| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/17/14 1:49 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
It doesn't happen across the board, and most college coaches are sincerely interested in the welfare of their students.
But there are enough exceptions -- including the NCAA's rule interpretations that always favor the colleges -- that forming a players' union is something that's worth doing.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/17/14 8:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| allenleavell wrote: |
| Coaches were fired she should given a unconditonally release!!END OF STORY!!!!!! |
Let's test your commitment by changing the facts to a football team.
Suppose the University of Southern California, a major football power with 85 scholarship athletes, fires its coach to get a better one (as happened last year). Do you really believe that all 85 athletes should be given unconditional releases to transfer? The school has literally invested millions of dollars in the recruitment and retention of these student-athletes. And what new coach would agree to be hired if he knew all, or a significant portion of, the players might scatter to the winds?
We should also understand there are two kinds of "releases" that can be at issue in basketball.
One is a release from a National Letter of Intent during the term of that contract. The NLI is in force from the date it is signed by the student until she completes one academic year of course work. Unless released from this contract, a student who transfers while it is in force must sit out a year at her new school and lose one year of basketball eligibility.
Schools will commonly release high school students from NLI's before they enroll if something happens like a coach leaving. In such a case, the school is prejudiced but hasn't invested any money in the student other than recruiting costs and opportunity costs.
Presumably, Leti Romero will complete complete her NLI contract, so that's not the kind of "release" that's at issue.
The second kind of "release" is really the issuance by the current school of a permission-to-contact letter to the potential new school. Student-athletes are not allowed to have any communication with another school about transferring unless the current school issues a permission-to-contact letter to that other school. This "releases" the athlete from the NCAA no-communication rule.
If the current school refuses such a release -- as KSU is apparently doing with Romero -- the student-athlete can transfer to the other school and then talk. But here's the kicker: If there is no release (permission-to-contact letter), the transfer student cannot receive any athletic financial aid at the new school for one academic year, the entire term of the sit-out period. If there is a release letter and the student decides to transfer, then the student can get athletic financial aid during the sit-out year at the new school.
So, the Romero issue is scholarship money for one year.
That one year of money is the deterrent all schools can wield under the NCAA regulations by not granting a permission-to-contact release. If an Athletic Department denies a permission-to-contact release, a requested hearing must be conducted by a committee outside the Athletic Department, and the school has 15 business days to give the student its final answer. I see no procedure in the NCAA regulation to appeal any further.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/17/14 9:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I really don't see the huge negative is allowing the 85 football players (or 13 basketball players) to leave.
First, most of them won't. (After all, the NCAA claims that students go to schools because of the schools, not the coaches -- and in this case, I think they're mostly right.)
Second, even if most of them wanted to, it would be hard to find 85 landing spots. Let's say, though, for the sake of argument that 30 players left (four basketball players).
There would be transfers in, JC players, etc., for one year, and then the coach would kick it into gear.
This, however, would also make schools a little more wary of giving the coach a huge, long-term contract, and make them load up the poison pill in the deal, and I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Again, why shouldn't all adults have the same options in this kind of environment? Why are coaches and administrators privileged in this regard? Why should players be treated differently?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/17/14 10:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| Again, why shouldn't all adults have the same options in this kind of environment? Why are coaches and administrators privileged in this regard? Why should players be treated differently? |
Coaches and (high level) administrators aren't privileged. They sign long term contracts that restrict their occupational freedom for the duration of the contract. If the coach or administrator "transfers", a good contact will have some sort of financial penalty to deter the transfer or may have an enforceable (by injunction) no-compete clause.
Yes, very occasionally a coach or (less likely) administrator might be able to negotiate a buy-out of the contract paid for by the transfer-to employer, but that's only going to happen for elite coaches or executives who are highly marketable.
The student-athlete similarly engages in a contract, governed by NCAA regulations rather than state contract law. As quid pro quo for the private school athlete's getting perhaps $260,000 in education, meals and clothing, she gives up the right of free transferability to protect the school's investment. She can transfer, but there may be a penalty. There is, admittedly, no analog of the "buy-out" funded by a transfer-to school in the no-release situation.
