This puzzles me

[Dave19642006]

How come when a player changes his school he has to stay out a year-but when a coach breaks his contract he is free to go? I believe you honor your contract. If something better comes up you need to still fulfill your contract. Maybe I just don't understand this situation. This has been bothering for a number of years. Any explaination on this would be great

[isuarch80]

There is no explanation... it's a double standard. The topic has been brought up for years by fans, media, etc. I understand you're committing to a "school", but really, it's the coaches in the parents and kids' home that does the trick. I think there could be some middle ground:
If the coach leaves his position before his contract has expired, the student-athlete has the following options:
1. Stay at the school, continue eligibility, play.
2. Transfer to a different school but:
a. If he goes to the same school that his former coach goes to,
he does sit out a year.
b. If he stays within the same conference, he must sit out one
semester (most likely fall)
c. Anywhere else, he's eligible immediately.

These are all rough guidelines. I'd throw in there that the athlete must be academically eligible and not have any incompletes in classes upon transfering to be awarded all options above.

There's my two cents.

[jonesy429]

I dont know, i guess for me something should happen to the coach rather than the player. If said player commits to a coach and that coach bails why should you punish the kid. I think that it should come back to where the coach is restricted somehow or in someway. I know coaches dont really have eligibility but you are right it is a big double standard and the coaches pretty much have their pick of the lot when it comes to when and where they want to coach.

[ColoradoClone]

What's more confusing to me is that when a school recieves penalties from the NCAA as a result of the coaches actions, those penalties stay with the school rather than following the coach.

Cough *Kelvin Sampson* Cough Cough.

[markshir]

When you leave your job for a better opportunity should you be punished?

I understand that these coaches have contracts, but there are ways for the schools to protect themselves in contracts. If those protections aren't working, then it is the fault of the lawyers/legal system, not the coaches.

That said, I think you will see that some coaches that continually bounce around struggle to maintain a high level of success. There are noted exceptions, but many of the most successful coaches are well-entrenched at their schools. I think to get the kind of kids that you really need to build a program (not just the Durants, but the 4 year players that can develop over time), you need to be able to sell consistency and personal relationships. Just like I'm sure Beasley didn't pick his school based on how long his coach was sticking around, I was equally sure that KSU was never a real threat for a tournament run.

Bill Self turning down OSU is a great recruiting pitch in my mind.. If he was ever going to leave KU, that would have been it. Whatever your thoughts about KU or Self, the fact that he can go into a recruit's home and they know that Self isn't going to bail on them for their entire college career has to a very powerful point to make.

Someone like Tim Floyd, who I think is every bit the coach that Bill Self is, would have a much harder time pulling that off.

[J-Diggy]

Actually Kelvin Sampson did have some penalties follow him. He had his recruiting privileges severely restricted. Of course, that meant nothing to him....

What I don't like is how the rules are not uniform for everyone. Christopherson transfers, no question he sits out a year. Tyler Smith goes from Iowa to Tennessee last year - plays right away. I know there were extenuating circumstances in Smith's case but it still doesn't seem like it is in the best interest of all the other athletes to make an exception for some and not for others.