Solving the Transfer Question: Let Them Play

1. I fail to see how it's OK for coaches to leave 1 school for another whenever they want and for universities to get rid of coaches for other coaches whenever they want, but the athletes --upon whom the programs depend -- can't do that. Coaches can recruit players to universities and then leave (or be fired) and the players are stuck. This is right? It's OK for the coach or the University to break its commitment to the player but not OK for the player to break his commitment to the coach or university.

2. The fact that athletes in most sports do not have to give up a year of eligibility tells you everything you need to know about the purpose of this rule. This rule is not for the benefit of the player and has nothing to do with academics or the rule would apply to all sports. This is all about protecting coaches' and universities' power over the athletes.

3. Finally, Bilas's main point is that the NCAA has consistently taken the stand that these players are not employees. They are students. College athletics is not professional athletics. If they were professionals, there are a lot of companies with non-compete clauses that prevent employees from leaving 1 company and going to work immediately for a competitor, similar to the NCAA's transfer rule. But any non-athlete student can at any time leave 1 university for another without penalty. If these athletes are students and not employees, you can't deny them the same rights that any other student has. A university could, if they were employees, hold them to some sort of non-compete clause. But the NCAA insists that they're students, just like any other student. They can't have it both ways.

The current transfer rule is absolutely about maintaining a system where those in power (the universities and coaches) exert power over the athletes. That's it. It serves to prop 1 group up and keep the other group down -- like adults and children. This, despite the fact that college athletics depends almost exclusively on the athletes. Would we enjoy the competitions without the coaches or university presidents? Yep. We don't enjoy games bc of Lon Kruger, Coach K, or John Calipari. Would we enjoy them without the players...if just you and I & regular people were playing? No chance. College athletics depends on the players almost exclusively and the transfer rule is designed to maintain an order where coaches and university presidents lord over them.

I know 90% will disagree bc we're all used to the system that's in place. But I'll ask all of you to put yourselves in place of that athlete. How would you feel? Why would you feel that way? Now, put yourselves in the place of the university president. Why do you want to maintain the transfer rule? Is it because that's what's best for the person upon whom college athletics depends or is it because that's what's best for you (the university president), the Lord of the manor?
 
I think it's a bad idea. Coaches will have to be recruiting their own players constantly.
What's wrong with young people working their ways through adversity and growing vs running away when things get tough or things not handed to you on a silver platter?
Open transfer no different than the current culture created with aau basketball.

Re-read what you typed here. Young people need to figure out how to "work their way through adversity" but coaches who would "have to be recruiting their own players constantly" shouldn't have to work through adversity? Why not? We only want the unpaid athletes to have to deal with adversity but the coaches earning millions of dollars per year shouldn't have to? It's bizarre that we (not just you...most people) believe that these athletes get everything "handed to them on a silver platter" but the coaches who are paid millions of dollars, and are far less important, do not.

Remember, the game wouldn't exist without the players. College basketball would be fine, probably just as good as it is now, if coaches' salaries were capped at a couple hundred thousand dollars per year.
 
You make valid points, but I can't agree with all of them. Coaches are much more important than you give them credit for. We go to movies primarily because of the people who star in the them but without quality writers and directors (not to mention the more anonymous people behind the scenes), we'd have a bunch of crappy movies and it wouldn't much matter who starred in them.

As for the university presidents, I think you're making it far too personal. It's not about individual power, about them being the Lord of the Manor, as you put it, it's about maintaining some stability in an athletic system that, yes, the schools put a lot of money and resources into. They may be protecting the universities' investments but not, in the vast majority of cases, in the interest of personal power.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with 'letting them play' if they were allowed to transfer without penalty once only. If they have unlimited transfers without penalty you are going to end up with 'mercenaries' who might be at 4 schools in 4 years. That's not good for the players or the schools.

1. I don't have any idea whether it would be good for the players or not but why don't we let them decide what's best for them rather than trying to decide it for them? If I'm a regular college student and I want to transfer 3 times in 4 years, no school tells me I can't or which one I can or can't attend.

