No More Blocking Transfers
-
Vick is a good example. He’s not eligible to be a grad transfer because he hasn’t completed his undergraduate degree. It’s tough for him to transfer because he’s a sit one to play one guy. It’s unlikely that he is in a position to simply pay for his own education.
But KU doesn’t have to renew his scholarship. They can simply offer it to someone else and Vick has no way of forcing KU to honor their commitment to him, because the commitment is year to year, not four years.
What Vick could do is contact strong D2 programs as a transfer candidate. Vick immediately becomes a D2 AA candidate and his team immediately becomes a national title threat. Because its dropping down a level, he can play immediately. And of course, he can use the year to prepare himself for pro ball next year.
Of course, if that happens, if/when he does make it to the pros, it will list that school, not KU, as his college. But that seems fair to me given that KU opted not to renew his scholarship.
OADs and potential OADs aren’t going to be affected by this transfer rule. They will be pros long before that. This rule overwhelmingly affects student athletes that are not looking to turn pro. This isn’t an OAD focused rule. This is a rule change that would benefit student athletes that are specifically using college athletics to allow them to get an education.
I picked a random low D1 school, Wofford, and looked at their rosters from 2016-17 and 2017-18. It took me two minutes to find a kid that left the team after their freshman year - Justin Tucker. Rather than transfer and sit, he went to a juco for a year and is now looking at other 4 year offers. That happens literally every year at lower D1 programs. Typically, the kid announces that they are transferring closer to home, or to a juco, but the truth is their scholarship wasn’t being renewed, and they were told at their post season meeting to find a place to go, because their scholarship would not be there in the fall.
Follow a smaller D1 school sometime and you will see that churn at the bottom of the roster almost every year. Follow a non revenue sport and you will see it. I looked up the KU women’s soccer team. A quick glance at the roster shows that Amari Hopkins is transferring to Louisville and will sit out this year. I don’t know the circumstances, but that’s certainly another possible scholarship cut. Another player that was a juco transfer is not listed on the 2018 roster. Again, this happens every year.
-
@DanR No, actually it is easy to argue about a kid who is told to move on. When Vick came to Kansas, what was the deal? Did he sign a four year guaranteed deal, or did he sign a deal that either party could terminate at will, with the only real condition if terminated that the player had to sit a year? It business, that’s a non-compete.
Why is it that if Vick just decided to walk away, no one worries about the position that Vick puts Kansas in? He can leave at any time, and go anywhere he wants. Heck, he can leave midseason and leave the team hanging. Self can’t cut his scholarship midseason. The only thing he can’t do, in the entire world, is play D-1 basketball for a season.
-
@DanR I think if coach fessed up about those players, they wouldn’t have a chance playing anywhere.
-
Maybe they aren’t in good academic standing either.
-
Coaches talk about kids that are behavior problems amongst each other all the time off the record.
When kids are pushed out for non-discipline/non-academic reasons, coaches won’t say anything because it breaks the whole notion of “student athlete”
-
Respectfully, this more of the same. There are two parts to “student athlete” … and one is athlete. It’s easy to just focus on “student” when convenient. The only reason most all of the CBB players have scholarship is the athlete part. Definitely not the student part. Thus, the scholarship being based on the athlete part, if you don’t perform, a coach doesn’t like you, you aren’t a fit, then the “athlete” part is invoked and you are gone. But again, the kids know this coming in. So none of this is a surprise.
And this has nothing to do with whether they are in fact student athletes. They have the privilege of the free education and having an opportunity to earn any degree they are capable of achieving. It’s up to them.
-
If a player leaves in bad academic standing, that is reflected in the APR.
-
@justanotherfan some rumors about Vick and grades, just saying.
-
I understand KU has very strict controls in place top monitor academic performance; players have been suspended for games before when they did not perform academically.
In Vick’s case, I believe he just got a big head and an inflated idea of his own talent and got a dose of reality after burning bridges.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I don’t think Vick had an inflated ego. To many red flags around.
-
The NCAA appears to be retreating in increments on all fronts under the cloud of this investigation somewhat as Churchill retreated in all directions in the face of overwhelming opposition to messes GB had created by being too clever by half since Versailles. Churchill was retreating to bait “Jerry and the Jap” into over reaching and creating allies for GB that had behaved so duplicity it had none. It worked effectively, if brutally.
Similarly, the NCAA, which many have not viewed as a symbol of principle, appears to be hoping Big Oil and Big Shoe overreach and create allies for the NCAA, where there appear none.
Doubt it will work though.
The NCAA’s future seems increasingly to be a front for BIG PETROWEAR/BIG OIL, or maybe for their opponents.
The late Murray Sperber has to be shaking his head in heaven and saying, “See? Ya shoulda listened to me!”
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@DanR No, actually it is easy to argue about a kid who is told to move on. When Vick came to Kansas, what was the deal? Did he sign a four year guaranteed deal, or did he sign a deal that either party could terminate at will, with the only real condition if terminated that the player had to sit a year? It business, that’s a non-compete.
Why is it that if Vick just decided to walk away, no one worries about the position that Vick puts Kansas in? He can leave at any time, and go anywhere he wants. Heck, he can leave midseason and leave the team hanging. Self can’t cut his scholarship midseason. The only thing he can’t do, in the entire world, is play D-1 basketball for a season.
Yes, those are the current rules, and that’s what we’re talking about here – re-writing the rules. I agree that if a kid bails by choice (your second paragraph), he should have to sit a year. I think that’s a good and fair rule.
