NCAA recommends not to allow 1-time waiver

[Ozimoto]

The only reason the NCAA came up with the "pay for play" rule was because if they didn't do something state legislatures and the courts were going to decide the issue for them. They had to exert some sort of control. Don't think for a minute the NCAA "wanted" to have pay for play.

 

[southofnorth]

So, allowing players to transfer one time without sitting is bad, but allowing players to be paid so long as they don't wear their school gear is good.

Sigh, it's like the NCAA uses a random generator to make decisions.

I’m glad someone else was thinking this. I’m all for student athletes getting paid if schools, networks, and the NCAA are going to make money off of their likeness, but the board saying a one time transfer rule is bad for student athletes is total bs to me. How will it make life for student athletes worse in any way? That logic makes no sense me.

 

[stamfordhusky]

UConn is an exception, but most D1 schools lose money on basketball. Many of those programs take in second-tier recruits and try to develop them while giving them scholarships worth $50k to $75k per year. To allow the ones they do effectively develop to simply abandon the program as a free agent prior to their most productive years is not fair to the school that lost a lot of money on their freshman and sophomore scholarship. It would introduce more chaos to a system already out of control.

 

[southofnorth]

UConn is an exception, but most D1 schools lose money on basketball. Many of those programs take in second-tier recruits and try to develop them while giving them scholarships worth $50k to $75k per year. To allow the ones they do effectively develop to simply abandon the program as a free agent prior to their most productive years is not fair to the school that lost a lot of money on their freshman and sophomore scholarship. It would introduce more chaos to a system already out of control.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to do partial scholarships or get rid of the scholarships and/or sports altogether if the thought is those recruits are an investment (that are already costing them more money than they make the school) rather than a student athlete?

 

[Steelerone]

So, allowing players to transfer one time without sitting is bad, but allowing players to be paid so long as they don't wear their school gear is good.

Sigh, it's like the NCAA uses a random generator to make decisions.

Cl, see my post to answer your question. I'll give you a hint. Money.

 

[Steelerone]

UConn is an exception, but most D1 schools lose money on basketball. Many of those programs take in second-tier recruits and try to develop them while giving them scholarships worth $50k to $75k per year. To allow the ones they do effectively develop to simply abandon the program as a free agent prior to their most productive years is not fair to the school that lost a lot of money on their freshman and sophomore scholarship. It would introduce more chaos to a system already out of control.

A very good point Stamfordhusky. I think many people lose sight of the fact that, sad to say, our Huskies are a much greater source of revenue that the majority of women's basketball teams. Come to think of it that might be one of the main reasons some of the players, although unhappy with the amount of playing time (and knowing that they would be starting at most other schools) stay in the program for the entire four years. Everything is done first class from travel to dining. I'm not sure that is true with many other Division One teams.

 

[willtalk]

I would have no problem allowing students to transfer schools between their freshman and sophomore seasons. Young people often have no concept of what they are getting into. I would allow them a mulligan to correct a bad commitment choice. Of course there would also be some negative affects with respect to that as well, but you can't have everything.

The idea of paying students like they were professionals is totally absurd. To say that schools are taking advantage of student-athletes is really silly. The best college teams would be no match for any low-level professional team. And those low-level professional teams get pocket change. The only reason that college teams draw fans is because of their affiliation with the college. Take away that affiliation and no one would go to see those games. Heck, no one goes to watch college Olympic sports anyway. In the case of women basketball, even the WNBA can barely support themselves and most of those players make less than the cost of a high-level college's tuition. Even the higher paying Euro league teams hardly get fans support and usually get funded by corporations or the city they play in.

Let us be honest, would anyone except a die-hard WBB fan even watch their own team if it were a simi pro team with no school loyalty connection. There are many cities that have simi pro teams of very good ex college players who no one ever goes to see. It is the school affiliation that makes college sports a draw.

 

[EdSaid]

I would have no problem allowing students to transfer schools between their freshman and sophomore seasons. Young people often have no concept of what they are getting into. I would allow them a mulligan to correct a bad commitment choice. Of course there would also be some negative affects with respect to that as well, but you can't have everything.

Interesting. I want to think about that one.

 

[UConnCat]

As expected

 

[EricLA]

It will be interesting to see if the NCAA grants any waivers. After the Westbrook disaster, I certainly hope they don't.

 

[southie]

 

[Centerstream]

Are transfers not allowed to sue the NCAA if a waiver is denied but others are granted? In these times where lawsuits seem to be commonplace, it seems like the logical thing to do...