Don't play that sport then. They know what they are getting in to when they sign up. If you don't want to commit, then walk on.What about the fact that athletes in certain sports are held to different transfer rules than others?
The transfer rule has already been litigated in the courts and the NCAA won.
What about the fact that athletes in certain sports are held to different transfer rules than others?
I fail to see how a sit out year is that bad of a penalty. Seems like limiting transferring to once due to the 5 to play 4 rules is a bigger limit on student athletes' ability to pick where they play/go to school.
The transfer rule has already been litigated in the courts and the NCAA won.
Yes, but the NCAA is trying to have it both ways. They are insisting that for the purposes of compensation, these players in moneymaking sports are no different than athletes in non-revenue sports. But, when it comes to transferring, suddenly they're different because... as you said, money. That's the legal rub. They're open to attack there. The NCAA sees it, and they know that it's only a matter of time before their hand gets forced. That's why this topic is being discussed, and why they will change the rules (if in fact they do).I feel like you're wanting someone to lead you into this topic, so I'll go ahead and do it. The answer is obviously money. Basketball and football generate the revenue for the athletic departments that keep all of their sports running. Universities are protecting their primary revenue sources.
Is it fair to treat student athletes of different sports differently? No, but the world doesn't treat all athletes and sports the same either. This isn't a situation that universities created. A football player has the potential to make a significantly larger amount of money than a band participant. The university didn't invest hundreds or thousands of dollars recruiting a trumpet player or high jumper. The money flow doesn't exist for the university or the student.
The financial investment, risk and reward a university incurs to recruit and retain an athlete in basketball and football is significantly higher. In kind, the potential earnings by these athletes is also significantly higher. Eliminating any potential deterrent from an athlete transferring will shift even more financial risk to the university. A higher risk investment favors those that can absorb a loss. The same holds true in college athletics. The haves will benefit over the have-nots. This is a charade to say this is being put in place to benefit the student athlete, IMO.
The current system is certainly flawed in a lot of aspects, but this change clearly hurts some universities more than others.
Do you really want to live in a world where Bill Self and Roy Williams are secretly recruiting people who are already on your roster and there is no disincentive in place whatsoever to even make kids give it a second thought?
As others have said, there are scholarship limits. In basketball especially, players might want to transfer up to the Duke's and UNC's of the world but that means someone that would have been in that spot is going to be playing elsewhere.
For college basketball as a whole, the "free agency" period is another talking point and keeps their sport relevant into the summer.
The hard part for coaches is going to be having an entire roster eligible throughout the year. Right now, it is pretty easy to keep most of your players relatively happy with PT if two or three of them are sitting out due to transfer rules.
Not gonna read six pages of thread, so I doubt I'm the first to voice this, but anyone can transfer anytime they like. They just can't play games for a year. The rule is just as much for the teammates of a transferee as it is for the schools. Imagine if your teammates kept bailing on you after one good year. Imagine if a coach could bring in any player across the country to replace you with no penalty. This prevents a lot of chaos.
I do think there should be more exceptions, for coaching changes and such.
Yes, but the NCAA is trying to have it both ways. They are insisting that for the purposes of compensation, these players in moneymaking sports are no different than athletes in non-revenue sports. But, when it comes to transferring, suddenly they're different because... as you said, money. That's the legal rub. They're open to attack there. The NCAA sees it, and they know that it's only a matter of time before their hand gets forced. That's why this topic is being discussed, and why they will change the rules (if in fact they do).
When these kids sign their scholarship agreements, aren't the transfer terms spelled out very clearly? You bring up the inevitable legal dilemma, but carefully written signed contracts are pretty solid in court, arent they? It may not be ideal, but if you agree to it and sign off on it, wouldn't that make it a legally binding document?
I'm genuinely asking this question. I have no first hand experience with scholarship agreements, and my knowledge of law hovers somewhere between LA Law and Law and Order.