NCAA Transfer Rule Challenged

[msf22b]

Lawsuit by an ex-footballer

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/s...ule=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

 

[UcMiami]

Interesting, but like the 'unionization' issue the use of anti-trust as an argument and the whole case likely hinges on a court determining that scholarship athletes should be classified as employees.
I certainly think there should be grounds to challenge the one year sit-out policy but doubt there is a valid ground to challenge a cap on number of scholarships.

 

[masshusk77]

I don't think that players should get a 100% free transfer policy where they never have to sit out a year. But in circumstances like a head coaching change I think the players should have the right to switch schools freely.

 

[jsloanjr]

Totally agree...........Coach leaves or gets fired, Student athletes should be free to look at their option, as well.

 

[j66kicker]

Totally agree......Coach leaves or gets fired, Student athletes should be free to look at their option, as well.

Interesting twist - would this help embattled coaches NOT get fired? For instance, Louisville finds a way not to fire Pitino, for fear of losing some key players to transfer (players who were possibly recruited with se x for them and their dads - heh heh)

 

[UcMiami]

And another exception should certainly be made for players whose scholarship is not renewed for whatever reason - as appears to be the circumstance in this particular case.

 

[Jim]

Totally agree......Coach leaves or gets fired, Student athletes should be free to look at their option, as well.

I do think the rules ought to restrict the case where a coach leaves for greener pastures and takes the former school's best players along with him/her (except if that happens to be the coach's kid).

 

[easttexastrash]

IMO a player should have to complete one semester before they are eligible. If a player decides to transfer at the end of the season that puts them out of the game for a year and a half. That is a pretty severe punishment.

 

[easttexastrash]

I do think the rules ought to restrict the case where a coach leaves for greener pastures and takes the former school's best players along with him/her (except if that happens to be the coach's kid).

I am sure it would be rare that a coach leaves and takes his/her child along, but I see not chance that the NCAA gives an exception to a player just because they are the son or daughter of the coach. That certainly would not be equitable treatment to all players.

 

[Jim]

I am sure it would be rare that a coach leaves and takes his/her child along, but I see not chance that the NCAA gives an exception to a player just because they are the son or daughter of the coach. That certainly would not be equitable treatment to all players.

I could be mistaken, but didn't this situation just happen on the men's side with Steve Alford leaving New Mexico to take the UCLA coaching job and taking his son Kory along?

 

[easttexastrash]

I could be mistaken, but didn't this situation just happen on the men's side with Steve Alford leaving New Mexico to take the UCLA coaching job and taking his son Kory along?

Could be. If they did, shame on them. His son, like every other player he recruited, signed to play for him so they should all be given an exemption if his son was given one.

 

[easttexastrash]

I could be mistaken, but didn't this situation just happen on the men's side with Steve Alford leaving New Mexico to take the UCLA coaching job and taking his son Kory along?

Not sure if it makes a difference, but Kory was a walk-on for UCLA and was not on scholarship.

 

[Jim]

Not sure if it makes a difference, but Kory was a walk-on for UCLA and was not on scholarship.

I thought there was some uproar about Kory getting his release from New Mexico.

 

[easttexastrash]

Found this on a chat board. I had no idea.

"I actually spoke with Kory at the New Mexico High School All Star game this year. We happened to be sitting right in front of The Neals, and the Alfords. I asked him if he was gonna have to sit out a year or lose a year of eligebility and he said that there is a rule that says if your dad is a coach and he gets a job somewhere else you can transfer without having to sit out or lose a year."

 

[Jim]

Found this on a chat board. I had no idea.

"I actually spoke with Kory at the New Mexico High School All Star game this year. We happened to be sitting right in front of The Neals, and the Alfords. I asked him if he was gonna have to sit out a year or lose a year of eligebility and he said that there is a rule that says if your dad is a coach and he gets a job somewhere else you can transfer without having to sit out or lose a year."

Nice bit of research. I had no idea either.

 

[CocoHusky]

I could be mistaken, but didn't this situation just happen on the men's side with Steve Alford leaving New Mexico to take the UCLA coaching job and taking his son Kory along?

Sort of, Alford has two college playing basketball sons. The older son Kory is really a fringe player Redshirt at New Mexico his Freshmen year when his dad was the coach. Kory went to UCLA when Alford got the job and was immediately eleigible. Kory never averaged more than .5 PPG at either New Mexico or UCLA and is not on the current UCLA roster although he still has a year of remaining eligibility.
The younger Alford Bryce never played for his father at New Mexico. He went to UCLA straight out of HS is going into his Junior year and is an AA candidate, consistent UCLA starter since Sophmore year, and potential NBA player.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Interesting, but like the 'unionization' issue the use of anti-trust as an argument and the whole case likely hinges on a court determining that scholarship athletes should be classified as employees.
I certainly think there should be grounds to challenge the one year sit-out policy but doubt there is a valid ground to challenge a cap on number of scholarships.

More than likely the Colleges put the cap on the number for obvious reasons. Sitting out a full year is a bit harsh, something less would probably work as well. You cannot allow or should not allow transfer without some "penalty" again for obvious reasons.
Isn't it wrong to think players have to SUE to get attention to their complaints. To me this is the bigger issue. There should be a "disinterested" review board where students or coaches could take their issues related to NCAA rulings and have the resolved.