FWST: TCU coach Gary Patterson worried NCAA’s transfer waivers will ruin college football

[4 Oaks Frog]

What this rule and lack of its enforcement allows is for the Alabamas, Oklahomas and Ohio Ststes of the world to use smaller schools as their farm system. A kid that didn’t get two looks from them when he was in HS (2-3 stars), gets coached up into a very good player in a smaller program, and then he is a prime target for the blue bloods. They will raid the inventory, and don’t think that they won’t. They have enough money to get what they want, and the ncaa will allow it. Just sayin...
GO FROGS!
Beat Everybody!
Spit Blood ~~<~<and [Baylor asshoe] & ncaa!!

 

[Eight]

Yes, the NCAA absolutely needs to enforce their own rules. The reason they aren’t is because of public pressure from people that somehow think the athletes aren’t treated fairly. Sign of the times as much as anything I suppose.

what pressure? from the talking air-heads in the media? scheiss them.

how many people wouldn't watch the basketball tournament if the ncaa had denied fields appeal? how much negative impact would there be on the ratings for next year's cfp play-off's if they told martel he would have to sit?

there is nothing wrong with being the elephant in the room unless you are trying to act like you are anything but an elephant.

 

[TopFrog]

I think there should be a minimum three-year commitment by the athlete when they sign the LOI, including a redshirt year. Basketball too.

 

[Froggish]

I don’t havea problem with kids transferring at Will. I have a problem with kids being eligible to play immediately when they do. Sit out rule should always be in effect unless a kid is a graduate. In situations where a kid has been dealt a bad hand, then let him have the option playing right away and loosing a year of eligibility or sitting out a year and retaining the year.

The money in college athletics has taken over common sense. The reality is that it needs to hurt schools a little to take a transfer and kids need be incentivized to stay and work hard to overcome. That’s why I’d also add a 5th year of eligibility for a student who stays at the same school and graduates.

 

[Eight]

I think there should be a minimum three-year commitment by the athlete when they sign the LOI, including a redshirt year. Basketball too.

when a student is on an academic scholarship is there any minimum time commitment by the student?

if a student is part of the engineering program and they were given an opportunity to start a job that was too great an opportunity to pass up would they be required to stay in school a specific amount of time?

 

[Pinkyfrog]

I fully support the athletes here, they're out there risking their body and using their skill and talent and the schools and the NCAA are profiting and they aren't allowed to profit off of their skills? That's a joke. This is the minimum they should be able to do.

Coaches and admin can transfer willy-nilly. Coaches can pull scholarships whenever they want. The athletes that are actually doing the work are the ones that get screwed by this system, y'all are here supporting the system that's profiting over what's best for the kids.

Why should they be forced to stay in a place they don't like? Why should they be locked in to being somewhere for three years or four years when nobody else is? When they can get their scholly pulled if someone doesn't like them? Why shouldn't they profit from the risk they take and the talent they posses?

 

[Wexahu]

I fully support the athletes here, they're out there risking their body and using their skill and talent and the schools and the NCAA are profiting and they aren't allowed to profit off of their skills? That's a joke. This is the minimum they should be able to do.

Coaches and admin can transfer willy-nilly. Coaches can pull scholarships whenever they want. The athletes that are actually doing the work are the ones that get screwed by this system, y'all are here supporting the system that's profiting over what's best for the kids.

Why should they be forced to stay in a place they don't like? Why should they be locked in to being somewhere for three years or four years when nobody else is? When they can get their scholly pulled if someone doesn't like them? Why shouldn't they profit from the risk they take and the talent they posses?

Without the platform to compete that the NCAA provides, there wouldn't be any profit for anyone, much less the athletes.

Nobody would watch these kids compete if it weren't for the fact they are competing in NCAA-sponsored events. And the rules in place are precisely why there is any money involved to begin with. If the NCAA wants to go all-in on the semi-pro concepts that you describe, watch the money dry up immediately. We already know how much money these athletes generate without their school and the NCAA behind them....it's called the minor leagues. Check out how much interest there is in minor league sports. You can get a ticket to any game you want for about $5 and no TV network is willing to put down anything of substance to televise their games. That's how much these guys are worth without the NCAA. And again, nobody is making these guys do anything except that IF they decide to play NCAA sports, they have to follow NCAA rules.

