, the difference is in what they do and how it benefits the university.

Stop thinking of Xavier University (or any other college or university) as a “school”. Think of them as a business. The service they perform is educational in form, but it is still a service that they offer to their customers (the students). They use big time sports like basketball to attract more customers (students) and to raise the profile of the company to the general public. And it works. Xavier is much larger and well known today than it was 30 years ago. The people they are using to raise this profile (members of the basketball program) are paid....they get room, board, tuition, and a stipend to perform on the court. They sign a contract. They have free medical insurance. They get taken on trips. They have access to tutors free of charge. They have access to doctors and training facilities that other “students” don’t have.

Now the University (the business) says this is great, we have a basketball team that is very talented. We want to show them off. But against who? Are people going to pay to watch them practice or scrimmage against themselves? Will they pay money to watch them play other “students”? No, they won’t! So let’s get in touch with the other businesses in town, or out of town, that also have a basketball team, and see if we can play against each other! We can sell tickets, we can see if someone wants to pay us to broadcast it on TV and radio! If we win a lot of games, we will become famous and everyone will want to come to my business and pay for my services (classes). After they use my service enough (take enough classes) I’ll give them a piece of paper that proves they did (a transcript, a degree) And they can get a job.

But we don’t want our basketball players leaving us and going to the competition, do we? NO! So like many other businesses we will put a non-competitive stipulation in the contract, saying that they can’t work for another business at the same time they are working for us, and if they leave then they have to wait a year until they can go work for our competition. And we will get all of our competitors to put the same clause in the contracts they give their workers. To make sure this happens we will form a trade conglomerate (the NCAA), and agree to only compete against other members of the conglomerate. We will give the management of the trade conglomerate the power to make sure that all the members follow the rules we have all agreed to, including the non competitive agreements between our workers and ourselves.

However, for those workers that are not getting full compensation (non-scholarship athletes) we won’t enforce a non competitive stipulation. Most of the people in “secondary” sports fall into this category, as unlike basketball and football they don’t have rosters filled with players on scholarship.

I can guarantee none of the Xavier basketball players know what it’s like to travel to a 2-day tournament and have to spend the night sleeping in a locker room because there wasn’t enough money in the program budget to pay for hotel rooms. So don’t begin to tell me that the basketball players are “penalized” because their freedom of moment is less than some others. They are very well taken care of and compensated for their loss, and nobody is forcing them to sign the contract that carries that stipulation. Trouble is, they want it all their way. They want all of the perks that go with being a scholarship athlete, but they don’t want all of the responsibilities. While I have no problem with granting a player a 1X waiver to transfer and become immediately eligible, I also have no problem with telling them that they only get to do it ONE time. If a player can’t accept that, take your “talents” to another conglomerate.

Now do this for Ivy League and Music/Performance schools(who don't use sports to attract students(customers)) where they don't give athletic scholarships but give scholastic and performance full rides. When these students what to transfer, they are allowed with no repercussions.

[XUGRAD80]

Yes, and not every company has non-competitive agreements in the employment contracts, and even companies that do, don’t have it for every employee.

They are usually reserved for employees in key positions. Employees who if they left would adversely effect the performance of the firm and/or who if they went to a competitor would change things even more.

They are very common in many businesses. Take banking for example. The teller at the front desk is free to move from bank to bank. The executives working in the home office, not so much.

Are the basketball players at Xavier University (or any other major school) key parts of the overall performance of their department? Of course they are. Their performance on the court can have major implications for the success or failure of the highest profile (to many people) department in the university. It can literally mean millions of dollars in revenue to the company (the university) if they succeed or not on the court. What they do in the classroom, as long as they somehow stay eligible for the court, doesn’t effect the university in such a grand fashion. Neither does the success on or off the court of a music major or any other student....even at an Ivy League school that’s true.

As a business owner or manager, the last thing I would want to have happen is to have my best employee leave and go to work for my competitor down the street. Not only would it mean that my business would be less competitive, it means that my competitor gets better. Not good for the bottom line, right?

So, why would a college coach, or the administration of the athletic department or of the school as a whole, want to see the same thing happen with a star player of a part of the university that is responsible for bringing in millions of dollars in revenue? A soccer player, a music major, a performing arts major, even a math professor....none of them are going to effect the bottom line the same way that a star athlete in basketball or football will. That’s why the athletes in some sports have the stipulation, and others do not. It’s just business.

[Final4]

I'm old school.......what's wrong with the way it's been? You transfer, you sit out a year. And the value of your scholarship is the only (for the most part) compensation you receive. They're going to end up fucking up the whole thing.

