RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Changes to transfer rules are in the works ,
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
scfastpitch



Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 616



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 8:30 am    ::: Changes to transfer rules are in the works , Reply Reply with quote

but power conferences want "autonomy" .

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/263884991.html?page=1&c=y


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 9:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'd be pretty happy with a rule that requires players to sit out a year, but does not allow the school to block transfers.


purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 9:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
I'd be pretty happy with a rule that requires players to sit out a year, but does not allow the school to block transfers.


I think a year sitting out but you can't transfer within your conference is reasonable.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 11:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

purduefanatic wrote:
beknighted wrote:
I'd be pretty happy with a rule that requires players to sit out a year, but does not allow the school to block transfers.


I think a year sitting out but you can't transfer within your conference is reasonable.


I'd add a ban on "following a coach". it either should be automatic, or at least give a school the right, to prohibit a player from transferring to a school where the head coach, or that player's coordinator or position coach, has taken a new job. Simply too much opportunity for abuse. You generally can't prove tampering, but it happens. It's no different or less common than a lawyer or accountant or stock broker or anyone else telling clients he'd be happy to help them at his or her new firm for a coach to tell a player he or she would be happy to find a place for them at the new school if they are interested in moving.

The only other possible category I would see is schools on the team's schedule, say within the next two years. Or maybe require more than once during the athlete's remaining period of eligibility. I don't have a problem letting a player go to a one-time opponent, but, for example, a UGA player transferring to GaTech, or S.Car to Clemson, or FSU to UF, is no different than within conference, and actually these days may be more significant that transferring to a team in a different division of the same conference.

Saying anywhere but (1) same conference, (2) two time future opponent, (3) where your coach has taken a new job, leaves plenty of choices of new schools for any player, while eliminating almost any situation that should give rise to a legitimate objection.

And having a, clear, hard and fast, no discretion, no flexibility, no exception rule would also eliminate both the complaints and the gamesmanship and punitive conduct.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 11:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why limit transfers at all?

Competitive balance? Doesn't exist now, never has, and never will.

Loyalty? Please. This is a huge business, with hundreds of millions of dollars a year flowing through the system. Everyone, in the end, has to do what's best for their families, and economic decisions will trump loyalty every time. Professors, coaches, administrators, administrative assistants, gardeners, everyone leaves if there's a better offer. (Why is an athletes treated worse than a gardener?)

School spirit? I guess, but transfers don't seem to have any impact on fan support, whether they arrive or leave. What matters is winning.

Tradition? The tradition in the early part of the 20th century was players going from school to school and playing until their mid-20s. The tradition in basketball was a jump ball after every basket. The tradition in baseball was to leave gloves in the outfield after every inning. The tradition in hockey was to never wear a helmet. The tradition in football was to get back on the field as quickly as possible no matter how long you'd been unconscious.

Economic security for colleges and coaches? Now we're talking ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 11:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Why limit transfers at all?

Competitive balance? Doesn't exist now, never has, and never will.

Loyalty? Please. This is a huge business, with hundreds of millions of dollars a year flowing through the system. Everyone, in the end, has to do what's best for their families, and economic decisions will trump loyalty every time. Professors, coaches, administrators, administrative assistants, gardeners, everyone leaves if there's a better offer. (Why is an athletes treated worse than a gardener?)

School spirit? I guess, but transfers don't seem to have any impact on fan support, whether they arrive or leave. What matters is winning.

Tradition? The tradition in the early part of the 20th century was players going from school to school and playing until their mid-20s. The tradition in basketball was a jump ball after every basket. The tradition in baseball was to leave gloves in the outfield after every inning. The tradition in hockey was to never wear a helmet. The tradition in football was to get back on the field as quickly as possible no matter how long you'd been unconscious.

Economic security for colleges and coaches? Now we're talking ...


So...just let them transfer whenever? Couple weeks into the school year, maybe around Thanksgiving, between semesters, mid-February. I guess any and all times work. That should make the record-keeping about classes completed and progress toward a degree pretty easy to maintain.

And immediately eligible? "Hey Susie, we are just one player away from making a run. Why don't you join us next week and see if we can't win a championship."