How people can't grasp this simple concept is beyond me.

 

[flyfishingfrog]

Without the platform to compete that the NCAA provides, there wouldn't be any profit for anyone, much less the athletes.

Nobody would watch these kids compete if it weren't for the fact they are competing in NCAA-sponsored events. And the rules in place are precisely why there is any money involved to begin with. If the NCAA wants to go all-in on the semi-pro concepts that you describe, watch the money dry up immediately. We already know how much money these athletes generate without their school and the NCAA behind them....it's called the minor leagues. Check out how much interest there is in minor league sports. You can get a ticket to any game you want for about $5 and no TV network is willing to put down anything of substance to televise their games. That's how much these guys are worth without the NCAA. And again, nobody is making these guys do anything except that IF they decide to play NCAA sports, they have to follow NCAA rules.

How people can't grasp this simple concept is beyond me.

if they allow open transfer - there won't be much a platform for long - or at least a lot smaller one from a even smaller set of schools.

The top tier will end up being 20-30 schools that are all breaking whatever rules just to attract the best from the rest

and the rest will being losing support as they have ups and downs constantly because anyone worth their salt leaves the program as soon as they are recognized as good enough.

 

[Wexahu]

if they allow open transfer - there won't be much a platform for long - or at least a lot smaller one from a even smaller set of schools.

The top tier will end up being 20-30 schools that are all breaking whatever rules just to attract the best from the rest

and the rest will being losing support as they have ups and downs constantly because anyone worth their salt leaves the program as soon as they are recognized as good enough.

Exactly. And eventually the top tier would dry up too as people gradually just move their attention to major league pro sports. There will be nothing compelling about watching college sports if it’s basically pro sports lite.

 

[Eight]

curious who on this thread has advocated players transferring without any qualifications or conditions

 

[Pinkyfrog]

Nobody would watch these kids compete if it weren't for the fact they are competing in NCAA-sponsored events.

Objectively untrue. The fact that there are other sports leagues attest to this. For many of the sports the kids could go straight to other pro leagues (especially if they expanded to fill the gap that the NCAA is in right now). For others there are popular club and semi-pro leagues.

The NCAA couldn't exist without the free labor provided by these kids. The draw is the game on the field, not the overarching body. If the draw isn't the playing, then explain away the fact that attendance and winning is a straight up direct correlation. If the draw was the NCAA then we would see attendance ebb and flow with the movement of bureaucrats and rules

Also I love everyone's argument is "This league would die if we were forced to pay the labor market and if we forced kids to stay in bad situations they don't enjoy"

Here's a good take from an NFL exec that I agree with:

 

[flyfishingfrog]

Objectively untrue. The fact that there are other sports leagues attest to this. For many of the sports the kids could go straight to other pro leagues (especially if they expanded to fill the gap that the NCAA is in right now). For others there are popular club and semi-pro leagues.

The NCAA couldn't exist without the free labor provided by these kids. The draw is the game on the field, not the overarching body. If the draw isn't the playing, then explain away the fact that attendance and winning is a straight up direct correlation. If the draw was the NCAA then we would see attendance ebb and flow with the movement of bureaucrats and rules

Also I love everyone's argument is "This league would die if we were forced to pay the labor market and if we forced kids to stay in bad situations they don't enjoy"

Here's a good take from an NFL exec that I agree with:

Wait - are you saying there is a minor league of some professional sport that is more popular than college football?

Not hardly and not even close

 

[Pinkyfrog]

Wait - are you saying there is a minor league of some professional sport that is more popular than college football?

Not hardly and not even close

Now you're moving the bar. I'm saying there are other leagues out there that people would watch. Considering I directly quoted someone saying "Nobody would watch these kids..." you're being dishonest about my reply.

Sure, being affiliated with colleges does generally increase the viewing. But there are plenty of leagues that aren't affiliated with schools and do just fine. Heck, literally the rest of the world is different. Check out any international soccer, all of those clubs form without regards to schools and actually pay players what they're worth (at least better than the exploitation of the NCAA) and they have plenty of fans, I mean unless the most popular sport in the world isn't enough fans.