But if a coach decides to force out a player, and the kid wants to stay, I would argue that it doesn’t hurt the coach or school one bit if the kid plays for a different D1 school the next year. Discipline problems aside (breach of contract), if the kid is so talented he’ll help the competition too much instead of sitting on your bench, maybe he shouldn’t have been cut. Frankamp, for example. Did he leave us short handed? No. Obviously that situation wasn’t working out. A clean break would be better for the coach and the kid, IMO.
Every kid “cut” by Self… I can’t think of one he let go that ever came back to bite us in the ass. Don’t want them, just let 'em play somewhere else. I think there should be an option where a coach can say, I’ve released him from the “non-compete.” (That happens in the business world too.)
-
@DanR I like it. Seems fair.
-
Frankamp left KU for reasons unrelated to basketball; you could safely say he broke the contract.
-
I did not say he had a big ego but like many other players he had his circle of “advisors” filling his head with ideas and telling him he should move to play pro ball when he was not quite ready. Not the first player to do this and he will not be the last.
-
@JayHawkFanToo big head?
-
What is more unfair? Being really smart or being really athletic?
-
DanR said:
HighEliteMajor said:
@DanR No, actually it is easy to argue about a kid who is told to move on. When Vick came to Kansas, what was the deal? Did he sign a four year guaranteed deal, or did he sign a deal that either party could terminate at will, with the only real condition if terminated that the player had to sit a year? It business, that’s a non-compete.
Why is it that if Vick just decided to walk away, no one worries about the position that Vick puts Kansas in? He can leave at any time, and go anywhere he wants. Heck, he can leave midseason and leave the team hanging. Self can’t cut his scholarship midseason. The only thing he can’t do, in the entire world, is play D-1 basketball for a season.
Yes, those are the current rules, and that’s what we’re talking about here – re-writing the rules. I agree that if a kid bails by choice (your second paragraph), he should have to sit a year. I think that’s a good and fair rule.
But if a coach decides to force out a player, and the kid wants to stay, I would argue that it doesn’t hurt the coach or school one bit if the kid plays for a different D1 school the next year. Discipline problems aside (breach of contract), if the kid is so talented he’ll help the competition too much instead of sitting on your bench, maybe he shouldn’t have been cut. Frankamp, for example. Did he leave us short handed? No. Obviously that situation wasn’t working out. A clean break would be better for the coach and the kid, IMO.
Every kid “cut” by Self… I can’t think of one he let go that ever came back to bite us in the ass. Don’t want them, just let 'em play somewhere else. I think there should be an option where a coach can say, I’ve released him from the “non-compete.” (That happens in the business world too.)
All I can do is clap you nailed it.
-
@DanR You and I could make a deal. Excellent rationale. One consideration is that players can easily inspire their own termination with poor effort, odd injuries, etc. I could live with that risk, if we were negotiating a deal.
That all aside, my rigidity on the NCAA rules is because I know … you know … we all know … it never ends. Ever chink in the armor, every compromise, every deal, every concessions, demands more from the “destroy CBB” crowd. They won’t stop. The best negotiating posture for the NCAA is to refuse to compromise and tell them to stick it.
-
@DoubleDD The actual most important question - What’s more unfair, having a father in your life, or having an absentee father?
-
DanR said:
HighEliteMajor said:
@DanR No, actually it is easy to argue about a kid who is told to move on. When Vick came to Kansas, what was the deal? Did he sign a four year guaranteed deal, or did he sign a deal that either party could terminate at will, with the only real condition if terminated that the player had to sit a year? It business, that’s a non-compete.
Why is it that if Vick just decided to walk away, no one worries about the position that Vick puts Kansas in? He can leave at any time, and go anywhere he wants. Heck, he can leave midseason and leave the team hanging. Self can’t cut his scholarship midseason. The only thing he can’t do, in the entire world, is play D-1 basketball for a season.
Yes, those are the current rules, and that’s what we’re talking about here – re-writing the rules. I agree that if a kid bails by choice (your second paragraph), he should have to sit a year. I think that’s a good and fair rule.
But if a coach decides to force out a player, and the kid wants to stay, I would argue that it doesn’t hurt the coach or school one bit if the kid plays for a different D1 school the next year. Discipline problems aside (breach of contract), if the kid is so talented he’ll help the competition too much instead of sitting on your bench, maybe he shouldn’t have been cut. Frankamp, for example. Did he leave us short handed? No. Obviously that situation wasn’t working out. A clean break would be better for the coach and the kid, IMO.
Every kid “cut” by Self… I can’t think of one he let go that ever came back to bite us in the ass. Don’t want them, just let 'em play somewhere else. I think there should be an option where a coach can say, I’ve released him from the “non-compete.” (That happens in the business world too.)
————
Incredibly cogent.
This is reason at its best.
You have created a face saving rationale and path for change here the TPTB could pick up and live with.
-
I think that’s a pretty good idea. The only problem is that they would have to distinguish a kid being forced out or not, which is awkward for the kid if that is public information.
-
@jaybate-1-0 Your thread on fouling Doke got locked … do you know why?
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@jaybate-1-0 Your thread on fouling Doke got locked … do you know why?
Thanks for asking. No, I don’t. Guessed it was some kind of a software glitch, or operator error, or prank. But who knows? Didn’t notice other threads of mine locked. FWIW, I don’t know how to lock, or unlock a thread.
-
@jaybate-1-0 Interesting topic … when it gets unlocked, I have some numbers to consider.
-
