SIAP: TU's Jordan Clarkson Transferring

[Mr.B!!!]

There would be thousands of transfers if they didnt have to sit a year. Im about commitments, if you give someone your word, you should stay. Coaches and players..
I know things come up, deaths, coaching changes etc...

Just about every single coach that has ever gone from one job to another disagrees with your opinion.

 

[CoachTalk]

Just about every single coach that has ever gone from one job to another disagrees with your opinion.

Oh I know they do. Contracts mean nothing...

 

[seniorsooner]

I agree that if you can't stop players from transferring, you've done something wrong.

 

[Sawyer]

Do sports other than football/basketball make transfers sit out?

I thought it used to be that baseball players could transfer without penalty, but I don't know if that still is the case (or ever was).

 

[Soonerman]

I don't even think they should have to sit out a year. If they want to go play for a new school, why should that not be allowed? They arent paid athletes, and they sign ONE YEAR scholarship papers.

I agree that if you can't stop players from transferring, you've done something wrong.

That would do a lot more harm than good.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Do sports other than football/basketball make transfers sit out?

I thought it used to be that baseball players could transfer without penalty, but I don't know if that still is the case (or ever was).

football and basketball are pretty much the only sports that guys are on Full scholarship ...

that is one of the reasons for the rule

 

[campbest]

This is Ouhoops.com. we are talking about basketball.

Yet the NCAA wants to ensure that these individuals are students first, then athletes...they go to great lengths during the NCAA tournament during press conferences, broadcasts, commercials, etc to hammer this point home. So why should they be held to a different standard than someone who is on an academic scholarship? Why do they have handcuffs placed on their preference?

Oh I know why, these institutions are making millions off basically free labor. This rule was put in place to protect a school and coach, but the same governing body refuses to mirror those rights to the "student-athlete". The contract is for one year, if both sides are made whole and one party wants to leave what is the big deal? The terms of the deal have been executed, where is the liability on the "student-athletes" side?

A coach can leave his kids on a whim as long as the athletic department is compensated due to their agreement, but the kids get the short end of the stick. All because a university and athletic department care more about the money.

 

[MsProudSooner]

I agree that if you can't stop players from transferring, you've done something wrong.

Players choose to transfer for many different reasons. It doesn't always mean the coach did something wrong.

 

[campbest]

Bo Ryan just gave the worst interview ever on Mike & Mike. The egos of some of these college coaches is astounding.

 

[mattham4]

Looks like he's going to eventually end up at Texas, paying his way the first year.

 

[Prodigal]

This stuff backs all the way up to high schools where there is no big money for anyone, yet still kids want to move from one school to another because of issues with coaches/playing time/etc.

It is bad for everyone excpet the kid wanting to transfer, and many times it is bad for him also. Let them sit out a year and/or pay their own way for a year if needed. it is a good lesson in the long-term.

 

[Swans]

Yet the NCAA wants to ensure that these individuals are students first, then athletes...they go to great lengths during the NCAA tournament during press conferences, broadcasts, commercials, etc to hammer this point home. So why should they be held to a different standard than someone who is on an academic scholarship? Why do they have handcuffs placed on their preference?


Oh I know why, these institutions are making millions off basically free labor. This rule was put in place to protect a school and coach, but the same governing body refuses to mirror those rights to the "student-athlete". The contract is for one year, if both sides are made whole and one party wants to leave what is the big deal? The terms of the deal have been executed, where is the liability on the "student-athletes" side?


A coach can leave his kids on a whim as long as the athletic department if
compensated due to their agreement, but the kids get the short end of the stick. All because a university and athletic department care more about the
money.

Kentucky.......Kentucky.......Oh, and Kentucky?

 

[Sawyer]

Looks like he's going to eventually end up at Texas, paying his way the first year.

Per Jeff Goodman on Twitter, Clarkson is taking visits to Missouri, Illinois and probably three other schools.

Any truth to the idea that he'll pay his way the first year?

 

[DenverSooner]

This stuff backs all the way up to high schools where there is no big money for anyone, yet still kids want to move from one school to another because of issues with coaches/playing time/etc.

It is bad for everyone excpet the kid wanting to transfer, and many times it is bad for him also. Let them sit out a year and/or pay their own way for a year if needed. it is a good lesson in the long-term.

In high school the rules on transfers are designed to stop recruiting. I don't really understand the rules in college.

 

[BoulderSooner]

In high school the rules on transfers are designed to stop recruiting. I don't really understand the rules in college.

they are designed to stop the recuritment of other teams players ...

if there was no sit out rule ... duke UNC ect would have thier pick and would use other schools as thier "farm" system ...

now they did that anyway with seth curry ... but at least he had to sit out a year

 

[thebigabd]

they are designed to stop the recuritment of other teams players ...

if there was no sit out rule ... duke UNC ect would have thier pick and would use other schools as thier "farm" system ...

now they did that anyway with seth curry ... but at least he had to sit out a year

You can make a rule that says, "no contact with players if they are on the roster at another school. After that point, they have to contact you."

Problem solved.

 

[MsProudSooner]

You can make a rule that says, "no contact with players if they are on the roster at another school. After that point, they have to contact you."

Problem solved.