However, any student-athlete can maximize her freedom of mobility simply by not signing an NLI and not accepting any athletic financial aid. How can she afford to do this, one may ask. Simple, be born to rich parents . . . or form a children's union and demand the right to freely transfer to a rich family.
|
|
ksuwbbfan
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Posts: 98
Location: Kansas
Back to top |
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7845
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/18/14 6:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
That really makes K-State and Mittie look like the Bad Guys, particularly since Romero's family is in Spain. If I were her I would likely just pack up and go home and forget about US basketball, period..and probably be telling other Spanish players to forget it also. KSU and Mittie may have just shot themselves in the foot here.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/18/14 9:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
THAT'S a loss. Anyone who saw her play recognized her unique talents; hopefully, something might still come through to salvage her career here.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
dfineguy
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 201
Location: Bay Area Califonia
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/18/14 9:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| K-State and Mittie just tagged themselves as two of the biggest a**holes in intercollegiate athletics. Who would send their kid to K-State now? Nazi administrators and creepy coaches. An unbeatable combination. Martin should get out now too. Very bad for the Big 12 as a whole!
_________________
From the Desk of the Cat in the Hat
|
|
Joe Foss
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 4066
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 10:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
Retweeted by Sue Bird
Jay Bilas @JayBilas 13h
What an embarrassment for Kansas State. http://bit.ly/1kKAfyq Hey @kstate_pres, let her go. She's just not that into you. How lame.
|
_________________
Ohio Bobcats WBB Fan
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 12:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Joe Foss wrote: |
| Quote: |
Retweeted by Sue Bird
Jay Bilas @JayBilas 13h
What an embarrassment for Kansas State. http://bit.ly/1kKAfyq Hey @kstate_pres, let her go. She's just not that into you. How lame.
|
|
Wouldn't it be better all-around if Romero had some association (or union, if the word isn't too scary) that could negotiate for her with Kansas State?
Wouldn't it be more likely that a) Mittie and K-State would not have down this if they knew they were going to have to deal with more than a 19-year-old who grew up in Spain and has no parents close by to support her, or b) that if they did, they were going to have to justify their actions through an appeal process to an outside agency?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 3:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| Joe Foss wrote: |
| Quote: |
Retweeted by Sue Bird
Jay Bilas @JayBilas 13h
What an embarrassment for Kansas State. http://bit.ly/1kKAfyq Hey @kstate_pres, let her go. She's just not that into you. How lame.
|
|
Wouldn't it be better all-around if Romero had some association (or union, if the word isn't too scary) that could negotiate for her with Kansas State?
Wouldn't it be more likely that a) Mittie and K-State would not have down this if they knew they were going to have to deal with more than a 19-year-old who grew up in Spain and has no parents close by to support her, or b) that if they did, they were going to have to justify their actions through an appeal process to an outside agency? |
Clay, I've refrained from commenting on this ongoing theme for a while, but I do feel like this is one of those examples of a specific problem that we should be careful about generalizing.
In this particular case, it's apparent that the situation would be better if Romero had some kind of leverage, but if she had a union (or association - nice touch there) and the rules were as they are, the likelihood that the union could do anything more than she's doing would be low to zero. In fact, the release rule would be bargained for and presumptively enforceable as written.
Now, it's fair to say that the release rule might well be on the top ten list of things to fix in a negotiation, and maybe eventually is does get fixed. If history is any guide, though (and by this I mean MLB, NFL, NBA, WNBA and pretty much every other sports union), the first negotiation would yield only minor improvements - in baseball, the reserve clause stayed in place for a long time after the union was recognized. In fact, a lot of what the pro-union people want is expressly prohibited by current NCAA rules, so I imagine that there would be complete resistance to most of the demands. (This particular issue would not be one of those things, which might improve the odds it would be addressed early.)
In any event, I'm still having some trouble with the reality that I would expect the result of any negotiation to be to shift resources towards football and MBB players and away from WBB players and, in fact, most other sports, with some potential exceptions for hockey, lacrosse and wrestling at some schools. This is particularly the case considering that the current thinking is sport-specific unions at individual institutions, but it might even be true if there were all-sport unions, since there would be a lot more football players than players in any other sport (even track and field).
A more ideal situation would be to change the rules via some other approach. I freely admit, though, that the problem is that there's no indication that the NCAA or the member schools have much interest in that.
|
|
dfineguy
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 201
Location: Bay Area Califonia
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 4:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
In my humble opinion, K-State would probably lose this case in a court of law. If K-state fought this on appeal, the resultant publicity would destroy their athletic program(s) across the board. A bloody nose as well as a black eye. If she goes into another state, then jurisdictional disputes occur. All the while the spotlight falls on K-State and, I believe that a large majority of people, college sports fans and civil libertarians alike, will be pro-Romero.
