NCAA to go to Free Agency for players?

[UConnSportsGuy]

I hadn't heard about this lawsuit. If they win, then every player across American could transfer and have immediate eligibility at another school. Can you imagine if this goes through? It would be a disaster for the NCAA!

Is free agency coming to college basketball?

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I doubt the desire to transfer is as strong as people think it will be. Students tend to bond with their schools/programs rather quickly. The student who leaves due to playing time would probably leave under the current system. I think we would see more transfers, but not at many as people think.

 

[polycom]

If this were to happen, every transfer would be investigated because of booster they would ruin it for everyone.

 

[KemBuckets21]

I wonder if this would bode well for us. We seem to have been plan B for several kids we missed on and maybe they would be more willing to transfer if they didn't have to sit out a year.

 

[upstater]

It would be horrible for football, and any school not in the P5.

 

[Palatine]

Even if it goes through, the schools and conferences will still hold the power to dictate how they want the student/athlete system to work.

 

[Onions]

I hadn't heard about this lawsuit. If they win, then every player across American could transfer and have immediate eligibility at another school. Can you imagine if this goes through? It would be a disaster for the NCAA!

Is free agency coming to college basketball?

If it was your kid and he was being screwed by a coaching staff that misled him during his recruitment, or where the coach changed schools, or where he was just unhappy for any reason - would you insist that he either stay at that school or give up a year of his eligibility, when that same rule doesn't apply to his coaches? Teams would survive, the NCAA would survive, maybe a little fairness would be - fair?

 

[freescooter]

I don't by the part about coaches misleading kids in recruiting. Usually it's more a case of players not being as good as evaluators originally thought. Reasons can vary but coaches don't keep players on the bench who they think can help win games. Coaches get better jobs and move on or they get fired. Only rarely is that part of the plan when they recruit. Bottom line is nobody is required to play basket ball in college. You don't like the rules go play in Europe or Asia or in the d-league.

 

[Onions]

I don't by the part about coaches misleading kids in recruiting. Usually it's more a case of players not being as good as evaluators originally thought. Reasons can vary but coaches don't keep players on the bench who they think can help win games. Coaches get better jobs and move on or they get fired. Only rarely is that part of the plan when they recruit. Bottom line is nobody is required to play basket ball in college. You don't like the rules go play in Europe or Asia or in the d-league.

Sometimes a coach might mis-evaluate a kid, sometimes a coach takes a kid as a safety and then gets an opportunity to recruit over them and takes it, sometimes personalities clash and sometimes a kid just misses his girl friend. So if it's your son you tell him tough luck, sit on the bench and shut up or else go play in Asia. Really? Remind me to show this post to my son so he can realize there are even bigger jerks than me around.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Sometimes a coach might mis-evaluate a kid, sometimes a coach takes a kid as a safety and then gets an opportunity to recruit over them and takes it, sometimes personalities clash and sometimes a kid just misses his girl friend. So if it's your son you tell him tough luck, sit on the bench and shut up or else go play in Asia. Really? Remind me to show this post to my son so he can realize there are even bigger jerks than me around.

If there is one consistent theme to Freescooter's posts, it's that he's stridently anti-player at every turn.

 

[BUConn10]

Sometimes a coach might mis-evaluate a kid, sometimes a coach takes a kid as a safety and then gets an opportunity to recruit over them and takes it, sometimes personalities clash and sometimes a kid just misses his girl friend. So if it's your son you tell him tough luck, sit on the bench and shut up or else go play in Asia. Really? Remind me to show this post to my son so he can realize there are even bigger jerks than me around.

Whose protecting you when your employer higher a someone more qualified to your position? No one, if anything it's just good prep for the real world. I thought that's what college was about.

 

[upstater]

If it was your kid and he was being screwed by a coaching staff that misled him during his recruitment, or where the coach changed schools, or where he was just unhappy for any reason - would you insist that he either stay at that school or give up a year of his eligibility, when that same rule doesn't apply to his coaches? Teams would survive, the NCAA would survive, maybe a little fairness would be - fair?

I don't think it's this easy.

If total free movement ends up hurting the smaller schools (and therefore revenue and program viability) it threatens the system of scholarships for future athletes. In other words, the concern is for parity.

One thing people always miss when they see the kooky American system of college scholarships for top athletes is the huge amount of money that goes into training 18-22 year olds with top facilities and coaches/trainers. This new rule has the potential of returning us to the days when a core of schools were able to field the top athletes.

Look at UConn football. They would have lost a lot of kids in the last several years under this rule.

 

[upstater]

When it comes to recruiting, the deal should be 4 years guaranteed for players, with current transfer protections in place, with the exception of coaches releasing players only to certain schools (which is absurd). This makes it equitable for everyone.

 

[Kemba'sYogurt]

College sports wouldn't be the same. Then this brings into questions the whole "paying players thing". College basketball would be Kentucky, Duke, and whoever else could pay the most. Everybody else would fade. Horrible idea in my . The one plus I can think of from this is bring the NCAA video games back...

 

[Onions]

Whose protecting you when your employer higher a someone more qualified to your position? No one, if anything it's just good prep for the real world. I thought that's what college was about.

In the real world you can quit and change jobs without sitting out a year if your employer promotes someone over you. All these kids are asking for is to be treated like it is the real world -- no restrictions. And that should go for the schools too - if you don't like a player you can cut him when the year is over, no penalties.