 

[Zubaz]

1) There's little doubt that professional U-21 / Minor League Football outside of the college brand would be significantly less popular. We can see that this weekend when the AAF games all fail to draw 20,000 with folks like Trent Richardson, Johnny Manziel, and Christian Hackenberg, all of whom were used to playing in front of 100,000+ people. Minor league sports tend not to be very popular in the US.

2) "College football would be less interesting" / "That would kill college football" is not an argument for keeping the college football system in place if it is unjust. Any discussion over the merits of the *wink wink* "amateur" system is independent of "can college football survive if we have to change?" If a system is unjust, and I'm not saying it is, then "yeah but we couldn't operate any other way" can not be accepted as an excuse to continue an unjust system.

Here's a good take from an NFL exec that I agree with

This is passing the buck. There's one reason that the stars play in college, and that's the NFLPA saying that they are ineligible to play in the NFL. The NFLPA and NFL could fix this problem tomorrow if they cared that much.

 

[flyfishingfrog]

Now you're moving the bar. I'm saying there are other leagues out there that people would watch. Considering I directly quoted someone saying "Nobody would watch these kids..." you're being dishonest about my reply.

Sure, being affiliated with colleges does generally increase the viewing. But there are plenty of leagues that aren't affiliated with schools and do just fine. Heck, literally the rest of the world is different. Check out any international soccer, all of those clubs form without regards to schools and actually pay players what they're worth (at least better than the exploitation of the NCAA) and they have plenty of fans, I mean unless the most popular sport in the world isn't enough fans.

Maybe you should do some research on number of fans and profitability of the developmental leagues for major sports around the world

There is a reason that MLB has to use an Fair Labor Act exemption from Congress for MiLB - because without it they would have to kill at least half the minor league system financially - because it doesn't really work without a ton of cost control and financial support from the big club due to a lack of interest from fans.

 

[asleep003]

I fully support the athletes here, they're out there risking their body and using their skill and talent and the schools and the NCAA are profiting and they aren't allowed to profit off of their skills? That's a joke. This is the minimum they should be able to do.

Coaches and admin can transfer willy-nilly. Coaches can pull scholarships whenever they want. The athletes that are actually doing the work are the ones that get screwed by this system, y'all are here supporting the system that's profiting over what's best for the kids.

Why should they be forced to stay in a place they don't like? Why should they be locked in to being somewhere for three years or four years when nobody else is? When they can get their scholly pulled if someone doesn't like them? Why shouldn't they profit from the risk they take and the talent they posses?

Agree with most everything you shared … however I also agree with CGP about how this waiver system may impact the sport even in the near term much less the long term. However, CGP did not address the commitment of coaches to the university in his concerns, nor their contracts.

Personally do not want to see the decline of college sports due to this free agency practice. However, what is good for the Coach should be good for the Athlete and the NCAA should allow equality in movement. So the coaches need to honor a contract, that is just as strict/binding as what the Student Athlete signs on his commitment, or don't coach in the NCAA.

For instance, If the coach wants to leave his job/contract early, then he needs to sit out a year.... or the NCAA(Power 2 or 3) can just turn everybody lose, and watch the whole damn thing cave in and turn into less than what we grew up with.

 

[asleep003]

Minor league Baseball ... believe I'm correct, when I say that the D1 Football player has little problem achieving the max of $1,600-1,800 p/mo in Pell Grants/living costs/etc money, plus all the training table consumption he wants. Lets just forget the tuition/books and fees(that is considerably more than the above $s available).

The average minor league baseball player makes very little and many survive on this similar amount of money for years, while getting little to no education or networking worth having, for work after their minor league careers are over.

 

[TopFrog]

when a student is on an academic scholarship is there any minimum time commitment by the student?

if a student is part of the engineering program and they were given an opportunity to start a job that was too great an opportunity to pass up would they be required to stay in school a specific amount of time?

The engineering school isn't bringing in millions of dollars. A little different.

 

[Pharm Frog]

The engineering school isn't bringing in millions of dollars. A little different.

It might surprise you what schools acquire in grants both public and private. And yes...in the millions.

 

[TopFrog]

It might surprise you what schools acquire in grants both public and private. And yes...in the millions.

And all of that did not rebuild the school.