And the whole "athlete treated worse than a gardener"...really? How many gardeners have gotten a free education, traveled around the country and seen so many things for free, were a campus celebrity, got to play on TV, etc? Yeah, athletes are treated poorly... Rolling Eyes


scfastpitch



Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 616



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 12:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Why limit transfers at all?

Competitive balance? Doesn't exist now, never has, and never will.

Loyalty? Please. This is a huge business, with hundreds of millions of dollars a year flowing through the system. Everyone, in the end, has to do what's best for their families, and economic decisions will trump loyalty every time. Professors, coaches, administrators, administrative assistants, gardeners, everyone leaves if there's a better offer. (Why is an athletes treated worse than a gardener?)

School spirit? I guess, but transfers don't seem to have any impact on fan support, whether they arrive or leave. What matters is winning.

Tradition? The tradition in the early part of the 20th century was players going from school to school and playing until their mid-20s. The tradition in basketball was a jump ball after every basket. The tradition in baseball was to leave gloves in the outfield after every inning. The tradition in hockey was to never wear a helmet. The tradition in football was to get back on the field as quickly as possible no matter how long you'd been unconscious.

Economic security for colleges and coaches? Now we're talking ...



I assume you are talking about transfers within division one . I think you have to have a penalty for anyone transferring up .


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 12:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I would agree that transfers should be limited to one per year, and should be allowed -- if full eligibility is expected -- at the start of each school year.

Just because someone has certain benefits doesn't mean their overall situation is better.

A drafted soldier may get to travel, may have security, may have a better salary than someone who was 4-F back in the day, but that doesn't mean the drafted soldier had the better situation.

And to push this to an extreme, an African-American in the South in the 1840s might well have had better food, better medical care and more travel options than an African-American escaped slave living in hiding.

(I expect people to attack the last graf, so I almost took it out, but I'm not comparing college athletes to slaves. I'm just trying to point out that selecting certain aspects of life as important can lead to unexpected conclusions. In general, freedom of movement is very high on the list of good things in life, and that's exactly what the transfer rule inhibits.)



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 12:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Why limit transfers at all?


It's real simple. To prevent complete and utter chaos, that's why.

Heck, not even any pro leagues allow unfettered, any-time-you-feel-like-it-no-strings-attached-no-questions-asked flips from team to team. Because you can't have complete chaos and maintain any sort of rational structure for competition. Please tell me just where this unfettered "freedom of movement" exists anywhere in team sports.

And that's ignoring a completely valid reason that you will certainly dismiss, that these are universities and this is SUPPOSED to be about going to school, and jumping around from school to school for playing time, for a coach, or for any other reason is completely contrary to the educational mission of these universities. That some, or even many, of the players don't give a damn about getting an education doesn't diminish that as a completely valid consideration for - indeed responsibility of - these institutions.

As I have said many times before. Get rid of all the age and "years out of school" restrictions in the pro leagues and let kids who want to turn pro and don't care about an education turn pro. If they're not good enough to get anyone to pay them, that's their problem that the market values them at zero. You don't have to wreck the college athletic system just to satisfy the whims of some players who don't want to be in college anyhow. It works great in hockey, baseball and other sports, and....surprise.....given a choice, lots and lots of top flight athletes FREELY CHOOSE to go to college, to freely subject themselves to all those "unreasonable" "worse-than-a-gardener" restrictions, and to voluntarily play for nothing, rather than turn pro and to play for pay. But those age restrictions, by the way, are not the fault or creation of the colleges. they are the product of pro leagues who see colleges as a handy free farm system. and pro players who want to eliminate the competition for roster spots from young stars. If you want to blame someone, blame them. They're the ones denying kids the opportunity to get paid.

And, by the way, there are also lots of star athletes in football and basketball - Andrew Luck is but one example - who even confronted with the opportunity of being a high draft choice and getting a multi-million dollar payday, CHOOSE to return to college, to freely subject themselves to all those "unreasonable" "worse-than-a-gardener" restrictions, and to voluntarily play for nothing.

BTW - both your military draft and slave analogies completely miss their mark because in both of those situations the individuals had no choice but to do the work for which they were drafted/enslaved. Nobody is making any of these kids play any sport or attend any school. They can quit anytime they want. They can just become a student anytime they want at any college they want. They can go get a job flipping burgers. The restrictions they accept apply only to their athletic activities and come along with the PRIVILEGE of playing intercollegiate sports and receiving a very valuable free education. Most college age kids would eagerly swap places with any of them. Stop with the "victim" stuff.


Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 1:23 pm    ::: U go Clay Reply Reply with quote

I had to come out of my World Cup cocoon to back Clay up on this.

Who is afraid here, the coaches are, the schools are, they don't want to lose control and power over teenagers.

Freedom of speech, freedom, choice. Just like coaches can change and up and leave. Chaos, are you kidding me, from 1 or 2 kids out of 15 deciding at their young age they made a mistake and yet adults do it all the time. Just like slavery, adults with power wanted to control others, whats different here, again people with power trying to control others. Yet your argument is they can go and flip burgers, really, then why shouldn't coaches earning 6 figures have to go and flip burgers, your argument works both ways.

Bottom line if adults on large salaries can control their own destiny, stop trying to control teenagers.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 1:52 pm    ::: Re: U go Clay Reply Reply with quote

Nixtreefan wrote:
I had to come out of my World Cup cocoon to back Clay up on this.

Who is afraid here, the coaches are, the schools are, they don't want to lose control and power over teenagers. Freedom of speech, freedom, choice. Just like coaches can change and up and leave. Chaos, are you kidding me, from 1 or 2 kids out of 15 deciding at their young age they made a mistake and yet adults do it all the time. Just like slavery, adults with power wanted to control others, whats different here, again people with power trying to control others. Yet your argument is they can go and flip burgers, really, then why shouldn't coaches earning 6 figures have to go and flip burgers, your argument works both ways.

Bottom line if adults on large salaries can control their own destiny, stop trying to control teenagers.


Once again, please tell me any team sports leagues that allow unfettered transfers. Even in the pros we have "franchise tags", "restricted" free agents, compensatory draft choices, salary caps, and all sorts of restrictions on movements, not even counting the contract the player signed. All to prevent the chaos you claim wouldn't occur.

And those coaches earning six and seven figures pay big buyouts for the privilege of terminating their contract. And yes, they could go flip burgers if they didn't want to pay the buyout. Just like CEOs, software engineers, brokers, accountants, and a whole lot of other "adults on large salaries" who have all sorts of restrictive covenants precluding the "freedom of movement" you imagine as being universal.

I notice you ignored both the question about where this "freedom of movement" exists in team sports, and the educational responsibility of the universities.

And by the way, anyone who can't support their position without interjecting slavery (or Hitler) has already lost the argument.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 2:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You tend to ignore that those agreements and contracts were negotiated, not imposed.

I do think "total chaos" is overblown. That was the same red herring used when free agency was working its way into professional sports. The fact that teams owned players for their entire careers and had no obligation to pay them even a living wage was drowned out by the claim that "players would all run to the power teams," that "there would be dynasties" (yet the greatest dynasty of them all, the Yankees, came with absolutely no freedom of player movement) or that "fans would lose interest."

Every one of those claims was proved to be false.

And, really, how would the fabric of college athletics be irredeemably frayed if 15% (a huge number, I think) changed schools each year? There are already transfers and I don't recall Wisconsin fans being unhappy that Russell Wilson was in Madison.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 3:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
You tend to ignore that those agreements and contracts were negotiated, not imposed.

I do think "total chaos" is overblown. That was the same red herring used when free agency was working its way into professional sports. The fact that teams owned players for their entire careers and had no obligation to pay them even a living wage was drowned out by the claim that "players would all run to the power teams," that "there would be dynasties" (yet the greatest dynasty of them all, the Yankees, came with absolutely no freedom of player movement) or that "fans would lose interest."

Every one of those claims was proved to be false.


I'm not anti-transfer, but some of the key reasons why free agency in baseball did not lead to chaos were the restrictions imposed on it from the start - players are tied to their teams while they're in the minors and for six years after they start playing in the majors, and it's understood that the minimum contract length is from whenever you sign to the end of the season. Yes, these were negotiated, but they are restrictions nevertheless. Baseball would be a lot different if Mike Trout could leave the Angels whenever he felt like or got a better offer. (Given the Angels' free-spending ways, he might not actually leave, but a lot of young stars on small market teams would.)