Yeah, that would work. :facepalm

 

[61sooner]

HS rules are joke. In St. Louis it was well known when city kids could go to suburban schools, the HS coaches would go recruiting. Then again in the City one school always won BB and another FB. Kids just for no reason got themselves their. The BB coach with lots of State titles went to jail.
In CA this year almost all of the Football Champs were private or church based schools. Don't you think those schools are recruiting or giving out scholarships.
I read on this board about tons of HSers in OK moving to different schools each year that have more high level programs.
There is no level playing field anymore on any level of sports.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Yet the NCAA wants to ensure that these individuals are students first, then athletes...they go to great lengths during the NCAA tournament during press conferences, broadcasts, commercials, etc to hammer this point home. So why should they be held to a different standard than someone who is on an academic scholarship? Why do they have handcuffs placed on their preference?

Oh I know why, these institutions are making millions off basically free labor. This rule was put in place to protect a school and coach, but the same governing body refuses to mirror those rights to the "student-athlete". The contract is for one year, if both sides are made whole and one party wants to leave what is the big deal? The terms of the deal have been executed, where is the liability on the "student-athletes" side?

A coach can leave his kids on a whim as long as the athletic department is compensated due to their agreement, but the kids get the short end of the stick. All because a university and athletic department care more about the money.

Based on the OU 2008-09 Oklahoma Athletics Strategic Plan the OU men's basketball program lost $1.58 million. The women's program lost $2.37 million. Those figures were based on Jeff Capel's salary which was a cool $1 million less than Lon Kruger's salary. For certain OU is not making millions.

Furthermore OU's season ticket sales have fallen as has general public attendance and national television appearances. It would not be unreasonable to assume that currently the OU men's basketball program could be losing $2.5-3.0 million with the additional cost for Kruger.

The last public report on public universities I saw in 2011 indicated only seven schools had operated in the black in each of the past 5 years. They were Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, OU, Texas, Georgia and I do not recall the seventh school. Private schools like Notre Dame and USC are probably also operating in the black.

No question universities are generating millions of dollars from athletics as OU's budget is now around $100 million but all of those moneys are being spent on the athletic programs to improve the environment for success of the athletes on the athletic field. Except for the couple of million the athletic department donates to the university academic fund annually.

This desire of society to patronize individuals allowing them to not be held accountable for their commitments without consequences has been a major part of the down fall cultural fiber of this country. Making it easier for the athlete to transfer is nothing more than additional patronage that is unnecessary.

For protection of the athlete I would support 4 year scholarships and an allowance similar to the laundry money allowance given to athletes several decades in the past. Today a stipend of $150-200 per month would be reasonable.

The problem with the stipend is most schools do not have the money to fund the allowance.

 

[campbest]

Based on the OU 2008-09 Oklahoma Athletics Strategic Plan the OU men's basketball program lost $1.58 million. The women's program lost $2.37 million. Those figures were based on Jeff Capel's salary which was a cool $1 million less than Lon Kruger's salary. For certain OU is not making millions.

Furthermore OU's season ticket sales have fallen as has general public attendance and national television appearances. It would not be unreasonable to assume that currently the OU men's basketball program could be losing $2.5-3.0 million with the additional cost for Kruger.

Agreed, however those expenditures are lumped in with football when looking at the greater P&L of the athletic department, which obviously creates a healthier financial profile. OU basketball may not be making millions, but the athletic department is.

Also, is Lon Kruger overpaid? I don't think we know the answer to that yet, but if that is the case sounds like a recruitment and hiring problem, not a student-athlete issue when it comes to budgets operating in the red.

The last public report on public universities I saw in 2011 indicated only seven schools had operated in the black in each of the past 5 years. They were Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, OU, Texas, Georgia and I do not recall the seventh school. Private schools like Notre Dame and USC are probably also operating in the black.

See above and below.

No question universities are generating millions of dollars from athletics as OU's budget is now around $100 million but all of those moneys are being spent on the athletic programs to improve the environment for success of the athletes on the athletic field. Except for the couple of million the athletic department donates to the university academic fund annually.

OU also incurs financial gains that are not direct to ticket sales, etc. Academic donations, admissions applications, national notoriety are just some of many variables that increase OU's financial profile that cannot be readily seen in a yearly financial statement. I am sure there is an outdated study somewhere, but the gains a university can incur from auxillary sources due to athletic performance are very high. If OU is winning national championships, OU becomes a more desireable school in other areas besides athletics.

This desire of society to patronize individuals allowing them to not be held accountable for their commitments without consequences has been a major part of the down fall cultural fiber of this country. Making it easier for the athlete to transfer is nothing more than additional patronage that is unnecessary.

This is what I don't get, you are asking an athlete to commit for four years but you're only going to offer a one year scholarship? Makes zero sense. Under the contract, both the university and athlete have fulfilled their responsibility, why should the athlete have a lingering liability? Their commitment is only for one year as the university can only offer a guarantee of one year worth of education. As long as he does his part as the "student" don't see the reason to block him from schools. I can buy the ban on no transfers between conference, but outside should be fair game. Some of these coaches are blocking kids to transfer to a school that they will play a non-confernce game two years later. Really? You're getting paid $2MM+ and you are afraid to play against a player who is leaving your program? What a joke.

For protection of the athlete I would support 4 year scholarships and an allowance similar to the laundry money allowance given to athletes several decades in the past. Today a stipend of $150-200 per month would be reasonable.

The problem with the stipend is most schools do not have the money to fund the allowance.

Agreed, but as you metioned a vast majority of institutions cannot commit to those terms, so continuing to hold the athlete to the same terms is hypocrisy at its finest.