Calipari on the transfer portal

[RuffRuff]

I didn't minimize any of their contributions to the UConn program (quite the opposite) or what UConn did for them. I said Fagnano was playing for himself during bowl season and not for his teammates because that's the truth and it's in no way hypocritical.

Fagnano quit before the season was over and Bell reconsidered but played only one offensive series.

When you coach bolts before the bowl game, I don't care if anyone who has a chance to get drafted decides to sit out. Would seem entirely hypocritical in today's system.

 

[ctchamps]

I didn't minimize any of their contributions to the UConn program (quite the opposite) or what UConn did for them. I said Fagnano was playing for himself during bowl season and not for his teammates because that's the truth and it's in no way hypocritical.

Fagnano quit before the season was over and Bell reconsidered but played only one offensive series.

You were calling Fagnano out (and Bell before his announcement of being there) for being selfish. As if his perspective was wrong and ignoble and yours was right and noble. My perspective is different. I'm just as upset about what Fagnano did but I understand it and support it because it's far more important that he gets a chance to go pro than my personal entertainment well being. BTW that game was a tough watch.

And you did minimize his contributions at least by my perspective. The guy in two years did more than enough to help the program than his absence from this game. It was a significant game. I'm not reducing its importance. Ten wins would have been a new victory count. Back to back bowl victories plus a ten win season has potential conference implications. I get that. I just have a different scale of measurement than you as to how much someone has to contribute before I cut them some slack for any negatives.

 

[superjohn]

When you coach bolts before the bowl game, I don't care if anyone who has a chance to get drafted decides to sit out. Would seem entirely hypocritical in today's system.

That's fair but it's not hypocritical saying he played for himself instead of his teammates by skipping the Fenway bowl and auditioning for the NFL instead.

 

[Fan1978]

Years ago I read a story that tracked SEC football players over an 20 year period and it was not pretty. I can’t find it, but I’ll keep digging. This was when cars were the perk. Even if a kid gets $500,000 but spends money on cars and clothes, they will be in trouble in ten years

Actually 2 years

 

[Donyell 360]

There are issues with the legalities, but contracts are the solution, IMO. Make all freshman contracts one year. After that year they can be a free agent and leave if they want, or the school can sign them to a multi year contract, binding them to that school for the specified number of years.

I wonder if that would help or hurt UConn. Schools with bigger NIL budgets could stockpile talent on long term contracts.

 

[UC0NN]

I understand day 1 NFL draft picks sitting out of a less meaningful bowl game. Playing wont help their stock. The same could be said for a day 2 pick as well.

But for a day 3 guy the upside of performing well in a bowl game imo outweighs the downside. Saying you need to spend time training for an NFL combine or pro day that is 2 months away is complete nonsense. Both can be done very easily.

 

[ctchamps]

I understand day 1 NFL draft picks sitting out of a less meaningful bowl game. Playing wont help their stock. The same could be said for a day 2 pick as well.

But for a day 3 guy the upside of performing well in a bowl game imo outweighs the downside. Saying you need to spend time training for an NFL combine or pro day that is 2 months away is complete nonsense. Both can be done very easily.

He’s hired an agent. The agent makes a living from what his players make. Wouldn’t it make sense that someone whose livelihood is dependent on good guidance of his players have recommended your point of view if it were right. Don’t get me wrong. He could be a lousy agent. But I strongly doubt it. More likely your take is missing some important considerations.

 

[UC0NN]

He’s hired an agent. The agent makes a living from what his players make. Wouldn’t it make sense that someone whose livelihood is dependent on good guidance of his players have recommended your point of view if it were right. Don’t get me wrong. He could be a lousy agent. But I strongly doubt it. More likely your take is missing some important considerations.

There were several players who are projected 6th-7th rounders who have played in their bowl games.

 

[UC0NN]

Also there is a very reasonable chance he does not get drafted. 7th round picks who sit out bowl games to prepare to be 7th round and undrafted free agents will never make sense.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

I didn't minimize any of their contributions to the UConn program (quite the opposite) or what UConn did for them. I said Fagnano was playing for himself during bowl season and not for his teammates because that's the truth and it's in no way hypocritical.

Fagnano quit before the season was over and Bell reconsidered but played only one offensive series.

Obviously this is a CBB thread but CFB needs to fix this. If you get paid you should play every game barring injury or coaches decision. What’s gonna stop a guy from playing 5 games and opting out in October?

 

[Greedo]

Good luck getting any kid to commit to your school with a multi year contract when other schools are willing to offer more flexibility

Pros sign multi year deals when their agent could just negotiate 1 year deals making them a free agent every year. When schools say “here’s a 3 year, $5 mil guaranteed contract,” kids will sign the dotted line. A one year contract is a risk for the player. Many will say ok I’ll take the money now.