At this point, the smartest thing K-State could do would be to say that they are not in the business of making a student-athlete miserable, grant her the release and end this right now. The harder line they take, the worse they look.
_________________
From the Desk of the Cat in the Hat
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 5:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| Wouldn't it be better all-around if Romero had some association (or union, if the word isn't too scary) that could negotiate for her with Kansas State? |
BeK's explanation is the Complete and Detailed one, but to me, the simplest perspective is to consider what a gigantic clusterf*ck that would present, across the board of NCAA athletics....and all for the (seemingly occasional) glitchy transfer?
K-State and the NCAA did the Right Thing in regard to Taelor Karr, releasing her to Gonzaga and she was able to play immediately. Obviously, there were different circumstances, but doing the Right Thing is achievable, even at K-State. I just can't fathom how they can't get that in this case.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 5:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I don't understand what KState is trying to accomplish by denying her release
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Youth Coach
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4760
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 6:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| I don't understand what KState is trying to accomplish by denying her release |
They want to become known as the world's largest gaping asshole? |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 7:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Youth Coach wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| I don't understand what KState is trying to accomplish by denying her release |
They want to become known as the world's largest gaping asshole? |
There's a lot of competition for that title, so they probably wouldn't even get that.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 9:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| I don't understand what KState is trying to accomplish by denying her release |
I will defend KSU because the comments are too one-sided and emotional.
First, we must again differentiate between (1) a release from a NLI granted to a high school student not yet enrolled as a freshman, and (2) a permission-to-contact transfer release to an enrolled student athlete who has completed her NLI year. Schools not uncommonly grant releases in situation (1) when coaches change jobs between seasons. Schools are less likely to grant releases of type (2) especially when they make coaching changes.
The KSU policy is a university-wide policy that applies to all sports. The coach doesn't make the policy or enforce it. The AD does, probably with the approval of the university president. KSU's policy says, except for the most compelling of circumstances which place an undue burden on the student athlete, it is the policy of the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics not to grant a release for purposes of a transfer or provide the one-time transfer exception.
This is a very reasonable policy in terms of serving the school's very reasonable self-interest. KSU has hundreds or thousands of athletes who have finished their first year. They have millions or tens of millions of dollars invested in them. The school can't have a policy that lets athletes leave ad libitum. It's reasonable to have a policy that deters transfers except when there are individual circumstances are very compelling and burdensome to specific athlete.
Schools, not the athletes, decide who the coach is, and schools should have unfettered discretion of choice. Changing coaches is just about the last situation in which a school should grant releases to post-freshman. No one promised the athletes that they could have a say in changes of coaches. In fact, the NLI states precisely to the contrary as a matter of contract law.
How could a school hire a top talent coach if they are granting transfer releases to the established top players such as Romero? No coach would take the job.
And why the sympathy for Romero? She claims she went to KSU because she liked the coach Deb Patterson. Well, so what? Deb Patterson isn't coaching anymore, anywhere. She's left the stage. So what's the drama that Romero is crying about? She's going to have a new coach no matter whether she stays or goes. What "compelling circumstance" is placing a "burden" specifically on Romero in contrast to every other player on the team. There is none. She just prefers a different free cake, and for no special reason.
Schools can't have policies that allow established student-athletes to transfer cost-free just because their aesthetic preference in coaches has changed. And that's all that's going on: Romero has an aesthetic dislike for Mittie for some unknown reason, and she wants the self-entitled right to jettison KSU's monetary and training investment in her so she can get another free ride at another university.
Well, nothing is stopping her from transferring and supporting herself for two academic semesters the old fashioned way: get a job, hit up your parents, and/or get a loan. Tens of millions of non-athletic scholarship students do that every year ... for four years or more.
KSU's policy reasonably protects its own reasonable athletic interests, it provides exceptions for compelling individual circumstances that put burdens on specific athletes, it is endorsed by specific and clear NCAA regulations, and it is probably the very same policy that is in force at the vast majority of schools. (But I'd be very interested in an actual survey.)
KSU must enforce its policy consistently and fairly among its thousands of athletes, and Romero's aesthetic non-preference for a new coach doesn't even come close to the compelling and burdensome individual circumstance contemplated by the policy exception. Every one of the players on the team could make the very same disgruntled and selfish argument.