2. Don't you think that many schools would be less likely to recruit players they felt were "mercenaries" and likely to stay only 1 year? This would reduce the player's options, basically saying "if you want to transfer, fine, but you have to go to 1 of these less attractive programs." A lot of coaches wouldn't have a lot of tolerance for that.

Bottom line...let the market decide.
 
You make valid points, but I can't agree with all of them. Coaches are much more important than you give them credit for. We go to movies primarily because of the people who star in the them but without quality writers and directors (not to mention the more anonymous people behind the scenes), we'd have a bunch of crappy movies and it wouldn't much matter who starred in them.

As for the university presidents, I think you're making it far too personal. It's not about individual power, about them being the Lord of the Manor, as you put it, it's about maintaining some stability in an athletic system that, yes, the schools put a lot of money and resources into. They may be protecting the universities' investments but not, in the vast majority of cases, in the interest of personal power.

But the athletes are not just "the universities' investments." They're not a stock portfolio. They're humans and they're far and away the most important part of the system. If they were just stocks, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But they're people with rights who deserve to be treated with the respect they deserve.
 
But the athletes are not just "the universities' investments." They're not a stock portfolio. They're humans and they're far and away the most important part of the system. If they were just stocks, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But they're people with rights who deserve to be treated with the respect they deserve.

1. I agree that they should be allowed to transfer if the coach leaves or gets fired.

2. You act as if these athletes are mistreated. They choose to play that particular sport in college, they aren't forced to. They get tons of benefits playing that sport.
 
student athletes are free to transfer to another school just like non athletes.

You just have to sit out a year in football.

But you can still transfer and go to school...b/c that is what its all about right?

So... it's the same... but not really If they have to sit out a year, while non athletes don't? Ok


If a student chooses a school, and decides down the road it would be best for him for whatever reason to leave then he shouldn't be punished. Coaches don't sit out a season when they move around, but let's put limitations on these kids because we like the game the way it is... because that's what it's REALLY about right??

I'd like to hear one good reason they should have to sit out and the logic behind it besides your perceived notion that it would be detrimental to the game.
 
So... it's the same... but not really If they have to sit out a year, while non athletes don't? Ok

I'd like to hear one good reason they should have to sit out and the logic behind it besides your perceived notion that it would be detrimental to the game.

A straight-up comparison doesn't work. A regular student can transfer any time and take classes right away at their new school. So can a student-athlete. That's where the similarity ends.

Because the athlete has agreed to a different kind of extracurricular arrangement, one that benefits him and the school, and toward which the school has committed a great deal of money. He can get a college education, have it all paid for (which only a relatively few other students get to do) and also receive specialized training and experience in a field not directly related to his studies. If he works hard and has the requisite skills, he'll be able to enjoy a lucrative career, in the NBA or overseas, and even if those opportunities aren't available to him, he will very likely make contacts that benefit him down the road.

All this on top of a free college education in another field of study altogether.

A regular student who transfers has little to no negative impact on the department he leaves behind. That is simply not the case in athletics, and in the major sports, especially, so much money is invested, one can understand why there is a desire to protect that investment. The programs commits a great deal of time, energy and expense to the athlete, in addition to the free education he receives. The university is entitled to some protection.

The average student pays a lot of money for their schooling; the athlete pays nothing (speaking purely in financial terms) and a great deal of investment is made in him, in terms of facilities, equipment, coaches' salaries and on and on as well as the education he receives). And he's been given one of a precious few slots the school has to give, so if he leaves after a year, the school, which has already passed up other possible athletes who might have filled that slot, must now scramble to find an equally talented athlete to replace the departing one. Depending upon the timing of the departure, that might well be next to impossible.

A regular student simply cannot do similar harm to his academic department by transferring.

It's apple and oranges.
 
Last edited:
If the program is not as it was sold to the recruit, why should he/she be forced to remain? This is all about power over player movement, just as it was when they were trying to keep players from playing for Yale on Saturday and against Yale on Sunday.

