It's official: NCAA agrees to end transfer rules permanently

[fossilfiction]

Lol at the "college football is dying" posts. Changing, yes but dying, no.

A bunch of chicken littles.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

HUH? Me, force a buyout? What chronological dimension did you get the idea I said anything remotely resembling that?
Please flush the powder, it's not good for you, or anybody else for that matter?

Your "sauce for goose" comment. The coaches have those clauses. The athletes don't. Ergo, your comment is a false equivalence.

 

[backdoorcutvol]

Look at our upcoming basketball roster for men and women. A lot of new faces. I have a friend that is a small, private college basketball coach. He says that high school kids are robbed of opportunities now. Why would a coach recruit the unknown when he can bring in kid with proven ability and experience from another college.

Yep we’re looking at reverse one and done. Teams are picking up seniors instead of freshman. Makes sense only got one year invested in seniors. Small schools like ETSU , Belmont, UTC are going to be able to recruit more highly rated high school kids, unfortunately they will be like a farm team when they play well against big schools, they will get nil deals with bigger schools.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I don't know of any grad assistant that owed anything when transferring before completing a graduate degree.

I haven't insisted anything about athletes not being employees. It doesn't matter to me if they are considered employees orr contractors, bit one or the other is likely.

I agree that the NCAA is in a terminal condition and I certainly agree with Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in the caldron case.


.

Athletes as employees creates a pretty large mess. Why, legally, is a UT football or basketball player an employee, but a lesser sport..... say, tennis, not. At Stanford, perhaps the golfers are employees. At Harvard, perhaps the lacrosse players are employees.

Sorting out, legally, why some athletes should be employees and others not isn't just a matter of revenue. A company doesn't have to generate revenue or be financially successful to still owe employees a salary.

Why should a school be able to say: our football, basketball and baseball teams are employees but the other sports aren't because we don't make any money from other sports. We lose money on them.

A lot of businesses would happily not pay workers because the business may not generate a profit for several years. That's not a good test for employment. Should pro sports franchises not have to pay athletes until they generate a profit? Obviously not. Then why shouldn't each athlete at UT get paid?

This is why the revenue sports need to divorce themselves from the schools. The revenue sports CAN exist as a business while the non-revenue sports remain closer to what we know and love as kids getting an education AND enjoying the sport without being "cash cows" for the school.

By hanging on to the revenue sports, schools like UT and other schools with big revenue producing franchises jeopardize the rest of college athletics.

I'm just not sure you legally can say: a college football player is an employee but a college tennis player isn't. Why not?

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Athletes as employees creates a pretty large mess. Why, legally, is a UT football or basketball player an employee, but a lesser sport..... say, tennis, not. At Stanford, perhaps the golfers are employees. At Harvard, perhaps the lacrosse players are employees.

Sorting out, legally, why some athletes should be employees and others not isn't just a matter of revenue. A company doesn't have to generate revenue or be financially successful to still owe employees a salary.

Why should a school be able to say: our football, basketball and baseball teams are employees but the other sports aren't because we don't make any money from other sports. We lose money on them.

A lot of businesses would happily not pay workers because the business may not generate a profit for several years. That's not a good test for employment. Should pro sports franchises not have to pay athletes until they generate a profit? Obviously not. Then why shouldn't each athlete at UT get paid?

This is why the revenue sports need to divorce themselves from the schools. The revenue sports CAN exist as a business while the non-revenue sports remain closer to what we know and love as kids getting an education AND enjoying the sport without being "cash cows" for the school.

By hanging on to the revenue sports, schools like UT and other schools with big revenue producing franchises jeopardize the rest of college athletics.

I'm just not sure you legally can say: a college football player is an employee but a college tennis player isn't. Why not?

Not UT's problem. Revenue has always been a out the haves and the have nots, regardless of the business or sport in question.

Fortunately, Tennessee is one of the "haves".

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Athletes as employees creates a pretty large mess. Why, legally, is a UT football or basketball player an employee, but a lesser sport..... say, tennis, not. At Stanford, perhaps the golfers are employees. At Harvard, perhaps the lacrosse players are employees.

