chuckb
New member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,663
- Reaction score
- 0
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?
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?