It hasn't broken softball which has surged in popularity with absolute freedom of movement.
 
There is not nearly as much at stake, financially, with softball, nor, it seems likely, is there as much likelihood of underhanded, illicit behavior on the part of coaches and boosters.
 
There is not nearly as much at stake, financially, with softball, nor, it seems likely, is there as much likelihood of underhanded, illicit behavior on the part of coaches and boosters.

So. It is about money and control. But, the one who pays the price for this illegitimacy is the student: not the boosters, coaches, or administrators?

In an equally indefensible position, I guess we could control prices if we just imprisoned everyone and forced them to share equally in available supplies.
 
If the program is not as it was sold to the recruit, why should he/she be forced to remain? This is all about power over player movement, just as it was when they were trying to keep players from playing for Yale on Saturday and against Yale on Sunday.

It hasn't broken softball which has surged in popularity with absolute freedom of movement.

Are you sure there is absolute freedom of movement? Name a few within conference transfers - it is a little bit harder to come by.
 
A straight-up comparison doesn't work. A regular student can transfer any time and take classes right away at their new school. So can a student-athlete. That's where the similarity ends.

Because the athlete has agreed to a different kind of extracurricular arrangement, one that benefits him and the school, and toward which the school has committed a great deal of money. He can get a college education, have it all paid for (which only a relatively few other students get to do) and also receive specialized training and experience in a field not directly related to his studies. If he works hard and has the requisite skills, he'll be able to enjoy a lucrative career, in the NBA or overseas, and even if those opportunities aren't available to him, he will very likely make contacts that benefit him down the road.

All this on top of a free college education in another field of study altogether.

A regular student who transfers has little to no negative impact on the department he leaves behind. That is simply not the case in athletics, and in the major sports, especially, so much money is invested, one can understand why there is a desire to protect that investment. The programs commits a great deal of time, energy and expense to the athlete, in addition to the free education he receives. The university is entitled to some protection.

The average student pays a lot of money for their schooling; the athlete pays nothing (speaking purely in financial terms) and a great deal of investment is made in him, in terms of facilities, equipment, coaches' salaries and on and on as well as the education he receives). And he's been given one of a precious few slots the school has to give, so if he leaves after a year, the school, which has already passed up other possible athletes who might have filled that slot, must now scramble to find an equally talented athlete to replace the departing one. Depending upon the timing of the departure, that might well be next to impossible.

A regular student simply cannot do similar harm to his academic department by transferring.

It's apple and oranges.

This argument is always laughable to me. They receive a free education so we "own" them? Lots of students recieve a free education but for academics, around 20k a year I believe, far more than how many full ride bball scholarships are handed out yearly. Those students can jump from school to school still if they choose.

You try to spin it like the players are so blessed to be given a chance to fill out a roster spot and get a free education. The coaches and universities recruited those players, They want them there! They are the ones blessed when they land a recruit. When we landed Trae i didnt think to myself wow he's really lucky we wanted him lol. The reality is the athletes going to school for free have worked their butts off to get in an advantageous position, just like the students going for free on academic scholarship.

And again it's essentially the same argument, it hurts the game, it hurts the school, it hurts the coach, all multi million dollar entities.

The facilities used in athletics were built to benefit everyone that ever comes through it's not an investment in an individual player. If a kid wants to leave to be closer to his dying mother the university isn't losing some huge investment because he used their facilities for a year.
So aside from the free education which any non athlete can also receive what "great deal of money" has been invested in the kids future? The university might lose money when big players walk or leave but what big money was actually put into that player to begin with?


How anyone can justify limiting a kids choices and future over dollar signs and a game is truly beyond me.
 
There is not nearly as much at stake, financially, with softball, nor, it seems likely, is there as much likelihood of underhanded, illicit behavior on the part of coaches and boosters.


So the financial stake should dictate? The same financial stake that the players aren't getting close to their fair share of? Yeah, you need to stay away from financial impact in this one.
 
