Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 17:25:30 GMT -5
I agree with reciprocity. Do you think Jim McLaughlin should have to sit out a year before coaching at Notre Dame? If so, who coaches the team? See this is where you start to see how absurd the restrictions on athletes are. The answer would be unless his school released him (which they likely would have) and allowed him to transfer. But, if a coach went from one big 10 school to another they would have to work one year for free (just like the student that transfers in the big 10). LOL. Now see how stupid the restrictions on students are? No, this is where you see how absurd it is to put restrictions on coaches.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 20, 2015 17:34:10 GMT -5
The NCAA can punish an employee of a member institution for conduct, but it cannot prevent that person from taking a job somewhere else (in other words, it cannot place an unreasonable restraint on trade). A student is (currently) not an employee, and therefore, the restraint in trade doctrine doesn't apply. This is the reason student-athletes are suing to be considered employees. So the only logical argument that can be made presently is to give students more rights equal to those of coaches. The argument that coaches should be prevented from transferring jobs in order to be equal to student-athletes is not feasible because it is not generally legally permissible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 17:46:03 GMT -5
A) The system is designed for students that are at a school for primarily academic reasons. No study, no play. Get it? If you choose a college and it isn't what you think it is, generally, you can transfer to a second college, but you cannot hop to four teams in four years. A college student who transfers more than once is often going to lose enough credits that they are no longer on track to graduate, and would then be ineligible for that reason. You MIGHT see legislation allowing one free transfer for every sport, but if they allowed multiple free transfers the graduation numbers are going to suffer and these are still primarily academic institutions. B) College coaches can change jobs every year and it will have no impact on their ability to graduate on time because THEY ARE NOT STUDENTS. Professors can move as they please. Administrators can move as they please. The admissions staff can move as they please. Why are you going to tell the assistant field hockey close that whatever her first job in coaching is should be her last job in coaching? Yes college basketball has shown this to be true. It is all about education. So, why isn't there restrictions on college football programs that do not graduate some percentage of their athletes? Maybe no BCS games if you have not averaged 70% (for both white and black students) over the last four years? System designed for students... I think we all know that is laughable. Restrictions on transferring are to protect the business of college football and basketball. That is why conferences make even greater restrictions within their own conference. Why restrict students at all? That is my point. You argue yourself that too many transfers will hurt the student and use up their eligibility. Let them do what they want. Is it so patently ridiculous to restrict a coach in any way? Really? Someone that has went out and obligated up to 8 years worth of students (if you count these verbals) to come and play for them? Sure, there should never be any restrictions on them /sarc/ If a coach and AD can decide whether a student (that has an obligation to the school) can break their obligation and move, then maybe before a coach is eligible to be on the floor at another NCAA event, they should need a release from a majority of the student/athletes they have commitments to? That seems fair. If you are unhappy in your coaching role, you would stop making longer dated commitments to athletes to reduce the number of votes you would need so that you did not need to sit out for a year. Seems fair to me. Especially since that person is actually making money from the process whereas the student athlete has a huge disadvantage because of financial constraints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 17:47:09 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 17:51:24 GMT -5
So, why isn't there restrictions on college football programs that do not graduate some percentage of their athletes? I assume you also then want to fire academic advisors and student success coordinators when a student fails a class?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 17:54:11 GMT -5
The NCAA can punish an employee of a member institution for conduct, but it cannot prevent that person from taking a job somewhere else (in other words, it cannot place an unreasonable restraint on trade). A student is (currently) not an employee, and therefore, the restraint in trade doctrine doesn't apply. This is the reason student-athletes are suing to be considered employees. So the only logical argument that can be made presently is to give students more rights equal to those of coaches. The argument that coaches should be prevented from transferring jobs in order to be equal to student-athletes is not feasible because it is not generally legally permissible. There is nothing preventing the school from employing the coach for 12 months while they sit out. The argument is moot since it will never happen but I am trying to point out that the negative impact of a coach leaving is FAR more than a player. Some of these coaches have made commitments to 10th graders and those girls have made decisions and plans based on those commitments. It could impact 20 people and affect their outcomes. Debating whether verbals are commitments is another whole thread and IF the NCAA actually cared about education and students this practice would be ended.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 17:56:16 GMT -5
Syracuse would be a better example of that but volleyguy did point out that you can suspend for bad behavior. She/he was arguing you cannot suspend just for seeking another job.
