Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 13:47:03 GMT -5
And I agree with that last part 100%.
But to use the divorce analogy, I would guess that you agree that different types of relationships make for different circumstances? The break-up after several dates as opposed to the long-term relationship? The long-term relationship as opposed to the marriage? The marriage as opposed to the marriage that produced kids?
These are not all the same.
Now, you (we) could make a totally different argument: In the case of student athletes, the SCHOOL is getting more than they do from the general college student and so, perhaps, they owe something back (more than the scholarship). That's a tricky one, however.
|
|
|
Post by BuckysHeat on Feb 5, 2016 14:13:06 GMT -5
I have read the comments over and over, turned the computers sideways to look for a different perspective, walked away and took a couple of shots to see if that help clarity.
have to admit, I have no idea what you two are arguing about, you are both saying the same thing
|
|
|
Post by vbfanantic on Feb 5, 2016 18:44:33 GMT -5
Coaches probably regret 20-50% of their recruiting decisions. Sometimes coaches will make the lives of these players miserable. The coach wants them to transfer. The player transfers and hopefully everyone is happier. I would guess that vast majority of transfers are welcome news to their coach. The other very small percent are big news here on volleytalk.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 5, 2016 19:36:19 GMT -5
Well, to be technical, a student-athlete is free to transfer between colleges, just like any other student - they're just not free to continue playing their sport without interruption.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 5, 2016 19:51:08 GMT -5
There are about 320 D1 teams (I'm too lazy to look up the exact number). If you assume that each team has 15 players, that is 4,800 women. Divide that by the "staggering" (the writer used the word twice to really emphasize how "staggering" the problem is)164 transfers, the result is about 3% of all players transferred. In other words, 97% of players did not transfer. This does not strike me as a "staggering" problem... Some have more transfers, others less. One top "volleyball power" school has had well more than 60% of their NLI-signees over the last ten years transfer out. For that particular school, it should be a "staggering" problem, it seems to me, but it apparently isn't, as long as it helps them to keep winning volleyball matches. Another perennial "top ten" volleyball school has had one NLI-signee transfer out in the last 15 years, and that was to play sand volleyball, not indoor.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Feb 5, 2016 20:15:54 GMT -5
Players should be free to transfer as they please without penalty. Requiring a waiver to avoid sitting out the follow season and/or intra-conference transfer rules are silly. Those rules are in place to protect the schools at the expense of the players. If coaches/programs want to protect their rosters then they should develop a fun and successful culture in their program and not hide behind bureaucracy under the guise of ethical conduct.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 5, 2016 22:23:52 GMT -5
Players should be free to transfer as they please without penalty. Requiring a waiver to avoid sitting out the follow season and/or intra-conference transfer rules are silly. Those rules are in place to protect the schools at the expense of the players. If coaches/programs want to protect their rosters then they should develop a fun and successful culture in their program and not hide behind bureaucracy under the guise of ethical conduct. It should be a two-way street. As long as coaches are free to discard their recruiting "mistakes", then, yes, athletes should also be free to discard their recruiting mistakes. One of the issues is that recruits are being pressured to commit long before they are allowed to make an official visit. The problem, however, is that allowing total freedom to transfer would turn all but a handful of programs into "farm teams". I'd rather put the pressure on coaches to fulfill their promises, by guaranteeing all scholarships for two years. If a school has more than one transfer out per year over five years, for reasons other than hardship, they should be penalized one scholarship for two years; if over ten years, they should be penalized two scholarships for four years.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Feb 6, 2016 9:39:18 GMT -5
Players should be free to transfer as they please without penalty. Requiring a waiver to avoid sitting out the follow season and/or intra-conference transfer rules are silly. Those rules are in place to protect the schools at the expense of the players. If coaches/programs want to protect their rosters then they should develop a fun and successful culture in their program and not hide behind bureaucracy under the guise of ethical conduct. you must really hate the transfer rules for football/MBB/certain-other-sports.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 11:37:38 GMT -5
No inherent dishonor. But there is certainly the potential for someone to behave poorly.