Sorting out, legally, why some athletes should be employees and others not isn't just a matter of revenue. A company doesn't have to generate revenue or be financially successful to still owe employees a salary.

Why should a school be able to say: our football, basketball and baseball teams are employees but the other sports aren't because we don't make any money from other sports. We lose money on them.

A lot of businesses would happily not pay workers because the business may not generate a profit for several years. That's not a good test for employment. Should pro sports franchises not have to pay athletes until they generate a profit? Obviously not. Then why shouldn't each athlete at UT get paid?

This is why the revenue sports need to divorce themselves from the schools. The revenue sports CAN exist as a business while the non-revenue sports remain closer to what we know and love as kids getting an education AND enjoying the sport without being "cash cows" for the school.

By hanging on to the revenue sports, schools like UT and other schools with big revenue producing franchises jeopardize the rest of college athletics.

I'm just not sure you legally can say: a college football player is an employee but a college tennis player isn't. Why not?

UT isn't going to divorce itself from the huge $$$ that revenue sports bring in.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

UT isn't going to divorce itself from the huge $$$ that revenue sports bring in.

No argument there but we'll stop seeing UT basketball vs Lenoir-Rhyne as anything but an exhibition game.

One doesn't see the NBA counting games as anything but exhibitions when they play out of the league. It's a business. You don't get to schedule cream puffs on your real schedule, nor is it worth it to play those teams from a risk-reward standpoint.

You're divorced from most teams whether you like it or not. Paid athletes are going to be divorced from the general student population even more than they are currently.

It's really a ruse to call it college athletics at some point.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

Your "sauce for goose" comment. The coaches have those clauses. The athletes don't. Ergo, your comment is a false equivalence.

Don't be surprised if players end up having those clauses. This is the age of capitalistic insanity. Long live capitalism!!

 

[BreatheUT]

Lol yes let’s do this for every job even military jobs not just college coaches. We should feel sorry for college coaches because they have more responsibilities

It's going to be interesting if coaches like Barnes decide to stay in it. I don't think he needs the money. Saban retired because of it.

 

[NEO]

Ok so team A is in playoffs and quarterback goes down. Team B is also in playoffs but not as high a seed. What is stopping team A from contacting team Bs QB and offering him money to switch schools literally the week before the game?

 

[GoodTimeVol]

Ok so team A is in playoffs and quarterback goes down. Team B is also in playoffs but not as high a seed. What is stopping team A from contacting team Bs QB and offering him money to switch schools literally the week before the game?

Things like ELIGIBILITY to said school

 

[Voltopia]

Things like ELIGIBILITY to said school

Hmm, I don't know though. Eligibility is the very thing the lawsuits have thrown into chaos. Eligibility was the tool the NCAA used to regulate the momvement of players. So-and-so could certainly transfer, but to be eligible to represent the school, they had to meet certain criteria. No more. The NCAA has been legally enjoined from restricting the ability of players to transfer. As far as I can see it, there's no reason someone couldn't offer outrageous sums of money for all kinds of outcomes in college sports.

The scenario of Team A and Team B and the quarterback may sound ludicrous, but in the current environment, there really isn't anything stopping that scenario from happening - not in terms of compensation compelling transfer, anyway. That said, the feasibility of integrating a new QB in one week may be an issue. And likely would be such an issue. But in the case of the former, it really feels like the doors are off the hinges.

 

[GoodTimeVol]

Hmm, I don't know though. Eligibility is the very thing the lawsuits have thrown into chaos. Eligibility was the tool the NCAA used to regulate the momvement of players. So-and-so could certainly transfer, but to be eligible to represent the school, they had to meet certain criteria. No more. The NCAA has been legally enjoined from restricting the ability of players to transfer. As far as I can see it, there's no reason someone couldn't offer outrageous sums of money for all kinds of outcomes in college sports.

The scenario of Team A and Team B and the quarterback may sound ludicrous, but in the current environment, there really isn't anything stopping that scenario from happening - not in terms of compensation, anyway. The feasibility of integrating a new QB in one week may be an issue. And likely would be such an issue. But in the case of the former, it really feels like the doors are off the hinges.