|
|
|
Post by Upfrontvb on May 20, 2015 17:58:13 GMT -5
I think a player should sit out a year when they decide to transfer. Reason being, sports are a business to a school. Coaches recruit years out and build a team, sometimes around a highly recruited player/players. Their job is to put a winning team out on the court. If the coach doesn't produce, they can lose their job or not get recruits they wanted in future years. Yes, players get homesick, or they don't like the coach or teammates, etc so let them transfer and sit out a year. It may take a team most of the season to get the new player up to speed for games.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 20, 2015 17:59:52 GMT -5
The NCAA can punish an employee of a member institution for conduct, but it cannot prevent that person from taking a job somewhere else (in other words, it cannot place an unreasonable restraint on trade). A student is (currently) not an employee, and therefore, the restraint in trade doctrine doesn't apply. This is the reason student-athletes are suing to be considered employees. So the only logical argument that can be made presently is to give students more rights equal to those of coaches. The argument that coaches should be prevented from transferring jobs in order to be equal to student-athletes is not feasible because it is not generally legally permissible. There is nothing preventing the school from employing the coach for 12 months while they sit out. The argument is moot since it will never happen but I am trying to point out that the negative impact of a coach leaving is FAR more than a player. Some of these coaches have made commitments to 10th graders and those girls have made decisions and plans based on those commitments. It could impact 20 people and affect their outcomes. Debating whether verbals are commitments is another whole thread and IF the NCAA actually cared about education and students this practice would be ended. You're proposing that a school pay a coach an entire year's salary to sit out whenever he or she changes jobs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 18:01:22 GMT -5
There is nothing preventing the school from employing the coach for 12 months while they sit out. The argument is moot since it will never happen but I am trying to point out that the negative impact of a coach leaving is FAR more than a player. Some of these coaches have made commitments to 10th graders and those girls have made decisions and plans based on those commitments. It could impact 20 people and affect their outcomes. Debating whether verbals are commitments is another whole thread and IF the NCAA actually cared about education and students this practice would be ended. You're proposing that a school pay a coach an entire year's salary to sit out whenever he or she changes jobs? Yeah that way Dumas can coach the team for a year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 18:03:38 GMT -5
So, why isn't there restrictions on college football programs that do not graduate some percentage of their athletes? I assume you also then want to fire academic advisors and student success coordinators when a student fails a class? Most certainly not. I posted a while ago the study on graduation rates of white and black football players. It is shocking. But since the federal government started paying attention to it, these rates are WAY above where they used to be (and the spread is less) in the late 80s / early 90s. However they are still insane and at some great institutions. In the early 90s, the big 10 used to gather these stats for its member schools and the difference between PSU and OSU was shocking. I have always believed that someday the NCAA would step in and declare that if your four/five/six year rolling average graduation rate for your "student"/athlete program is not above XX%, then you are ineligible for bowl games. They never have. I further believe that the ENTIRE reason these numbers now are 65% / 45% (grad rates) vs. the 60% / 25% they were in the 90s at some large football schools is due to the expert consultants that helped UNC figure out how to up their graduation rate...
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on May 20, 2015 18:07:22 GMT -5
Great job, people! #PAGE50
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 18:07:34 GMT -5
There is nothing preventing the school from employing the coach for 12 months while they sit out. The argument is moot since it will never happen but I am trying to point out that the negative impact of a coach leaving is FAR more than a player. Some of these coaches have made commitments to 10th graders and those girls have made decisions and plans based on those commitments. It could impact 20 people and affect their outcomes. Debating whether verbals are commitments is another whole thread and IF the NCAA actually cared about education and students this practice would be ended. You're proposing that a school pay a coach an entire year's salary to sit out whenever he or she changes jobs? Why not? Notre Dame AND Kansas BOTH paid Charlie Weis not to coach in the same years. It would make both parties really think about moves. Just like the student really should ponder her move. and not "whenever they change jobs". Just when they change jobs without the majority consent of the athletes they have commitments from.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 20, 2015 18:10:51 GMT -5
I assume you also then want to fire academic advisors and student success coordinators when a student fails a class? Most certainly not. I posted a while ago the study on graduation rates of white and black football players. It is shocking. But since the federal government started paying attention to it, these rates are WAY above where they used to be (and the spread is less) in the late 80s / early 90s. However they are still insane and at some great institutions. In the early 90s, the big 10 used to gather these stats for its member schools and the difference between PSU and OSU was shocking. I have always believed that someday the NCAA would step in and declare that if your four/five/six year rolling average graduation rate for your "student"/athlete program is not above XX%, then you are ineligible for bowl games. They never have. I further believe that the ENTIRE reason these numbers now are 65% / 45% (grad rates) vs. the 60% / 25% they were in the 90s at some large football schools is due to the expert consultants that helped UNC figure out how to up their graduation rate... The issues you are raising are legitimate concerns, I just think your proposed solutions aren't very practical. It should be noted that the NCAA instituted progress to degree and graduation requirements which may have been responsible for improvements that have been seen. Moreover, at many institutions, particularly large, urban universities, the rate of graduation of student-athletes is greater than the general student population. It's a complex problem without easy solutions.
|
|
|
Post by bball on May 20, 2015 18:12:31 GMT -5
PAGE 50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|