Should schools have to pay for transfers?

[Vowelguy]

One argument in favor of player transfers has been “if coaches can move from school to school without sitting out, why shouldn’t players?”

But most coaches have a buyout that needs to be to their original school. Should something like that exist for players? I’m sure it won’t happen, but it would help mitigate — if only just a little — the loss that mid-majors are now experiencing, where anyone good immediately leaves.

 

[Jaybo]

I’m against paying student athletes to the extent that they’re being paid. But yes if you’re provided a free education and paid to play then something has to be paid back to the school.

 

[NHUConnfan]

One argument in favor of player transfers has been “if coaches can move from school to school without sitting out, why shouldn’t players?”

But most coaches have a buyout that needs to be to their original school. Should something like that exist for players? I’m sure it won’t happen, but it would help mitigate — if only just a little — the loss that mid-majors are now experiencing, where anyone good immediately leaves.

This is a no go from the actual legal protections students have...you know, because they're students.

 

[LIuconn]

Sounds very professional euro soccer. Pay the “transfer fee” to contract holding club for the player in a transfer scenario

 

[navery12]

No

 

[Vowelguy]

This is a no go from the actual legal protections students have...you know, because they're students.

Are they still?

 

[alphasigko]

No

Why?

 

[Baltic]

One argument in favor of player transfers has been “if coaches can move from school to school without sitting out, why shouldn’t players?”

But most coaches have a buyout that needs to be to their original school. Should something like that exist for players? I’m sure it won’t happen, but it would help mitigate — if only just a little — the loss that mid-majors are now experiencing, where anyone good immediately leaves.

Need player contracts specifying terms. Of course schools terrified of this because of players being considered employees of the school and the incentive to unionize. Reality is they are professional athletes treat them as such.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Are they still?

YES! Stop being dense.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Need player contracts specifying terms. Of course schools terrified of this because of players being considered employees of the school and the incentive to unionize. Reality is they are professional athletes treat them as such.

They cannot prevent students from transferring. They can't. End of story. That's why we have the portal. It's been litigated...these are literally not allowed lol

 

[Vowelguy]

YES! Stop being dense.

Thank you for your interest in UConn basketball.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Thank you for your interest in UConn basketball.

You're the one who literally does not understand that there are LAWS that regulate student rights. These are STUDENT ATHLETES.

If you're so worked up over this, maybe college basketball isn't the right sport for you. Get a grip.

 

[Vowelguy]

They cannot prevent students from transferring. They can't. End of story. That's why we have the portal. It's been litigated...these are literally not allowed lol

Who said anything about preventing a player from transferring.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Who said anything about preventing a player from transferring.

Do you understand how college athletics work? That's a rhetorical question because the answer is clearly no lol

 

[Vowelguy]

You're the one who literally does not understand that there are LAWS that regulate student rights. These are STUDENT ATHLETES.

If you're so worked up over this, maybe college basketball isn't the right sport for you. Get a grip.

Switch to decaf dude.

I asked a question. Was curious to have a discussion and get some thoughtful responses. Since that’s not possible, please excuse yourself from the thread.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Switch to decaf dude.

I asked a question. Was curious to have a discussion and get some thoughtful responses. Since that’s not possible, please excuse yourself from the thread.

There is no way to implement a buyout without it involving some shenanigans with transferring. And the whole reason the transfer portal exists is because the NCAA was rightfully taken to court for infringing on students rights and they lost. Repeatedly. Maybe you missed how the NCAA just lost a few months ago trying to restrict JUCO eligibility. Anything that impedes movement literally just falls into the same legal problems. It's all related and the students have the law on their side. It was honestly amazing how long the NCAA got away with impinging on student rights lol

The reason I'm upset over this is because your position is one of absolute ignorance. Ignorance of laws that protect students. Ignorance of the litigation against the NCAA in the last decade.

 

[navery12]

Why?

Besides the legality of it, good luck convincing anyone to go to a mid major if you're trying to trap them at a school with a massive buyout. And nothing short of a massive buyout is going to keep a major school away

 

[Vowelguy]

Besides the legality of it, good luck convincing anyone to go to a mid major if you're trying to trap them at a school with a massive buyout. And nothing short of a massive buyout is going to keep a major school away

Coaches aren’t prevented from moving. They do so all the time. It would just get the school that developed and lost the player some compensation.
As I said at the top I know something like this wouldn’t happen, but a fun thought experiment.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Coaches aren’t prevented from moving. They do so all the time. It would just get the school that developed and lost the player some compensation.
As I said at the top I know something like this wouldn’t happen, but a fun thought experiment.

Because coaches ARE NOT STUDENTS.

This is really not that complex. If you need an ELI5, ChatGPT exists.

 

[huskyjawz]

Because coaches ARE NOT STUDENTS.

This is really not that complex. If you need an ELI5, ChatGPT exists.

You must be a blast at parties.

 

[NHUConnfan]

You must be a blast at parties.

I was, but those days are long gone.

 

[UCSouth]

Because coaches ARE NOT STUDENTS.

This is really not that complex. If you need an ELI5, ChatGPT exists.

Let it go...

 

[auror]

I don't see why they couldn't have buyouts in the future.

The agreement between the states/feds and NCAA before was about restricting player movement because it was anticompetitive. Not because they were students who had rights, but because they were people and restricting their ability to transfer (or making them sit out) restricted them from earning NIL aka money. The NCAA doesn't have the right to restrict people from earning because it has not been collectively bargained to give it that power.

It could certainly be written into a personal contract, though, the same as it would be with coaches. The reason it hasn't yet been done was that all current contracts are with NIL collectives, and they were the ones paying kids and by NCAA rule could not tie anything to enrollment at the school. But with revenue sharing coming in, the contracts will be directly with the institution. At that point, it would not be anticompetitive to reach a contract between player and college to include a buyout for leaving a contract early.

(This all being said, IANAL so take that all with a big grain of salt).

 

[mussels]

Would be tricky. The contract would be between the kid and the school.

If a kid leaves, and the school goes hard at him to collect buyout, good luck to them trying to sign any more recruits.

 

[NHUConnfan]

I don't see why they couldn't have buyouts in the future.

The agreement between the states/feds and NCAA before was about restricting player movement because it was anticompetitive. Not because they were students who had rights, but because they were people and restricting their ability to transfer (or making them sit out) restricted them from earning NIL aka money. The NCAA doesn't have the right to restrict people from earning because it has not been collectively bargained to give it that power.

It could certainly be written into a personal contract, though, the same as it would be with coaches. The reason it hasn't yet been done was that all current contracts are with NIL collectives, and they were the ones paying kids and by NCAA rule could not tie anything to enrollment at the school. But with revenue sharing coming in, the contracts will be directly with the institution. At that point, it would not be anticompetitive to reach a contract between player and college to include a buyout for leaving a contract early.

(This all being said, IANAL so take that all with a big grain of salt).

Here are the serious barriers for student buyouts.

1. They can't be tied to the university. Legally. That's pay-for-play if the university coordinates it. That makes students employees and that is the last thing the NCAA and universities want.

2. Since these students are not legally employees, it's highly questionable if these clauses would be enforceable. Not to mention the incredible media backlash of the inevitable lawsuits from universities suing their students.

3. If it can't be tied to the university, what's the point? We just start suing each other's NIL organizations?! All you're doing is burning money. The player will still leave. And there's no incentive for them to stay.

But the most important thing is that these clauses strengthen the student's legal argument that they're employees...a position that the NCAA and universities will always oppose because it will have disastrous consequences to the economics of college athletics and would probably kill most programs.

So please...this is a pointless thread. You're more likely to win the Powerball jackpot than this happening.