No two situations are alike. Best not to generalize, generally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Feb 6, 2016 13:52:33 GMT -5
Players should be free to transfer as they please without penalty. Requiring a waiver to avoid sitting out the follow season and/or intra-conference transfer rules are silly. Those rules are in place to protect the schools at the expense of the players. If coaches/programs want to protect their rosters then they should develop a fun and successful culture in their program and not hide behind bureaucracy under the guise of ethical conduct. you must really hate the transfer rules for football/MBB/certain-other-sports. I do.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Feb 6, 2016 14:23:04 GMT -5
It LITERALLY is EXACTLY that! How can it not be "the same thing as" something it ACTUALLY IS? Because it isn't and you know it. You think breaking a commitment to play for a college team is the same as changing schools? Why would you think that was LITERALLY the same thing when we have to LITERALLY use different words to describe each event? I can't believe you are defending this. You overstated your case. Admit it and move on. Agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 16:30:07 GMT -5
How would everyone here feel about the system we have up here in Canada? All transfers sit out a year (except in exceptional/compassionate cases), but all athletes get five years of eligibility instead of four.
|
|
|
Post by Vballin on Feb 7, 2016 9:40:37 GMT -5
Coaches probably regret 20-50% of their recruiting decisions. Sometimes coaches will make the lives of these players miserable. The coach wants them to transfer. The player transfers and hopefully everyone is happier. I would guess that vast majority of transfers are welcome news to their coach. The other very small percent are big news here on volleytalk. Agree! Some coaches out there are being awful to the players they want to quit/transfer. They play stupid mind games and make these girls so miserable they want to leave. (There is an ACC asst. coach starting to pull this crap and being allowed to get away with it by the head coach, transfers sure to come) Then there are some coaches with integrity who are honest with their players telling they won't get playing time if they stay. They offer to help find a better fit for them AND if the athlete chooses to stay anyway, they don't "punish" them. Transfers are going to happen. Considering the number of girls who actually do is pretty low compared to the number of girls playing, I don't see the issue. The bigger concern would be for schools that have a much higher rate of transfers. Usually deep issues there.
|
|
|
Post by owlsem on Feb 7, 2016 9:50:50 GMT -5
Coaches probably regret 20-50% of their recruiting decisions. Sometimes coaches will make the lives of these players miserable. The coach wants them to transfer. The player transfers and hopefully everyone is happier. I would guess that vast majority of transfers are welcome news to their coach. The other very small percent are big news here on volleytalk. Possibly only 2 last year where the coaches completely regretted the transfer and probably a couple dozen where the coaches wished the player had stayed but let them go. My guess is the rest of the transfers were best for all. Many of those transfers the coach helped a player find their level for volleyball and or more importantly academics.
|
|
|
Post by owlsem on Feb 7, 2016 10:41:32 GMT -5
Players should be free to transfer as they please without penalty. Requiring a waiver to avoid sitting out the follow season and/or intra-conference transfer rules are silly. Those rules are in place to protect the schools at the expense of the players. If coaches/programs want to protect their rosters then they should develop a fun and successful culture in their program and not hide behind bureaucracy under the guise of ethical conduct. It should be a two-way street. As long as coaches are free to discard their recruiting "mistakes", then, yes, athletes should also be free to discard their recruiting mistakes. This is so well stated I wanted to stand up and cheer. The truth shall set you free! Thank you redbeard! Since schools are establishing the rules the schools should have to satisfy a burden of proof there is a reason a players transfer should limit that players eligibility.The problem, however, is that allowing total freedom to transfer would turn all but a handful of programs into "farm teams". I'd rather put the pressure on coaches to fulfill their promises, by guaranteeing all scholarships for two years. If a school has more than one transfer out per year over five years, for reasons other than hardship, they should be penalized one scholarship for two years; if over ten years, they should be penalized two scholarships for four years. Possibly not as into this as I could be but not sure I agree. Rightly or wrong I think of Kentucky Basketball and I think so what. If it happens that a top 100 program develops players for for top 20 program (somewhat analogous to sending 1 and done to the NBA) these things are what they are and we know who they are and it works best for the schools and players. So if a top 20 program establishes a farm team relationship with a top 100 program take player X for a year develop them and I have space for them next year what is wrong. The player still has the choice to pick a transfer in their sophomore year and the recruiting for that player begins again. If it is best for the player best for the top 20 and best for the top 100 school what is the problem. How can this offend the academic integrity of the NCAA anymore than the schools themselves have offended it in the past.
If kids are committed to their education and choose the school because of the school and academics and received a scholarship and would not transfer they are truly completely unprotected by the existing system that says they can not get a non-playing scholarship (medical excluded) and that is when coaches can become or are forced to treat them poorly to drive them out of the program. Maybe there should be non roster money available for those who don't want to take the transfer and coaches should have to include this in their budget or take it as a reduction in pay.
And finally in volleyball I doubt the transfer rate would change much. In the money sports well .... could have a bigger effect.
|
|