1. I fail to see how it's OK for coaches to leave 1 school for another whenever they want and for universities to get rid of coaches for other coaches whenever they want, but the athletes --upon whom the programs depend -- can't do that. Coaches can recruit players to universities and then leave (or be fired) and the players are stuck. This is right? It's OK for the coach or the University to break its commitment to the player but not OK for the player to break his commitment to the coach or university.

2. The fact that athletes in most sports do not have to give up a year of eligibility tells you everything you need to know about the purpose of this rule. This rule is not for the benefit of the player and has nothing to do with academics or the rule would apply to all sports. This is all about protecting coaches' and universities' power over the athletes.

3. Finally, Bilas's main point is that the NCAA has consistently taken the stand that these players are not employees. They are students. College athletics is not professional athletics. If they were professionals, there are a lot of companies with non-compete clauses that prevent employees from leaving 1 company and going to work immediately for a competitor, similar to the NCAA's transfer rule. But any non-athlete student can at any time leave 1 university for another without penalty. If these athletes are students and not employees, you can't deny them the same rights that any other student has. A university could, if they were employees, hold them to some sort of non-compete clause. But the NCAA insists that they're students, just like any other student. They can't have it both ways.

The current transfer rule is absolutely about maintaining a system where those in power (the universities and coaches) exert power over the athletes. That's it. It serves to prop 1 group up and keep the other group down -- like adults and children. This, despite the fact that college athletics depends almost exclusively on the athletes. Would we enjoy the competitions without the coaches or university presidents? Yep. We don't enjoy games bc of Lon Kruger, Coach K, or John Calipari. Would we enjoy them without the players...if just you and I & regular people were playing? No chance. College athletics depends on the players almost exclusively and the transfer rule is designed to maintain an order where coaches and university presidents lord over them.

I know 90% will disagree bc we're all used to the system that's in place. But I'll ask all of you to put yourselves in place of that athlete. How would you feel? Why would you feel that way? Now, put yourselves in the place of the university president. Why do you want to maintain the transfer rule? Is it because that's what's best for the person upon whom college athletics depends or is it because that's what's best for you (the university president), the Lord of the manor?

TLDR

But coaches are paid employees doing their job.

Athletes are students playing a game.

I'm sorry if you can't see the difference.

Nothing is stopping a student athlete from transferring and going to another school.

The rule is in place to protect the parity of college football.
 
This would reduce the player's options, basically saying "if you want to transfer, fine, but you have to go to 1 of these less attractive programs." A lot of coaches wouldn't have a lot of tolerance for that.

Bottom line...let the market decide.

So putting restrictions on a player is fine if it is your idea?

You can't have it both ways...
 
So... it's the same... but not really If they have to sit out a year, while non athletes don't? Ok


If a student chooses a school, and decides down the road it would be best for him for whatever reason to leave then he shouldn't be punished. Coaches don't sit out a season when they move around, but let's put limitations on these kids because we like the game the way it is... because that's what it's REALLY about right??

I'd like to hear one good reason they should have to sit out and the logic behind it besides your perceived notion that it would be detrimental to the game.

you aren't getting the point.
It is a choice that they go to play football for a university...but without the university, there wouldn't be college football. That is why they are students first, athletes second. This isnt pro football.

So again, they can transfer and not have to sit out of school...but to play football they do b/c it would be the death of what we love about collge football
 
Last edited:
So. It is about money and control. But, the one who pays the price for this illegitimacy is the student: not the boosters, coaches, or administrators?

In an equally indefensible position, I guess we could control prices if we just imprisoned everyone and forced them to share equally in available supplies.

wow

some people are just alive to be pissed of at "injustice" in this world
 
TLDR

But coaches are paid employees doing their job.

Athletes are students playing a game.

I'm sorry if you can't see the difference.

Nothing is stopping a student athlete from transferring and going to another school.

The rule is in place to protect the parity of college football.

I'm sorry you can't see the difference, even when pointing it out yourself. Unpaid athletes whom the game depends on are punished if they wish to leave, paid coaches are not.... and again, it's obvious you have no interest in the kids well being, only in preserving the game how you know it.
 
Back
Top