Scott Frost

[Orange]

Any player should be able to transfer when he or she sees fit.

Just as any student can.  It's ridiculous that the NCAA prohibits this.

[CRBuff]

1 minute ago, Orange said:

Any player should be able to transfer when he or she sees fit.

Just as any student can.  It's ridiculous that the NCAA prohibits this.

I think part of the problem is the thought that boosters etc. will recruit/pay players on other teams.  I understand it happens already, I just wonder if that would send it into hyper drive.

[Orange]

8 minutes ago, CRBuff said:

I think part of the problem is the thought that boosters etc. will recruit/pay players on other teams.  I understand it happens already, I just wonder if that would send it into hyper drive.

Then the NCAA needs to police boosters, not punish students.

[CRBuff]

Well I hardly think players are being punished.  That said, there hs to be some middle ground in all of this

[Orange]

6 minutes ago, CRBuff said:

Well I hardly think players are being punished.  That said, there hs to be some middle ground in all of this

Indeed, the rule changed as of yesterday, and student athletes have the option of transferring more freely.  Which makes this thread all the more stupid.

And yes, players are being punished if they cannot freely transfer to the institution of their choice.  They're adults, not children.  It defies all concepts of freedom and liberty.  

[CRBuff]

Sports often defies freedom and liberty.  It isn’t and will never be a complete free for all.

[Orange]

NCAA athletes in traditionally relatively white sports like baseball, track and field, golf, swimming, etc., can begin earning a paycheck for their athletic prowess immediately.  Meanwhile, mostly black and brown players in basketball and football are forced to do time for zero pay with the NCAA.  

Try and make the argument as to why it's different for those sports as opposed to others.  

[CRBuff]

An argument outside of race?  I’d quibble with your characterization of what is a white sport (track for instance).  But that is not particularly important.

my belief is this has to do more with cash than color.  The ncaa’s ability to control all cash flows is paramount.  Could rules have been implemented for the wrong reasons (racist, etc), but the paramount concern is cash imo.

[EastCoastFan]

There are some interesting aspects to all of this.  For one, NCAA conferences can also adopt their own procedures around transfers, essentially rendering the rule change, which takes effect in October, moot if they wanted.  It'll be interesting to see if anything happens -- Clemson is pushing for something in the ACC.

The transfer change is made more of a complicated issue for coaches because of the new four-game red shirt rule.  It gets into decisions on whether to play a player for the fifth game to avoid a potential transfer.  One solution, offered by an Iowa State writer (Aaron Marne)r is as follows:  "Give student-athletes a choice after each year. They can either transfer — without penalty, without having to sit out a year — or they can return to their current school." 

Back to the Nebraska situation, the problem that Frost was addressing wasn't the ability of players to transfer without controls; it was actions he believes were taken by opposing coaches to initiate contact and make a play for players who were currently active on Nebraska's roster.

 

[Orange]

13 minutes ago, CRBuff said:

An argument outside of race?  I’d quibble with your characterization of what is a white sport (track for instance).  But that is not particularly important.

my belief is this has to do more with cash than color.  The ncaa’s ability to control all cash flows is paramount.  Could rules have been implemented for the wrong reasons (racist, etc), but the paramount concern is cash imo.

I don't see why I'm supposed to exclude race.

[CRBuff]

Oh not saying you have to exclude race, just simply don’t believe it’s the driving factor.  

[KUGRDON]

29 minutes ago, CRBuff said:

An argument outside of race?  I’d quibble with your characterization of what is a white sport (track for instance).  But that is not particularly important.

my belief is this has to do more with cash than color.  The ncaa’s ability to control all cash flows is paramount.  Could rules have been implemented for the wrong reasons (racist, etc), but the paramount concern is cash imo.

When the rules were originally adopted in there most restrictive form, there were hardly any ncaa athletes of color in any sport, or women for that matter.  Almost all of the changes have been more generous to players independent of but contemporaneous with the increase in the number of female and minority athletes.  The rules are stupid and too much in favor of the ncaa and member schools but most certainly and demonstrably not related to race.