For that reason, I think modest constraints are a good idea. Sitting out for one year is pretty simple to administer and doesn't deprive the player of the opportunity to play for 4 seasons (absent mid-year transfers, but that would be the player's choice). I would remove a program's discretion to prevent transfers, and while I wouldn't jump up and down about allowing restrictions in-conference or if the coach has left, I'd prefer them to be eliminated, too.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 3:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
You tend to ignore that those agreements and contracts were negotiated, not imposed.

I do think "total chaos" is overblown. That was the same red herring used when free agency was working its way into professional sports. The fact that teams owned players for their entire careers and had no obligation to pay them even a living wage was drowned out by the claim that "players would all run to the power teams," that "there would be dynasties" (yet the greatest dynasty of them all, the Yankees, came with absolutely no freedom of player movement) or that "fans would lose interest."

Every one of those claims was proved to be false.

And, really, how would the fabric of college athletics be irredeemably frayed if 15% (a huge number, I think) changed schools each year? There are already transfers and I don't recall Wisconsin fans being unhappy that Russell Wilson was in Madison.


But there has never been true "free agency". There are rookie wage scales for example. (Ask any NFL rookie whether his first four year contract was negotiated or imposed.) There are salary caps for teams and for players. There are luxury taxes, and compensatory draft choices. Is a star player given a franchise tag "negotiating" his contract? Obviously not. The notion that there is unrestricted free agency anywhere in team sports is a total fiction, and most of the restrictions are a lot more severe than one fully compensated year in which you can only train and practice but can't play.

And Russell Wilson didn't walk out on NCSt. He couldn't decide whether to play baseball or return for a 5th year so O'Brien finally told him he wasn't welcome back and if he wanted to play FB he had to go find a new school. That's why he ended up at Wis. Why would Wis fans be unhappy?

And your 15% is meaningless. It's not the quantity that matters. If ten star players total move in a year year it would have a huge impact. If a couple of schools were looted for their top four players, it would devastate those schools. Pro leagues all have restrictions to prevent that kind of chaos. It is perfectly reasonable for the NCAA to impose restrictions as well.

BTW, someone should ask once-proud small market franchises like the Pirates what they think of free agency even with all of its limitations. They will likely never be competitive again.




Last edited by ArtBest23 on 06/20/14 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 4:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Actually, we've left out the single biggest restriction of them all - the draft that every pro league uses to allocate players. Unlike college athletes, pros have no choice at all in where they will play their first few years (for a period as long or longer than they spend in college), no right to change teams during those years, and their pay in the NFL and NBA is largely set by a formula, not by negotiation. So explain how they have more "freedom of movement" than college players.

Johnny Manzeil CHOSE to go to TAMU. You think he'd be playing in Cleveland this fall if he had any choice in his NFL team? ,Does he have the choice to leave Cleveland and play in NY next year if he wants? Did he have any choice in accepting a four year stint in Cleveland? College players have MORE choice, not less.

What's "false" is that players once they get out of that "unreasonably restrictive" world of college sports will get unlimited freedom to play where they want and to move whenever they want. That's a fairy tale.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 6:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So here's another approach, modeled on that "freedom of movement" the pros supposedly enjoy.

Carmelo Anthony can choose to become a free agent this summer and sign with any NBA team. But the way the rules work, he would have to take less money - many millions less. The way the rules work, the Knicks can pay him far more to keep him than another team can pay him if he leaves.

So using this model, maybe college players should be free to move at the end of any year and play right away the next year, but they'd have to take less for their remaining years of eligibility at their new school. Say, 75% of tuition, room, board, per diem, fees, books, work out clothes, sneakers, etc. They'd have to pay the other 25% out of their own pocket.

Hey, if it's good enough for the NBA "freedom of movement" it should he good enough for college, right?

And maybe they should have no right to transfer at all for the first two years. After all, NFL players have no "freedom of movement" for four years, so two seems generous, and at least they can choose where to play those first two years, which is more than NFL players can do.


purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/14 9:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So "total chaos" is overblown but "athletes treated worse than gardeners" isn't?

I hate to admit it, but Art is 100% right and has articulated the point much better than I could have. I am so sick of college athletes being portrayed as "victims" in this whole thing. That is completely overblown in so many ways.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/14 10:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
ClayK wrote:
You tend to ignore that those agreements and contracts were negotiated, not imposed.

I do think "total chaos" is overblown. That was the same red herring used when free agency was working its way into professional sports. The fact that teams owned players for their entire careers and had no obligation to pay them even a living wage was drowned out by the claim that "players would all run to the power teams," that "there would be dynasties" (yet the greatest dynasty of them all, the Yankees, came with absolutely no freedom of player movement) or that "fans would lose interest."

Every one of those claims was proved to be false.

And, really, how would the fabric of college athletics be irredeemably frayed if 15% (a huge number, I think) changed schools each year? There are already transfers and I don't recall Wisconsin fans being unhappy that Russell Wilson was in Madison.


But there has never been true "free agency". There are rookie wage scales for example. (Ask any NFL rookie whether his first four year contract was negotiated or imposed.) There are salary caps for teams and for players. There are luxury taxes, and compensatory draft choices. Is a star player given a franchise tag "negotiating" his contract? Obviously not. The notion that there is unrestricted free agency anywhere in team sports is a total fiction, and most of the restrictions are a lot more severe than one fully compensated year in which you can only train and practice but can't play.


So let the players collectively bargain a mutually beneficial agreement like they have done with those leagues. That seems like the most reasonable solution.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/14 10:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm in favor of the "sit out a year" rule, and of transfers only at the end of the season, but otherwise no restrictions. If a player wants to follow a coach, I see no problem with that; after all, that coach recruited them and I can understand the loyalty. I don't think the school should be able to block transfers (look at the recent Leticia Romero kerfuffle) and I don't like a "not in MY conference!" rule either. That last seems pretty much like "you can't play in my back yard!" and is a bit childish, IMO.



_________________
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
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/14 10:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
ClayK wrote:
You tend to ignore that those agreements and contracts were negotiated, not imposed.

I do think "total chaos" is overblown. That was the same red herring used when free agency was working its way into professional sports. The fact that teams owned players for their entire careers and had no obligation to pay them even a living wage was drowned out by the claim that "players would all run to the power teams," that "there would be dynasties" (yet the greatest dynasty of them all, the Yankees, came with absolutely no freedom of player movement) or that "fans would lose interest."

Every one of those claims was proved to be false.

And, really, how would the fabric of college athletics be irredeemably frayed if 15% (a huge number, I think) changed schools each year? There are already transfers and I don't recall Wisconsin fans being unhappy that Russell Wilson was in Madison.


But there has never been true "free agency". There are rookie wage scales for example. (Ask any NFL rookie whether his first four year contract was negotiated or imposed.) There are salary caps for teams and for players. There are luxury taxes, and compensatory draft choices. Is a star player given a franchise tag "negotiating" his contract? Obviously not. The notion that there is unrestricted free agency anywhere in team sports is a total fiction, and most of the restrictions are a lot more severe than one fully compensated year in which you can only train and practice but can't play.


So let the players collectively bargain a mutually beneficial agreement like they have done with those leagues. That seems like the most reasonable solution.


X____________

Exactly. Why not allow college athletes to form an association, if "union" is too scary a word, and work out a contract?

My guess would be that the transfer rule would be retained, but it might be modified so that a player could transfer without sitting out if the head coach left, say, or there were other conditions met.

What's wrong with negotiating this rather than imposing it?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
IM in OC



Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 999
Location: Orange County, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/14 10:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Actually, we've left out the single biggest restriction of them all - the draft that every pro league uses to allocate players. Unlike college athletes, pros have no choice at all in where they will play their first few years (for a period as long or longer than they spend in college), no right to change teams during those years, and their pay in the NFL and NBA is largely set by a formula, not by negotiation. So explain how they have more "freedom of movement" than college players.

Johnny Manzeil CHOSE to go to TAMU. You think he'd be playing in Cleveland this fall if he had any choice in his NFL team? ,Does he have the choice to leave Cleveland and play in NY next year if he wants? Did he have any choice in accepting a four year stint in Cleveland? College players have MORE choice, not less.

What's "false" is that players once they get out of that "unreasonably restrictive" world of college sports will get unlimited freedom to play where they want and to move whenever they want. That's a fairy tale.


Unless your names are John Elway or Eli Manning.

Manzeil would be laughed out of the league if he tried to pull what those 2 pulled.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/14 1:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
ClayK wrote:
You tend to ignore that those agreements and contracts were negotiated, not imposed.