 

[navery12]

Pros sign multi year deals when their agent could just negotiate 1 year deals making them a free agent every year. When schools say “here’s a 3 year, $5 mil guaranteed contract,” kids will sign the dotted line. A one year contract is a risk for the player. Many will say ok I’ll take the money now.

Pros sign multi-year deals because that's what they want. And those deals also don't limit their movement, the best players get opt outs and no trade clauses to control their destinations.

The point is you're suggesting something college athletes don't want, so they're going to look for reasons to not lock themselves into a school for multiple years. So when a school comes calling with that option, that's where they're going.

I also think you're severely overestimating that coaches want this. Imagine if Dan Hurley was stuck with Rahsool Diggins for 3-4 years after it was obvious he wasn't a P5 player. Or worse, Ahmad Nowell. Imagine if we had to deal with 3-4 years of Tasheed Carr complaining after it was clear Ahmad was not a UConn level PG

 

[JungleBoy]

I always thought this guy was a jerk and a Pitino twin in all aspects of life including sleaze, but here he makes sense and is actually pretty funny.

 

[Greedo]

Pros sign multi-year deals because that's what they want. And those deals also don't limit their movement, the best players get opt outs and no trade clauses to control their destinations.

The point is you're suggesting something college athletes don't want, so they're going to look for reasons to not lock themselves into a school for multiple years. So when a school comes calling with that option, that's where they're going.

I also think you're severely overestimating that coaches want this. Imagine if Dan Hurley was stuck with Rahsool Diggins for 3-4 years after it was obvious he wasn't a P5 player. Or worse, Ahmad Nowell. Imagine if we had to deal with 3-4 years of Tasheed Carr complaining after it was clear Ahmad was not a UConn level PG

I think you’re forgetting my original post. I said every freshmen should have a one year deal. After that year they’re a free agent. They can stay or leave. That protects the coach from being stuck with a player, or a player from being stuck at a program when they realize they’ll never play there (or move up if they want to).

This system also doesn’t stop players from signing one year deals if they want to. Their agent can negotiate that and any school interested can go after that player.

That being said, I disagree and think a lot of players would go for multiple year deals if they existed. It protects them and they don’t have to worry about betting on themselves and all of that. They a guaranteed job for the next X number of years, whether it’s 2 or 3.

I think some coaches would be in favor of multiple year deals and others wouldn’t. I also think this process is a learning curve. I’m sure Hurley will think twice about expect a mid major player to be a guaranteed starter in the future. Maybe coaches wouldn’t offer players coming from a lower level a multiple year deal because they want that player to prove themselves at a higher level. But wouldn’t be as nervous with a player like Silas who already proved himself in the SEC.

The point is minimizing the free agent frenzy, not eliminating it. Creating the option for multiple year contracts would reduce but not eliminate some of this insanity.

Edit to add: pro contracts absolutely lock those players in. If a player signs a four year deal, they’re there for four years unless they retire or get traded. Trade clauses or limited trade destinations doesn’t change that.

 

[navery12]

I think you’re forgetting my original post. I said every freshmen should have a one year deal. After that year they’re a free agent. They can stay or leave. That protects the coach from being stuck with a player, or a player from being stuck at a program when they realize they’ll never play there (or move up if they want to).

This system also doesn’t stop players from signing one year deals if they want to. Their agent can negotiate that and any school interested can go after that player.

That being said, I disagree and think a lot of players would go for multiple year deals if they existed. It protects them and they don’t have to worry about betting on themselves and all of that. They a guaranteed job for the next X number of years, whether it’s 2 or 3.

I think some coaches would be in favor of multiple year deals and others wouldn’t. I also think this process is a learning curve. I’m sure Hurley will think twice about expect a mid major player to be a guaranteed starter in the future. Maybe coaches wouldn’t offer players coming from a lower level a multiple year deal because they want that player to prove themselves at a higher level. But wouldn’t be as nervous with a player like Silas who already proved himself in the SEC.

The point is minimizing the free agent frenzy, not eliminating it. Creating the option for multiple year contracts would reduce but not eliminate some of this insanity.

Edit to add: pro contracts absolutely lock those players in. If a player signs a four year deal, they’re there for four years unless they retire or get traded. Trade clauses or limited trade destinations doesn’t change that.

Fair enough, but I think you are objectively dead wrong about players preferring multi-year contracts. We are literally on this thread discussing solutions because so many players are changing schools every season. Players have fought for years to get this freedom to move between schools, they're not going to just give that up because a few coaches and fans aren't happy.

The pro contract comparisons are dumb so I shouldn't have even continued that discussion. Because it's just not comparable to college when teams can decide to trade those players at any point during a contract, so every contract is effectively year to year