Quantcast
Sports

Doug Robinson: NCAA should change antiquated transfer rules and allow athletes to switch schools like coaches do

Comments

Return To Article
  • Coach A Rock Springs, WY
    April 15, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    Coaches get "punished" if they leave early. Most have buyout or payments if they leave early. Yes sometimes the new school pays the fee.

    Players get "punished" if they leave early, although National Letters of Intent are a 1 year contract, the players are expected to be there 4 years. They have to sit out a year in most cases.

    It seems the system if close to fair. However, life is not fair. College is supposed to get young adults ready for the real world. If i quit my job because I got a new boss, I have to apply for new job, maybe move etc... these are called consequences of my action.

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    April 10, 2013 11:53 p.m.

    So for all of you who want to have unfettered transfers for athletes when their coach leaves, if five Florida Gulf Coast College basketball players want to follow him to USC, you don't have any problem with five USC basketball players loosing their scholarships to make room for the transfers?

    And what if my position coach leaves, since he was the one who really convinced me to enroll in my school, should I be able to follow him to another school without having to sit out a year?

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    April 10, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    The "student-athlete" should only be able to transfer if the coach leaves or gets fired. Since so much of a coach's job is recruiting, and we always hear the phrase "he is a great recruiter", then the athlete should be able to follow the coach.

  • rlsintx Plano, TX
    April 10, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    Give the SA a one-time "get out of jail" card to balance the fact that what he was sold in recruiting isn't being fulfilled. They should be able to transfer and play , no sit out year. And, if the head coach leaves, all the players recruited by him should be able to transfer - and not count against their "get out of jail" card count.

    So many athletes never get to do what they were promised.

    If a school wants to let a player play without a sit-out year who has transferred twice , make them give a scholarship credit to the school he came from as a form of compensation.

    Kids should be able to play period; coaches don't have to wait to coach...and non-SA students can jump right into full campus involvement without restrictions. The NCAA preaches not treating athletes special in other ways, why constrain them when non-SA students aren't. ?

  • Aloha Saint George Saint George, Utah
    April 10, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    The other side of the coin with coaches is that they can be fired on a drop of a hat, no matter what the contract says. College coaching is one of the most unstable occupations out there. Win or else is the rule!

    I agree that kids should be able to transfer eligibility issues in some cases. For example if a kids goes from an FBS to FCS school AND vice versa. Or if that coach leaves.

    Nice article, just anxious words put into action by the NCAA.

  • SMS Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    I think I would be okay with the rule change, but I do worry it would create a free agency type market every off-season. There would still need to be a couple of conditions in my mind: First, if a player transfers to a school in the same conference he/she loses a year of eligibility. Second, a player can only transfer once in his/her athletic career.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    April 10, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    I can see Robinsons point but also I would hate to see Universities start recruiting an athlete when they start performing on the field. Or a team has an injured player so they start looking for a replacement from another team!

    The one a done scenario in basketball is bad enough. I don't want to see it in football.

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    While unfettered transfers may, at first blush, seem to be student-athlete friendly, there are some drawbacks:

    Scholarship Darwinism: Schools will still have scholarship limits, so a team may have to take away a player's scholarship to make room for a transferring player--fair to the "bumped" player? Of course the bumped player (who didn't want to transfer) can transfer to a smaller school and take someone else's scholarship. Scholarship Darwinism would be chaos.

    Perpetual Recruiting: Unfettered transfers would require open recruiting of scholarship athletes (so they can make an informed decision re whether recruiting is in their best interest). Imagine a world where a UofU wide receiver spends his bye week Saturday attending a UCLA game on a recruiting trip (why not, it's a free trip to LA). The NCAA struggles to police recruiting under the current rules, they'd have no hope of doing so with perpetual recruiting.

    Interrupted Academics: Transferring students often can't transfer all their credits. Without the benefit of the sit out year to replace the lost credits, it's likely that an athlete's scholarship will run out before they have the credits needed to graduate.

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Coaches should not be able to break their contracts and "Student-Athletes" should be able to transfer. Put all the coaches on a 1 year contract.

  • Whiteshoes Hurricane, UT
    April 10, 2013 5:22 a.m.

    Good article, but I disagree with the proposition. Coaching changes have always existed. Student athletes should be using a variety of reasons to choose a school, not just on who the head coach is. Besides, position coaches are often more influential in the recruiting process.

    The university can included a buyout clause to protect themselves. The penalty for a coach leaving is generally a financial decision which affects the athletic budget.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 10, 2013 1:37 a.m.

    Too much chaos. With no paid contracts, too many players would be coming, and going.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    April 9, 2013 11:42 p.m.

    Who wants to see recruiting extended another three or four years to the distraction of all the best athletes?