Comments about ‘What should the NCAA do about player transfers?’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 21 2012 7:06 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mr. Moots
Salt Lake City, UT

Easy!!! Change the rules. Kids are being manipulated and used all day long. You are captive in a program whether the coaching staff changes or you have a change of heart while on your mission etc.

Coaches are making millions,as are the schools, while the students are told they have no choice other than the one they made as a 17 or 18 year old. Sometimes what is best for the kids is high jacked by the system that wants to win no matter the expense. It is wrong!

I can't believe it has lasted this long. Mainly because the people in charge of making the decision are self serving. They benefit from keeping players captive. yes, wicked. This is Satans plan. No choice.

When an honest man discovers he is wrong he either changes his ways or he stops being honest.

It is time to change these wicked ways.

hedgehog
Ann Arbor, MI

Without restrictions non BCS programs become the farm systems for power elite. The occasional WAC or independent player who performes better then expected would simply be plucked up after their freshman/sophore year. Van Noy would be playing in the PAC12 as we speak.

Howard S.
Taylorsville, UT

Here are some thoughts for starters:

1) If head coach coach changes for any reason players can transfer to any other school without penalty to the player or the the transfer school. This makes schools think long and hard before releasing coaches. Under this rule players are not penalized for actions of the school or the coach over which they have no control.

2) Rule 1 applies if a school loses post season eligibility as a result of NCAA infractions. Again players are not penalized for actions of the school over which they have no control

3) After signing with a school (at any time during his eligibility... even after completing a mission) if a player transfers at his own request he loses a year of eligibility at the new school, plus the transfer school loses one scholarship for the first year after transfer. This rule places a price on the player for changing his mind, and places a price on the transfer school which limits any inclination to poach another schools players.

Continue below:

Howard S.
Taylorsville, UT

Continued from above:

4) After signing with a school, at any time during his eligibility, if at the option of the school a player's scholarship is revoked, the school loses one scholarship for the following year. In this instance the player may transfer to any school without penalty to the transfer school. This rule would give schools the option to move unproductive players, but not without a price for changing their mind.

The theory behind each of these rules is that player continuity and stability should be encouraged, players are not penalized for action of the school or coach over which they have no control, yet movement is possible but not without price to he party that initiates the movement

Utahute72
Tooele, UT

Apples to Oranges to Pears to Grape. The BYU case is normal business in college athletics, but it would help if schools paid for the players tuition if not retained.

The Utah case has been completely mis-characterized, and seems to be a case of the Coach being up front with the recruit, trying to do what's in his best interest. By rule Utah is still on the hook for the scholie should Herlihy chose to push the issue.

The Hawaii case appears to be a case of tampering, if it is in fact true that BYU made contract, filled out the paperwork and pushed the event. This is a bit of a sticky wicket because while re-recruiting missionaries may be good for BYU, I'm not sure it's good for the Church in general.

The Wisconsin case appears to be either miscommunication between player and the coach, or the coach trying to force the player to stay. If there is a case for restriction, as not wanting him to transfer in league, or tampering, fine. If not the school come off as petty.

alternate
Salt Lake City, UT

I disagree with Hedgehog. Van Noy is still playing at the school of his choice because he wants to be there. He could move if he wanted. Many were surprised that he didn't follow his good friend to Kansas or move somewhere else at the same time. Most likely what we will see is Van Noy enter the NFL draft after next season, his junior year. There also seems to be transfer movement in both directions from the PAC12 to other schools.

I also believe the Hawaii thing is a Norm Chow/BYU issue and the young man is caught in the middle. That became apparent when Chow said anywhere but BYU and alledgedly tried to steer the transfer to Utah.

Hedgie is right about the looting of players by "money schools" if the rules were dropped. I believe there would be numerous unfortunate situations where the "Yankees" or "Lakers" of college football would simply outbid small budget schools regardless of conference affliation for the transfers. We saw that with Auburn season before last. They literally bought a BCS title.

We wear Blue
ogden, ut

I can understand some restrictions on the players with scholarships, but if the school pulls the scholarship or the player is a walk on , these players should be able to transfer to any program without penalty.
These kids often times are used and not treated fairly, all the while paying their own expenses.
This is a no brainer. Student atheletes that are paying their own way should be able to go to any program, no questions ask.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments