Jump to content

Recruiting 2015


Recommended Posts

I think a player that earns his degree should have the freedom to decide where to play. The NCAA produces commercial after commercial about how it is all about scholar athletes. People who actually complete the scholar part of the equation should have the same freedom to change schools as the coaches who are paid by those schools.

What is smart about the NCAA deciding to exert additional control over athletes in today's environment?

It sounds like you advocate letting a player with a degree and a year of eligibility left to play wherever he wants, so why even bother enrolling in a Master's program? Just show up and hoop. Why attend sham classes that you will abandon once the second semester starts? Saves on scholarship expenses too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems to me, the rule should not apply to a kid who has already transferred once. If you want to transfer to a third school, sit out a year.

If a kid transferred because his coach was fired, he can't transfer after that without a penalty? He didn't fire the coach.

The kids are the least of our problems. The adults need to regulate their own behavior first. If a kid has to stay for x number of years because he committed to the school, how about mandating that athletic directors keep their coaches for at least x years because they committed to the coach? Or mandating that coaches have to sit out a year after their resignations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic actually reminds me of a question I've never really known the answer to. Let's say a kid graduates in 3.5 years. Does he have to take classes during the 2nd semester of his senior year? I mean I get that he could enroll in a bunch of 100 level classes and doesn't even have to pass, but is he actually required to take classes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic actually reminds me of a question I've never really known the answer to. Let's say a kid graduates in 3.5 years. Does he have to take classes during the 2nd semester of his senior year? I mean I get that he could enroll in a bunch of 100 level classes and doesn't even have to pass, but is he actually required to take classes?

You actually have to be a student - so yes. I suppose he could not go to those classes, but he'd have to be enrolled at some level. I think 9 hours, but could be wrong on the cut off for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic actually reminds me of a question I've never really known the answer to. Let's say a kid graduates in 3.5 years. Does he have to take classes during the 2nd semester of his senior year? I mean I get that he could enroll in a bunch of 100 level classes and doesn't even have to pass, but is he actually required to take classes?

Enrolled full time. Whether they go to class is up to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you advocate letting a player with a degree and a year of eligibility left to play wherever he wants, so why even bother enrolling in a Master's program? Just show up and hoop. Why attend sham classes that you will abandon once the second semester starts? Saves on scholarship expenses too.

If a kid has graduated he is going to go to class at his next stop. They aren't sham classes. The kid knows he isn't going to the NBA and if he was going to make good money in Europe he wouldn't stick around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a kid transferred because his coach was fired, he can't transfer after that without a penalty? He didn't fire the coach.

The kids are the least of our problems. The adults need to regulate their own behavior first. If a kid has to stay for x number of years because he committed to the school, how about mandating that athletic directors keep their coaches for at least x years because they committed to the coach? Or mandating that coaches have to sit out a year after their resignations?

I agree with your premise that the kids are surrounded by adult mercenaries. I would be in favor of adding punishments for coaches and ADs too.

I will have to think it through some more, but I think I would be in favor of players who have their coach fired be allowed to transfer without sitting out a year. However, I would NOT be in favor of a kid being allowed to transfer without sitting out a year if their coach is hired away to a different school. I have heard that idea suggested before, but it would lead to chaos. The school essentially would be punished twice for having a coach hired away - lose a coach and players. That would kill mid-majors.

Adults typically have more privileges than kids, so this is just par for the course. I know kids often pick their school based solely on the coach, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for them if their coach is no longer there. A kid needs to ask himself, could I be happy going to school even if that coach is not here... because for one reason or another, there is a pretty decent chance that a kid may have to endure a coaching change for one reason or another. There should be a lot of factors that go into picking a school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exert additional control? Until a few years ago this rule didn't exist so this isn't exactly the NCAA changing a 100 year old policy here. They created a rule that had good intentions (allow players to leave who legitimately can't get a desired degree) and like many good things it has been abused by those using it as a loophole.

From the schools perspective, the three most common ways a player ends up graduating and still having a year of eligibility:

- Player gets redshirted

- Player gets injured

- Player transfers from another school and has to sit out

In all three of these scenarios, the school is paying for a year of education and getting nothing in return. How are they rewarded for it? By having the player leave right before their most productive season.

Why should the kid be bound to a program after he graduates when that program has the right to bounce him any time they choose? This is supposed to be amateur athletics. The school's ultimate goal shouldn't be to get every of once of athletic return on investment as possible.

Should we force academic scholarship students to do a year of grad school at the same school? How about we force them to do a year of research work at the school, too? That we make sure we get the most value out of them as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should the kid be bound to a program after he graduates when that program has the right to bounce him any time they choose? This is supposed to be amateur athletics. The school's ultimate goal shouldn't be to get every of once of athletic return on investment as possible.

Should we force academic scholarship students to do a year of grad school at the same school? How about we force them to do a year of research work at the school, too? That we make sure we get the most value out of them as possible.

Nobody is "forcing" a kid to play basketball. Once he has graduated he can quit at anytime with no repercussions. Heck, he can quit at any time he wants as long as he's willing to pay for school himself. If the kid wants to squeeze some more education out of his scholarship then he certainly can...at the school that he's currently at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a kid graduates then let him do what he wants. If he wants to attend grad school at the school he graduates from then fine but if he wants to go someplace else then fine also. What do you think of the idea of if a coach leaves before his contract expires then he has to sit a year also. The school hiring him can pay for the year but at least this keeps this merry go around of coaches sneaking out in the dark of night leaving the kids behind. You would really want this coach for the hiring school to move forward with the hiring. This would create a situation where the contracts are for shorter periods and this works for both the coach and the school. It may increase pay but it would stop this situation where every mid major who has a good program and a good coach from having to beat off raiders every year. Heck even RM looked at possibly moving to SMU the last year he coached. What was he thinking given his health. As far as the kids go, I have no problem with them sitting out a year if they choose to transfer unless they graduated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is "forcing" a kid to play basketball. Once he has graduated he can quit at anytime with no repercussions. Heck, he can quit at any time he wants as long as he's willing to pay for school himself. If the kid wants to squeeze some more education out of his scholarship then he certainly can...at the school that he's currently at.