 

[Onions]

I don't think it's this easy.

If total free movement ends up hurting the smaller schools (and therefore revenue and program viability) it threatens the system of scholarships for future athletes. In other words, the concern is for parity.

One thing people always miss when they see the kooky American system of college scholarships for top athletes is the huge amount of money that goes into training 18-22 year olds with top facilities and coaches/trainers. This new rule has the potential of returning us to the days when a core of schools were able to field the top athletes.

Look at UConn football. They would have lost a lot of kids in the last several years under this rule.

I'll argue that no one knows what would happen - the laws of unintended consequences will see to that. Let's try it for a few years, and then if it's worse than the present system they can change again. I think it will actually spread out the talent even more -- many good athletes will go where they can play, not sit where they can win.

 

[upstater]

I'll argue that no one knows what would happen - the laws of unintended consequences will see to that. Let's try it for a few years, and then if it's worse than the present system they can change again. I think it will actually spread out the talent even more -- many good athletes will go where they can play, not sit where they can win.

Once they lose the lawsuit, there is no going back. They're not going to do this willingly.

 

[Kitaman]

I see players with limited playing time, or those dissatisfied with their roles and usage wanting to change schools. It could impact recruits in the sense that a player like Vance Jackson signs and then a month later seeing a forward transferring in from another school.

How would it work? A player who wants to transfer puts queries out to other schools and waits? Would his current team release him first to immediately start the replacement process? Would coaches now say to a recruit (or parent) "if it doesn't work out come back to us, we'd love to have you"?

On the other hand if Larrier were eligible last year, perhaps DHam does not go pro.

Very interesting and could bring a complex element to college sports, and like the above poster mentioned particularly on the football field.

I always felt that student athletes need more control and flexibility in their 'career/lives'. Its a good idea but would need some well thought our rules and/or conditions. I'm not sure its a simple decision for the athletes as well and certainly a bigger decision this time around.

You know, 'choose wisely or wiser than you did before'.

 

[David 76]

Shocka got a Better job. Why did Larrier get punished for leaving and his coach didn't?
They aren't their property. Th ed y should b e free age vCard

 

[gtcam]

I don't by the part about coaches misleading kids in recruiting. Usually it's more a case of players not being as good as evaluators originally thought. Reasons can vary but coaches don't keep players on the bench who they think can help win games. Coaches get better jobs and move on or they get fired. Only rarely is that part of the plan when they recruit. Bottom line is nobody is required to play basket ball in college. You don't like the rules go play in Europe or Asia or in the d-league.

Have you ever been involved in any way in the recruitment game?
I have with many of my players, including one of my children in over 20 years of coaching
You don't buy that coaches mislead? Really?
EVERY coach who promises any player but a top 10 player a degree of playing time is misleading - at any time a more talented player can pop in the program. The first thing I have heard from 95% of the coaches is that they will be there for the player for 4 years.
70% of the Kids go to school because of the coach. A huge part of the plan. If K were to leave Puke tomorrow, the recruitment game changes, the game plans change and player evaluation changes.
There need to be rules that become reactive, equitable and user friendly for players of programs that experience a coaching change.
You say if you don't like the rules don't play? Since when are the rules followed or implemented on an even playing field by the NCAA? To cite adherence to rules is laughable in these discussions

 

[David 76]

[QUOTE="David 76, post: 1798464, member: 4232
Th ed y should b e free age vCard[/QUOTE]

Wow! Even I don't know what I was going for there.

 

[nomar]

[QUOTE="David 76, post: 1798464, member: 4232
Th ed y should b e free age vCard

Wow! Even I don't know what I was going for there.[/QUOTE]

V-card has a meaning and I'm gonna go and assume it had nothing to do with what you were going for there.

 

[champs99and04]

I agree with @upstater here. A system that allowed transfers w/o restriction would completely depress parity in the sport, because any kid that demonstrates a capacity to play above his level - whether he's a player at Hartford or Nebraska - he is going to be poached by schools that are higher on the food chain. No doubt these kids bond/connect with their school, but is a kid like Steph Curry passing up an opportunity to play for Duke? Maybe, maybe not.

That doesn't necessarily mean the rule shouldn't be changed...but if something like this hurts the game to the point where it's actually detrimental to the players, maybe it's not worth it. Sometimes the best interest of the game is the best interest of the player - on this issue, I lean towards thinking that way but would be willing to be proven wrong.

 

[Drew]

different article but I think this is so huge to take into account. We already have an example of what not having to sit out via transfer would look like- the Grad Transfer Rule.

"Some high-major schools admitted to ESPN that they are already compiling lengthy lists before the season of those who will be eligible to leave mid-majors and play their final season elsewhere.

Many admittedly will call the high school or AAU coach of a player to make their interest clear, should that player have any desire to leave. Some coaches believe that players are being contacted directly by their peers.

"If that's the case, that's not good for our profession," Krzyzewski said."

Why the graduate-transfer rule is decimating the mid-majors

Is that what we want for regular student athletes too? Grad assistants at P5 conferences tracking players in lower conferences that can come in and fill a void that is left by a graduating player or someone that leaves early for the NBA draft?

 

[BUConn10]

As always, deregulation is bad and will lead to abuse by those with the capital.