This was an easy case, upheld by an independent university committee outside the Athletic Department. In a sport no one will care about.
|
|
ddubdawg
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 1905
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 9:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I understand your argument and all of the points that you have stated are very clear and reasonable, but I have to respectfully say that I don't agree with this view. And for me the last statement is reason for this not be blown out of proportion and that the university give her the release if it is indeed, "in a sport that no one will care about."
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 10:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ddubdawg wrote: |
| I understand your argument and all of the points that you have stated are very clear and reasonable, but I have to respectfully say that I don't agree with this view. And for me the last statement is reason for this not be blown out of proportion and that the university give her the release if it is indeed, "in a sport that no one will care about." |
Thanks for taking the time to read my argument and your courteous reply.
I'd like to make clear that I was just making an argument -- like a hired lawyer -- on behalf of KSU and other schools with a similar policy. This argument does not mirror my personal views, which favor somewhat lessened restrictions on transfers but not unionization.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 10:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Glenn, your clear argument makes a lot of sense to those of us less versed in such regulations, but the whole situation still begs the question: why are kids everywhere routinely granted releases/transfers without all this hullabaloo? The way it's playing out at K-State makes one think they're being unnecessarily vindictive. JMO.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7845
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 10:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Glenn, your clear argument makes a lot of sense to those of us less versed in such regulations, but the whole situation still begs the question: why are kids everywhere routinely granted releases/transfers without all this hullabaloo? The way it's playing out at K-State makes one think they're being unnecessarily vindictive. JMO. |
Exactly. Particularly when contrasted with NC and their treatment of Diamond DeShields in the same situation, KSU just comes off looking BAD.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/14 11:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| I don't understand what KState is trying to accomplish by denying her release |
I will defend KSU because the comments are too one-sided and emotional. |
I understand in theory why this policy exists. What do they think they are gaining in practice? Romero isn't going to play her best under these circumstances, assuming she plays at all instead of coming down with an "injury" that keeps her out. They'll be lucky if she plays half speed. The bad publicity is going to hurt their recruiting, and not just in WCBB. What is the upside for K-State to hold her hostage?
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/20/14 12:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| I don't understand what KState is trying to accomplish by denying her release |
I will defend KSU because the comments are too one-sided and emotional. |
I understand in theory why this policy exists. What do they think they are gaining in practice? Romero isn't going to play her best under these circumstances, assuming she plays at all instead of coming down with an "injury" that keeps her out. They'll be lucky if she plays half speed. The bad publicity is going to hurt their recruiting, and not just in WCBB. What is the upside for K-State to hold her hostage? |
The upside, arguably, is trinitarian:
1. KSU doesn't set a dangerous policy precedent of allowing enrolled players to be given transfer releases just because of a coaching change.
2. Romero may calm down, realize there is no basketball Oz, and become relatively happy remaining in Kansas with Toto and Auntie Em.
3. Any probability of productive play by a retained Romero is better than the zero probability of a departed one.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/20/14 2:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Glenn, your clear argument makes a lot of sense to those of us less versed in such regulations, but the whole situation still begs the question: why are kids everywhere routinely granted releases/transfers without all this hullabaloo? The way it's playing out at K-State makes one think they're being unnecessarily vindictive. JMO. |
Howee, you are doing things. You are asking a very important question. But you are also doing what lawyers would call assuming facts not in evidence.
I don't think any of us know how often, or the percentage of times, transfer releases are granted or denied. Your question makes the assumption that the norm is granting releases and that Kansas is in an evil minority.
For reasons I can't prove, because none of us has the evidence, I assume the opposite: that, for reasons like the ones I argued, the significant majority of transfer release requests are denied. As I've discussed with Beknighted somewhere on this board, I don't think we know whether Diamond DeShields has been granted, denied or even requested a transfer release yet.
Because we don't know the percentages of transfer releases that are granted vs. denied on a national or big sample basis, I'd even suggest it's unfair to accuse KSU of doing something unusual. Of course, one can argue its the wrong policy regardless of whether it is normal or abnormal, and I think that's a principled position some here are taking.
On a practical point, which may respond to Pilight's inquiry, it may be that KSU is banking on the fact that WCBB is a rather unimportant sport in the big scheme. Romerogate will create a stir on a few message boards like this one for a couple of weeks, but basically be unnoticed. No one knows who Romero is outside of us fan-addicts.
|
|
|
|