So you are basically for making the kid a basketball slave to the school he is currently at, even if he has graduated. I think the kid should be allowed to accept a scholarship at any other school. The rule was introduced the first time a decade ago. The schools all know the rule. The arguments against it are not new.

Here is a paper on it from 2008.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=mslj

Didn't you call Patton a creep for the whole Kowal situation a few years back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a kid has graduated he is going to go to class at his next stop. They aren't sham classes. The kid knows he isn't going to the NBA and if he was going to make good money in Europe he wouldn't stick around.

Do you have examples or is this just your opinion? I would hope your right, but I doubt it. Again, I would like to see the % of 5th years actually getting a Masters Degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm w/ Brian these NCAA rules/regulations are silly and overly restrict the student-athlete while the NCAA, coaches and some schools get rich. I'm not advocating paying but more freedom of self-determination for the individual player.

The argument that kids have less rights than adults is inaccurate. Last I checked adults are 18 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are basically for making the kid a basketball slave to the school he is currently at, even if he has graduated. I think the kid should be allowed to accept a scholarship at any other school. The rule was introduced the first time a decade ago. The schools all know the rule. The arguments against it are not new.

Here is a paper on it from 2008.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=mslj

Didn't you call Patton a creep for the whole Kowal situation a few years back?

The term "slave" is certainly a stretch, but you've used it twice now. On the one hand, we could just go with full equality and let all players transfer every year if they want to. It would lead to pure free agency every year but would put the kids more on par with the rights that the coaches have.

Or we could go to the way its always been,prior to the introduction of the rule a decade ago and mass use in the past five years, whereby kids get 5 years to complete 4 seasosn, and a transfer always has to sit a year. Instead, we've created a false goal-post of undergraduate graduation whereby it allows bigger schools to poach the best players from smaller programs and punishes the smaller programs for doing things like allowing kids to redshirt, taking them in as a transfer from another school, summer classes, etc.

What's next, do you want to allow kids to transfer without sitting out if they are merely "on pace" to graduate in 4 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic actually reminds me of a question I've never really known the answer to. Let's say a kid graduates in 3.5 years. Does he have to take classes during the 2nd semester of his senior year? I mean I get that he could enroll in a bunch of 100 level classes and doesn't even have to pass, but is he actually required to take classes?

13, that sounds to me like the silliest question I have yet heard. If you want out and have all requirements for your degree finished you can: a) graduate early (Dec or January early graduation at most schools), B) go on vacation and apply for graduation with your class in May or June, or c) take extra courses, it is not required that you take gut courses, it is up to you really. When I was young I was required to have 120 credits to graduate from college, instead I had many more credit hours and multiple majors when I graduated in 4 years. It all depends on what you want to do with your life.

Now, I keep on mentioning that a graduate degree is a desirable thing. If you have a year of eligibility to play basketball and get a scholarship at a good academic school to play basketball as a grad student, why not do it? In effect you have been given a free pass that pays 50% of your 2 year Masters degree. What can you do with a masters degree? As it turns out quite a lot more than what you can with a college degree. If you can also spend the year playing basketball much the better. Now, I am assuming that if you become a 5th year player you know you are not NBA material. So enjoy the play and the 50% ride on the cost of your masters degree. Make it count, an MBA will make a lot more money for you than an MA in literature will. By the way that is what I would recommend AM to do, get a basketball scholarship and enroll in an MBA.

Can you imagine AM in a high level corporate spot after getting an MBA? Woo Wee...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is "forcing" a kid to play basketball. Once he has graduated he can quit at anytime with no repercussions. Heck, he can quit at any time he wants as long as he's willing to pay for school himself. If the kid wants to squeeze some more education out of his scholarship then he certainly can...at the school that he's currently at.

I would have to believe that most 5th year Seniors actually would want to return to their same school so we are really only talking about programs which are projected to have a down year for the kid's 5th and final year. And again, we only really talking about kids who have sat out a year due to injury, redshirting or prior transfer. Most guys, of course, don't graduate in 3 years in that they don't come to school with college credit from high school (such as 1-8-1-8 or Advance Placement), they don't have time to study all summer long due to the need to work/make money for spending money and they aren't able to load up with 18 hour semesters in that they can barely do well in 15 hour semesters (some only 12 hours) b/c of the time consuming commitment and physical rigors of basketball training, practices, games as well as all the travel and missed classes. Reality is more like 4 to 5 years to graduate.

In short, I have no real problem with the current rule but worse things could be done than going back to the rule from 10 years ago. I do agree with Brian, though. The same reason being mentioned for "needing" a rule change were present and considered 10 years ago. Now, if Grandy Glaze not only been healthy but had just lead us to our 4th straight NCAA Tourney and were set to do as well or better next year, Grandy would want to stay and we would want him to stay. If a kid is not happy with his situation, whether he doesn't like the coach/players or whether he would be the only returning star for us next year, I would sure want him to return but could certainly understand and not oppose his wanting to win elsewhere than to stay and be part of a rebuild. Because he earned his degree, I would not have a problem saying he earned his free agency. Anything short of the degree, I would say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...