[xubrew]

The difference is that while the regular student is actually purchasing a service from the university, they aren’t being compensated by the university. Scholarship athletes are. So for them it’s no different than an employee of a regular company having to sign a non competitive agreement as a condition of their employment. Nothing is stopping a scholarship athlete from transferring and purchasing education services from another school, or of even being compensated by another university. They are only being stopped from competing for a certain length of time (1 year).

I’m in favor of allowing scholarship athletes to transfer freely 1X during their college career and to be immediately eligible. I’m also in favor of allowing non-scholarship athletes to transfer as often as they want and have immediate eligibility to compete.

What is a "regular student"? Lots of students have scholarships, and/or go to school for free, and/or get paid by the school. If your parents work at the school it's free, if you're on a scholarship, it's free. If you do something like work for the school newspaper, or are an RA, or work in student government, or do literally dozens of things you can get paid. I don't think anyone would look at someone in that situation and decide that they aren't "regular students." A lot of my undergrad was paid for. In grad school, everything was paid for (tuition, housing, meal plan, books, etc) and I got paid on top of that. I was the furthest thing from an athlete. The "job" that I was getting paid for was nowhere close to being as demanding as being a college athlete would have been, nor did it do anything to generate any revenue or exposure at all for the university. I knew a lot of people who got the same deal. Were none of us "regular" students?? To me it seems like it's the other way around. Regular students can get as get as much scholarship money as they're able to and do things where they can make as much money as they're able to, and then transfer to another school without any problems if it makes financial sense to do so, whereas athletes really can't.

Also, no one in college athletics in college athletics signs a non-competitive agreement. I don't think anyone who does any sort of work for any university in the country has to sign a non-competitive agreement. To say that athletes should have to is wildly inconsistent with the rest of the norms. But, that's actually not the reason this rule will go away. It was originally put in place for the sports that were deemed to be academically at risk. Players would need a year to assimilate academically at a new institution before being allowed to play. Decades of data have proven that to be wrong. Sitting a year does nothing to increase grad rates or academic performance. That's why they will almost assuredly get rid of it at the end of this year.

[paulxu]

And we will get all of our competitors to put the same clause in the contracts they give their workers. To make sure this happens we will form a trade conglomerate (the NCAA), and agree to only compete against other members of the conglomerate. We will give the management of the trade conglomerate the power to make sure that all the members follow the rules we have all agreed to, including the non competitive agreements between our workers and ourselves.


I think your trade conglomerate has decided to change the rule.

[STL_XUfan]

Yes, the difference is in what they do and how it benefits the university.

The people they are using to raise this profile (members of the basketball program) are paid....they get room, board, tuition, and a stipend to perform on the court. They sign a contract. They have free medical insurance. They get taken on trips. They have access to tutors free of charge. They have access to doctors and training facilities that other “students” don’t have.



Thank you for the response.

It appears that based on this quoted excerpt you believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you think that the players are being paid enough and should not be paid in excess of the scholarship.

If that is the case, then this is not like a business at all in that the prices for all employees are set as the same across the industry. If it was truly a business why can the top talent not negotiate a better deal for themself? If two business are both vying for the same employee, why can that employee not use his leverage to negotiate the best possible terms. Maybe that is in better pay, not being beholden to a non-compete agreement, or increased fringe benefits. These are all terms that would be negotiated with any potential hire in the business world, and a business has to make a decision on where to bend and where not to bend (as does the candidate). So if Xavier wanted to "hire" the number 1 recruit in the 2021, could Steele make an offer to him that did not include a "non-compete/transfer sit out" clause?

I am open to the idea of treating players as employees rather than traditional student athletes, but to do that, I believe you need to pay them like they are employees, including being allowed to offer more money to attract better employees.

I am also open to idea of treating players as traditional student athletes, but if that is true then they should not be paid by the university outside of their scholarship.

What I am not open to is a hybrid of the above where they are employees who have no negotiating power, or amateur student athletes that are being paid like they are a professional.

[Dblue]

Regardless of employment or not argument. I think the mid major and low major schools will take a hit while the second tier (non-blue bloods) high majors will benefit the most.

The schools who already recruit top 20 talent year in and year out aren't waiting for the season to finish and active players to enter the portal to gain a commitment from a top recruit. Meanwhile, there is a bigger "market" in that 2nd tier of teams where players like Stanley can leave a lower major school and have decent playing time and exposure.

I'm not saying that Kentucky, Duke, or any other blueblood won't occasionally take a transfer. I also won't be surprised to see more players test the waters in the portal. I just don't see programs like Xavier being decimated year in and year out.