[EastCoastFan]

There are a lot of things in this world that have to do with race.  It shouldn't be understated.  It's part of our national fabric and pat of our historical shame.  However, when it comes to college football, in today's world, the driving factor, as with conference expansion, coaches, facilities, etc. is money.  Plain old $$$'s.  Schools protecting their winnings.  Conferences maximizing their media value through star players, regardless of their race.  If lacrosse brought in $40 million each year to NCAA schools, you'd see all types of protective restrictions on that sport too.

[Orange]

10 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

When the rules were originally adopted in there most restrictive form, there were hardly any ncaa athletes of color in any sport, or women for that matter.  Almost all of the changes have been more generous to players independent of but contemporaneous with the increase in the number of female and minority athletes.  The rules are stupid and too much in favor of the ncaa and member schools but most certainly and demonstrably not related to race.

Really? So the rule that would now prohibit Moses Malone or Lebron James from going straight from HS to the NBA was in effect 15 years ago?

 

Why can any T&F athlete, golfer, tennis player, swimmer, baseball player etc., be an Olympian and earn millions on endorsement deals at 18, but football and basketball players cannot earn a living immediately after receiving a HS diploma (outside of going to Italy or some shit)? 

 

I'm genuinely curious.  

[Orange]

2 minutes ago, Downthefield said:

There are a lot of things in this world that have to do with race.  It shouldn't be understated.  It's part of our national fabric and pat of our historical shame.  However, when it comes to college football, in today's world, the driving factor, as with conference expansion, coaches, facilities, etc. is money.  Plain old $$$'s.  Schools protecting their winnings.  Conferences maximizing their media value through star players, regardless of their race.  If lacrosse brought in $40 million each year to NCAA schools, you'd see all types of protective restrictions on that sport too.

I guess I don't understand why the NBA and NFL collude with the NCAA to give them their fair share of $ off the backs of unpaid revenue athletes, yet MLB doesn't.  Do they not have an interest in letting the college be a minor league farm and developmental system with them?  The stated reasons of the NFL (and endorsed by the NCAA) is that they're "protecting players from themselves".  Yet when athletes are injured for more than one season, they sure as shit don't give them extra eligibility very easily.  Wouldn't that cut against the pure revenue argument?

 

And if you're asking if I was fired up about this issue after watching Ballers, the answer is yes, I was.

[EastCoastFan]

5 minutes ago, Orange said:

Really? So the rule that would now prohibit Moses Malone or Lebron James from going straight from HS to the NBA was in effect 15 years ago?

 

Check your facts.  It isn't an NCAA rule that prevents them from going from high school, it's an NBA players' union agreement.  It'll only be changed if the NBA reaches a new union agreement allowing high school players to go immediately to NBA teams.

[Orange]

And I tend to agree that cash probably has more to do with it than color....just something I feel deserves aggressive questioning when it disproportionately affects minorities.

[Orange]

1 minute ago, Downthefield said:

Check your facts.  It isn't an NCAA rule that prevents them from going from high school, it's an NBA players' union agreement.  It'll only be changed if the NBA reaches a new union agreement allowing high school players to go immediately to NBA teams.

And the NCAA and the NBA wholeheartedly endorsed it together.  

[MrBug708]

10 minutes ago, Orange said:

And the NCAA and the NBA wholeheartedly endorsed it together.  

The sports unions tend to protect the older players than the ones mot quite there yet and who may never be a bargining member. Mostly because its older players who tend to be involved. I doubt they care either way.

[EastCoastFan]

7 minutes ago, Orange said:

And the NCAA and the NBA wholeheartedly endorsed it together.  

The NCAA has quietly asked the NBA to work with their union to change the rule so they can get away from one-and-done situations that have nothing to do with attending college for academics.  When you make arguments about race that have substance, that's great, but it does progressive causes harm (and encourages the Bruin 70's of the world) when you blow hot air without substance.