This is a good and fair rule. There are enough restrictions on athletes as it stands. If they wish to leave and feel they can better themselves (just like the coaching staff) so be it. I just don’t believe this will lead to some chaotic movement from team to team by players or a dramatic shift from one conference to another.
1 Like
From my quick Googling, the 4 year scholarships are a P5 thing, and other conferences can do them, but are not required to. Even if a student-athlete (SA) gets a four year scholarship, they can be rescinded if the SA “Violates a university policy or rule which is not related to athletic conditions or ability (such as a university policy on class attendance, or an athletic department policy regarding proper conduct on a team trip).” In other words, almost every SA could be kicked if the coach wanted to.
The National Letters of Intent website explains that it covers 657 institutions which voluntarily agree to use its program, and we are one of them. The NLI is defined as follows:
The NLI is a binding agreement between a prospective student-athlete and an NLI member institution.
- A prospective student-athlete agrees to attend the institution full-time for one academic year (two semesters or three quarters).
- The institution agrees to provide athletics financial aid for one academic year (two semesters or three quarters).
http://www.nationalletter.org/aboutTheNli/index.html
I will stick to my position that if student-athlete rights expand, ADs and Coaches will look for ways to balance the equation. There is really big money on the sports administration side that isn’t going to let a bunch of 19 year olds stick it to them.
That was true at one point (P5 only), but others have as well (see, for example, the BigEast). As I said, though, you have to fulfill the obligations of your scholarship. That’s not as flimsy as you might think it is (unless you’re UNC-CHeat). If an SA is eligible and showing up and they try to pull his schollie over nothing, then he can easily rely on disparate treatment as a basis for appeal on not sitting out, etc., and it would be a PR nightmare for the school. It just doesn’t really happen. Coaches who mistreat their athletes in that manner get a reputation for doing so and the recruits all know it. It’s just not something that happens, particularly in the marquee sports (it’s usually associated with a loss of funding for a team - and even then almost every school honors the scholarships of those enrolled).
In addition, that doesn’t change the calculus in the argument with coaches (they have penalties in their contracts for leaving), or with all of the advantages given to players (admissions, room, board, tuition, books, food, training, travel, etc.) and then leaving at the first sign of adversity or for a better opportunity. That’s not how the system should work in that situation. The school is committing to an athlete, so an athlete should commit to a school. The athlete has every right to move with a penalty for breaking the contract without extenuating circumstance, receiving a degree, etc.
Maybe we should structure the student athletes scholarships like a coaches contract. If they leave to go to another university with the Division (D1, D2, etc…) that university guarantees home and home games. That would limit the P5 poaching while giving kids the opportunity to find more playing time at a smaller university. A D1 kid not seeing playing time could transfer to D2 with no penalty likewise a D2 kid could go to D1.
You already don’t have to sit if you’re transferring down. Transferring up or laterally (unless from a scholly program to a non-scholly program) you have to sit in baseball, basketball, football, or men’s ice hockey (I don’t recall any others but I haven’t been in NCAA Compliance in a year) unless there’s an exception, grad transfer, etc.
Basically, the big sports where there’s a lot of money to be made in the top schools separating themselves by poaching the best players from the “have nots.”
The NCAA has already painted themselves into a corner by insisting that athletes are students first and athletes second. If that is the case, then they should be able to transfer without penalty as all students are allowed.
1 Like
The school and the Student-Athlete make a commitment to each other.
I think the schools pretty much hold up their end of the deal.
The Student-Athlete also makes a commitment, and if they
break it there should be some consequence. Having to sit
one year while still receiving scholarship money doesn’t sound to bad.
There needs to be some reason for these kids to really think about the decisions
to transfer. I agree it will be a total mess and hard to follow any non- top P5 team.
2 Likes
They are already free to transfer whenever they want just as easily as any other student. They just lose their eligibility to play sports right away. If they feel like the school doesn’t fit their academic needs then they can search for another school that does & transfer there. If we are talking about them strictly as students then not playing immediately shouldn’t be a big deal. They don’t have to sit out of classes for a year just sports.
1 Like
I just know as a donor if transfer rules change allowing freer movement and compensation changes then college sports become just pro sports and at that point I walk away with my donations and I would lobby for athletics fees paid for by students should also stop. You want it run like a business - fine then you better bring in the revenue to pay for your sport. We know that very few programs do that. In a bid to take care of a handful of athletes like Zion we are willing to wreck the entire model and possibly significantly impact the path to higher education for thousands of kids.
5 Likes
Looks like things are really moving along on this. Amazing considering we’re talking about the NCAA here. Of course, the cynic in me sees this as somewhat of a diversion from the NIL matter.
Well said, if I’m going to be donating to glorified minor league football or basketball, I might as well support a team where the cards aren’t hypothetically stacked against my team (Panthers, Hornets, Canes, etc).
Student fees should not subsidize minor league sports.
That’s a very reasonable statement, and I certainly agree on the surface. However, the large programs have been operating as a business and much like a minor league system for a long time and there’s nothing about the changes in NIL or transfer rules that will make much of a difference in how programs have operated overall for many years. Maybe it crosses a line for you, and I get that, but the NCAA pre and post these changes won’t look a lot different.
clt just hopes UNC CHeat doesn’t cross any ethical lines…
The rules need to go back to the direct pro route. That allows the NCAA to not pay athletes or let them transfer about like pro’s because if you’re good enough to be a pro you just go get paid. No need to blow up the college system for a few entitled superstars.
2 Likes
Now that the G-League is up and running I’d like to see the NBA go to a similar draft that MLB has. You can go out of high school but if you go to college you aren’t available again until after your junior year or turn 21.
3 Likes