[bleedXblue]

There will be stipulations on transfers for sure. Like you cant transfer within conference. One single transfer allowed within the year sit out period etc etc. You transfer a second time, you sit out a year.

I don't like it, but its going to happen......

[xukeith]

In a vacuum I am all for this change. If every other college student in the country can transfer freely to another school they think is better for their career, why should basketball players be any different. If every other college student in the country can make money on the side freelancing in their area of study, why should basketball players be any different.

I am not as convinced that it will hurt X. If Player X is a stud, he is likely starting for us and has a chance to make a deep run into the tournament. If he changes scenery then there is a chance it doesn't work out and he rides the bench behind a slightly better player. Plus, these are college kids, the difference between him transferring or staying put could be where does his girlfriend go to school and if he likes the campus atmosphere.
[/I]
In the past 5 years, 10 years and 20 years, how frequent is a "deep run" ?

[Jumpin_Jamal_Forever]

Yes, and not every company has non-competitive agreements in the employment contracts, and even companies that do, don’t have it for every employee.

They are usually reserved for employees in key positions. Employees who if they left would adversely effect the performance of the firm and/or who if they went to a competitor would change things even more.

They are very common in many businesses. Take banking for example. The teller at the front desk is free to move from bank to bank. The executives working in the home office, not so much.

Are the basketball players at Xavier University (or any other major school) key parts of the overall performance of their department? Of course they are. Their performance on the court can have major implications for the success or failure of the highest profile (to many people) department in the university. It can literally mean millions of dollars in revenue to the company (the university) if they succeed or not on the court. What they do in the classroom, as long as they somehow stay eligible for the court, doesn’t effect the university in such a grand fashion. Neither does the success on or off the court of a music major or any other student....even at an Ivy League school that’s true.

As a business owner or manager, the last thing I would want to have happen is to have my best employee leave and go to work for my competitor down the street. Not only would it mean that my business would be less competitive, it means that my competitor gets better. Not good for the bottom line, right?

So, why would a college coach, or the administration of the athletic department or of the school as a whole, want to see the same thing happen with a star player of a part of the university that is responsible for bringing in millions of dollars in revenue? A soccer player, a music major, a performing arts major, even a math professor....none of them are going to effect the bottom line the same way that a star athlete in basketball or football will. That’s why the athletes in some sports have the stipulation, and others do not. It’s just business.

XUGRAD80-You clearly have thought this through. I think your comparison of XU hoops scholarship athletes with key private sector employees (and the use of non-compete agreements that bind private sector employees to their responsibilities) is generally an effective argument.

But, you omit a key element part of private sector relationships but not existent (to any significant degree) in the relationship between Xavier and its scholarship basketball players----the relative differences in the "compensation".

You correctly point out that many high level (or critical) private sector employees often receive some extra-ordinary incentive for agreeing to sign a non-compete. That incentive is usually financial in nature and the one with which most of us are most familiar is the stock option. An employee signing the non-compete is usually incented to so do because they have been awarded an optionable instrument which allows them to benefit (outside of their job related compensation). For employees awarded stock options, if the stock price of the issuing organization rises, the employee is eligible for a direct financial benefit. That benefit is outside of their normal and ongoing compensation and is meant to reflect their special importance to the organization. And, most (perhaps not all) key employees (those who receive benefits valuable enough to warrant the execution of a non-compete) are higher compensated individuals. They provide "special" benefits to their employer in the same manner scholarship men's basketball players provide 'special' benefit to Xavier. So far, so good.

Where your argument weakens (in my mind) is your description of the basketball players "compensation"----the quid pro quo, if you will, for requiring the one year sit out in event of transfer. Getting to "go on trips" simply isn't compensation which compares, in any practical way, to a healthy six figure salary, lucrative incentive compensation plan, a seven figure employer paid life insurance payout, private club membership, etc. And that is where I think your argument weakens. The benefit Xavier receives from fielding a championship level basketball team (or from fielding a team which has the opportunity to become championship level) is far greater than the benefit received by any particular individual on scholarship. That is not to say that a free Jesuit education, in addition to the other perks you mentioned, aren't benefits. They most assuredly are---even if the recipients don't yet realize how valuable they truly are (as most eighteen year-olds do not).

But, there is a substantial difference in magnitude and in value. And that is why, I think, the current rule is being changed so quickly after having stood for so long. The potential value received by the university far far exceeds that received by the individual scholarship athlete.

[XUGRAD80]

I think your trade conglomerate has decided to change the rule.

Yes they appear to be going that way. However, I don’t think it’s something that the majority of coaches across the country are in favor of. Unfortunately for them, they work for people that feel it’s either give the players this,,or they end up in court and have all their ability to control player movement taken away.