I do think "total chaos" is overblown. That was the same red herring used when free agency was working its way into professional sports. The fact that teams owned players for their entire careers and had no obligation to pay them even a living wage was drowned out by the claim that "players would all run to the power teams," that "there would be dynasties" (yet the greatest dynasty of them all, the Yankees, came with absolutely no freedom of player movement) or that "fans would lose interest."

Every one of those claims was proved to be false.

And, really, how would the fabric of college athletics be irredeemably frayed if 15% (a huge number, I think) changed schools each year? There are already transfers and I don't recall Wisconsin fans being unhappy that Russell Wilson was in Madison.


But there has never been true "free agency". There are rookie wage scales for example. (Ask any NFL rookie whether his first four year contract was negotiated or imposed.) There are salary caps for teams and for players. There are luxury taxes, and compensatory draft choices. Is a star player given a franchise tag "negotiating" his contract? Obviously not. The notion that there is unrestricted free agency anywhere in team sports is a total fiction, and most of the restrictions are a lot more severe than one fully compensated year in which you can only train and practice but can't play.


So let the players collectively bargain a mutually beneficial agreement like they have done with those leagues. That seems like the most reasonable solution.


The rookies to whom the draft and wage scale applies had absolutely no say in these restrictions. They were set by owners trying to save money and maintain competitive balance and veterans tired of high price rookies like Bradford taking money away from veterans. The rookies weren't part of the negotiations and had no vote yet have no choice about where they will play for four years or how much they will get paid. They didn't "negotiate" it any more than college players do.

As I said, this notion that pros have control of their lives is a total fairy tale.

I also note that no wants to address the educational mission of the universities. Inconvenient, isn't it.




Last edited by ArtBest23 on 06/21/14 1:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/14 1:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

IM in OC wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Actually, we've left out the single biggest restriction of them all - the draft that every pro league uses to allocate players. Unlike college athletes, pros have no choice at all in where they will play their first few years (for a period as long or longer than they spend in college), no right to change teams during those years, and their pay in the NFL and NBA is largely set by a formula, not by negotiation. So explain how they have more "freedom of movement" than college players.

Johnny Manzeil CHOSE to go to TAMU. You think he'd be playing in Cleveland this fall if he had any choice in his NFL team? ,Does he have the choice to leave Cleveland and play in NY next year if he wants? Did he have any choice in accepting a four year stint in Cleveland? College players have MORE choice, not less.

What's "false" is that players once they get out of that "unreasonably restrictive" world of college sports will get unlimited freedom to play where they want and to move whenever they want. That's a fairy tale.


Unless your names are John Elway or Eli Manning.

Manzeil would be laughed out of the league if he tried to pull what those 2 pulled.


The wage scale also didn't exist when they were rookies.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/14 7:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm thinking there's another thread in which people have been discussing (at great length) the same points they're making here about whether it would be better if the players could negotiate. I've said my piece on that issue there and will leave it be.

Meanwhile, on the question of what the ideal transfer rule would be - assuming whatever method for getting there you like - what do people think?

I'm willing to go along with the modification to my suggestion that eliminates the "sit" year if your coach leaves. I see why that makes sense.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/21/14 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
IM in OC wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Actually, we've left out the single biggest restriction of them all - the draft that every pro league uses to allocate players. Unlike college athletes, pros have no choice at all in where they will play their first few years (for a period as long or longer than they spend in college), no right to change teams during those years, and their pay in the NFL and NBA is largely set by a formula, not by negotiation. So explain how they have more "freedom of movement" than college players.

Johnny Manzeil CHOSE to go to TAMU. You think he'd be playing in Cleveland this fall if he had any choice in his NFL team? ,Does he have the choice to leave Cleveland and play in NY next year if he wants? Did he have any choice in accepting a four year stint in Cleveland? College players have MORE choice, not less.

What's "false" is that players once they get out of that "unreasonably restrictive" world of college sports will get unlimited freedom to play where they want and to move whenever they want. That's a fairy tale.


Unless your names are John Elway or Eli Manning.

Manzeil would be laughed out of the league if he tried to pull what those 2 pulled.


The wage scale also didn't exist when they were rookies.


Art, what would be wrong with a negotiated contract?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin