Transfer arguments on Bleacher Report

I don't get the whole "players should stay committed to their school" argument. When a high school kid signs a letter of intent, he's not signing a four year contract with a university. Scholarships are renewed annually, meaning your free ride is only guaranteed until the end of this school year. Why should you be forced to stick it out when the university isn't forced to keep you on scholarship?

That’s what I don’t understand.After the first year or second or whatever when that one year term is up the player is no longer under contract so why is he not allowed to go and do as he pleases?

There has to be some kind of law forbidding this type of Thing and maybe now the NCAA is figuring out kids are growing sets now to fight it.

I know they are trying to stop out and out free transfers because that would be nothing but chaos but if they don’t want that they should have guaranteed 4-5 year scholarships.If they want to have say so over any player then that particular player ought to have the peace of mind to know that even if he sucks or gets hurt that scholarship is going to be there for him and if the school wants it back then they have to buy it back just like buying out a contract.
 
Advertisement
Guys come on. Think about it a little bit. Lax transfers eventually won't benefit us... Bags are going to be thrown at dudes already playing at programs and schools with all the money will benefit.
 
Advertisement
The portal is here to stay and the SEC can't do anything about it. The NCAA is more scared of getting challenged in court than anything the SEC can do. Players will have more and more control from here on out.

The opposite is true. The NCAA is a "voluntary", member based entity. Its only power comes from its member institutions (the schools). Technically no school HAS to join and any can leave whenever they want. The downside to not joining or leaving is that the school then has no enforceable right to compete in NCAA activities as it is not a member.

So the NCAA is far more afraid of losing a conference than any lawsuits. That is part of the reason why the P5 conferences are already set apart. Losing lawsuits may cost you money. Losing, say, the SEC would be the end of the NCAA as we know it now.
 
The opposite is true. The NCAA is a "voluntary", member based entity. Its only power comes from its member institutions (the schools). Technically no school HAS to join and any can leave whenever they want. The downside to not joining or leaving is that the school cannot then compete in NCAA activities as it is no longer a member.

So the NCAA is far more afraid of losing a conference than any lawsuits. That is part of the reason why the P5 conferences are already set apart. Losing, say, the SEC would be the end of the NCAA as we know it now.

No, the NCAA is more afraid of losing lawsuits than any conferences. If the NCAA loses its amateurism rules then the flood gates will open. They will lose billions. Why do u think 51 of the 64 waivers have been granted to the players? The NCAA doesn't want to get taken to court, lose, and have precedent set which would snowball into them losing even more control. There's a reason why the portal was created (which basically enables free agency in CF), and there's a reason why so many players have been granted immediate eligibility. The days of amateurism with the NCAA is slowly coming to an end.
 
No, the NCAA is more afraid of losing lawsuits than any conferences. If the NCAA loses its amateurism rules then the flood gates will open. They will lose billions. Why do u think 51 of the 64 waivers have been granted to the players? The NCAA doesn't want to get taken to court, lose, and have precedent set which would snowball into them losing even more control. There's a reason why the portal was created (which basically enables free agency in CF), and there's a reason why so many players have been granted immediate eligibility. The days of amateurism with the NCAA is slowly coming to an end.

The NCAA has been sued before. It can afford lawsuits as it is funded by its member institutions. It cannot afford to lose member institutions, largely for that very reason.

You merge multiple topics into one. If the "student athlete" went away, there would be no current NCAA. Its existence is based on that status. In fact it created the term "student athlete". The NCAA, speaking for its member institutions, wants that status to remain. So, of course, the member institutions don't want student athletes to be professionals as that changes the entire model and resulting bottom lines.

The NCAA is the "governing" body of 347 DI schools who voluntarily join. The billions you refer to do not go to the NCAA (meaning stay there), they largely go through the NCAA back to the member institutions and conferences. The NCAA receives money, then passes it back to their member institutions and activities. See http://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go.

That revenue has nothing to do with things like conference TV and media packages. Those are a big part of the "billions" people like to throw around, but those don't belong to the NCAA. Those go to schools and conferences. However, at least now, if you aren't an NCAA member, you won't be in a power 5 conference. If you aren't in a power 5 conference, you won't get to share in the big TV revenues and won't be able to participate in things like bowl games or other NCAA championship events. So you need to be an NCAA member, even though it is voluntary.

And the NCAA needs its member institutions.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
The opposite is true. The NCAA is a "voluntary", member based entity. Its only power comes from its member institutions (the schools). Technically no school HAS to join and any can leave whenever they want. The downside to not joining or leaving is that the school then has no enforceable right to compete in NCAA activities as it is not a member.

So the NCAA is far more afraid of losing a conference than any lawsuits. That is part of the reason why the P5 conferences are already set apart. Losing lawsuits may cost you money. Losing, say, the SEC would be the end of the NCAA as we know it now.
Schools should look into forming a parallel conference without the NCAA jurisdiction and interference.
The NCAA I agree would be Nothing without the SEC.
 
The NCAA has been sued before. It can afford lawsuits as it is funded by its member institutions. It cannot afford to lose member institutions, largely for that very reason.

You merge multiple topics into one. If the "student athlete" went away, there would be no current NCAA. Its existence is based on that status. In fact it created the term "student athlete". The NCAA, speaking for its member institutions, wants that status to remain. So, of course, the member institutions don't want student athletes to be professionals as it changes the model and bottom lines.

The NCAA is the "governing" body of 347 DI schools who voluntarily join. The billions you refer to do not go to the NCAA (meaning stay there), they largely go through the NCAA back to the member institutions and conferences. The NCAA receives money, then passes it back to their member institutions. See http://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go.

Don't have to read the article, football is what generates the money. You thinking the NCAA giving players more control than ever before as coincidental is simply naive. They lose one lawsuit and the precedent is there to build upon. The noise to end amateurism has never been more loud than it is now. Then u have the XFL paying players up to 200K...that's only going to open up the conversation even more.
 
Schools should look into forming a parallel conference without the NCAA jurisdiction and interference.
The NCAA I agree would be Nothing without the SEC.

And that happened. That is how we got to the Power 5 model and what is known as the vote of autonomy. It was the NCAA compromise to keep the big dogs in. The NCAA cannot continue, as is, without them. Thus what I said above. The NCAA is far more scared of losing a power 5 conference than a lawsuit.

Now is the NCAA, as the embodiment, of its member institutions, afraid of a lawsuit recognizing student athletes as something else? Maybe employees for example? Absolutely. Because that is the end for the current model, period.

 
Last edited:
Don't have to read the article, football is what generates the money. You thinking the NCAA giving players more control than ever before as coincidental is simply naive. They lose one lawsuit and the precedent is there to build upon. The noise to end amateurism has never been more loud than it is now. Then u have the XFL paying players up to 200K...that's only going to open up the conversation even more.

  1. Of course football generates the most revenue. That is not what the article you won't read talks about. It tries to help you understand where the money actually goes.
  2. You can't find anything close to me addressing the coincidence you attribute to me.
  3. Not sure what you mean by "now", but I agree that is the case over the last 5-10 years for sure. And I anticipate further changes, but don't know what those will be.
 
Advertisement
Guys come on. Think about it a little bit. Lax transfers eventually won't benefit us... Bags are going to be thrown at dudes already playing at programs and schools with all the money will benefit.

This is what too many on this board don't seem to get.

Small schools, with limited athletic booster programs, will NEVER be able to compete if the college game ever goes all in on paying kids and allowing transfers to play immediately.

All of y'all calling for this to happen have to understand the law of unintended consequences. Miami doesn't win with a completely open market. The same way Miami doesn't win with coaching hires in the completely open market.

Y'all are griping about "bags" now?!? Imagine when big schools come calling for Miami starters because "the kids should be able to do whatever they want". Yeah ... That works, until they "don't want to make the crib great".
 
Because a free education is not free. Just like academic scholarships are not eternal. If you don't perform up to expectations, why should your scholarship (athletic or academic) be renewed?

That's fine, but if the school can terminate your ride when they want to, you should be able to leave when you want to. Academic scholarships don't preclude a kid from transfering do they?
 
This is what too many on this board don't seem to get.

Small schools, with limited athletic booster programs, will NEVER be able to compete if the college game ever goes all in on paying kids and allowing transfers to play immediately.

All of y'all calling for this to happen have to understand the law of unintended consequences. Miami doesn't win with a completely open market. The same way Miami doesn't win with coaching hires in the completely open market.

Y'all are griping about "bags" now?!? Imagine when big schools come calling for Miami starters because "the kids should be able to do whatever they want". Yeah ... That works, until they "don't want to make the crib great".

Thank you sir
 
Advertisement
I don't get the whole "players should stay committed to their school" argument. When a high school kid signs a letter of intent, he's not signing a four year contract with a university. Scholarships are renewed annually, meaning your free ride is only guaranteed until the end of this school year. Why should you be forced to stick it out when the university isn't forced to keep you on scholarship?

As well as the coach possibly leaves on his own or is fired.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top