You guys understand how college works right? Or did you not go to college? no disrespect if you didn’t plenty of great ways to earn a living…


But they have to be eligible at said school and signed up for certain amount of Fall hours to play football for the year…so that prevents in season transfer’s considering during the season wanting to transfer to another school would be after the drop/add period so it’s simply not possible to transfer at any point during the season or playoffs

 

[Voltopia]

You guys understand how college works right? Or did you not go to college? no disrespect if you didn’t plenty of great ways to earn a living…


But they have to be eligible at said school and signed up for certain amount of Fall hours to play football for the year…so that prevents in season transfer’s considering during the season wanting to transfer to another school would be after the drop/add period so it’s simply not possible to transfer at any point during the season or playoffs

Oh, oh yes, I'm remarkably ignorant, please excuse me. The stamp of idiocy is indelibly etched across my forehead. Please pardon my unwashed and thoroughly uneducated existence.

Now that we've got that out of the way, if you don't think that schools can find ways around "rules" to suit their competitive intentions, then, well, more power to you. Especially when the only institution that did enforce rules (the NCAA) got sued into oblivion for doing so.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You guys understand how college works right? Or did you not go to college? no disrespect if you didn’t plenty of great ways to earn a living…


But they have to be eligible at said school and signed up for certain amount of Fall hours to play football for the year…so that prevents in season transfer’s considering during the season wanting to transfer to another school would be after the drop/add period so it’s simply not possible to transfer at any point during the season or playoffs

Shadeur Sanders says Hi!

QB Shedeur Sanders attends first in-person lecture at Colorado after more than a year

Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders attended an in-person lecture on campus for the first time, more than a year after he enrolled as a student.

www.usatoday.com

 

[NEO]

Oh, oh yes, I'm remarkably ignorant, please excuse me. The stamp of idiocy is indelibly etched across my forehead. Please pardon my unwashed and thoroughly uneducated existence.

Now that we've got that out of the way, if you don't think that schools can find ways around "rules" to suit their competitive intentions, then, well, more power to you. Especially when the only institution that did enforce rules (the NCAA) got sued into oblivion for doing so.

That’s my thoughts.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

You guys understand how college works right? Or did you not go to college? no disrespect if you didn’t plenty of great ways to earn a living…


But they have to be eligible at said school and signed up for certain amount of Fall hours to play football for the year…so that prevents in season transfer’s considering during the season wanting to transfer to another school would be after the drop/add period so it’s simply not possible to transfer at any point during the season or playoffs

I agree. I can’t help but notice that APR doesn’t seem to be talked about at all anymore. Remember when that used to be a huge deal? It’s weird that is has basically disappeared. Just an observation on my end, not disputing anything that you posted.

 

[hog88]

Ok so team A is in playoffs and quarterback goes down. Team B is also in playoffs but not as high a seed. What is stopping team A from contacting team Bs QB and offering him money to switch schools literally the week before the game?

At some point there will have to be contracts put in place. If the schools start direct payments to players I don't see how contracts could be deemed illegal or against the rules.

 

[Budalicious]

Well when the coaches have the freedom to up and leave at any moment it's only right.

Then players should have to pay a buyout like they do. A lot of time and money in in these guys. Of another school want them, then let said school pay the buyout

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I hate this so much.

Free market/capitalism???

 

[WoodsmanVol]

If we fans were loyal to the kids, I'd agree with you. At least half of us are a-holes who will turn on them at the drop of a hat.

And there it is.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Then players should have to pay a buyout like they do. A lot of time and money in in these guys. Of another school want them, then let said school pay the buyout

No, they shouldn't. For starters, it would be illegal. Fir another, their commitment ends the second they go in the transfer portal.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

At some point there will have to be contracts put in place. If the schools start direct payments to players I don't see how contracts could be deemed illegal or against the rules.

The elite athletes are t going to limit their options by taking school money if they're getting more from private NIL.

It won't matter to 3rd string right ends.