• The KillerFrogs

NCAA going to review new transfer rules put into to place this past season

BABYFACE

Full Member
I figured it would happen on reviewing changes. Interesting enough that out of 29 transfers that asked immediate eligibility ruling and waive the existing policy of sitting a year and one year loss of eligibility, 19 out of 29 requests have received immediately eligibility from the NCAA.

Thomas Mars represented Justin Fields and Shea Patterson in their successful requests for immediate eligibility. He appears to care less about the cause and effect of the action based on the few quotes that I read from him. He thinks it is a reflection that maybe coaches need to treat their players better. Maybe Mr. Mars thinks coaches should ask their players beforehand if they feel up to practicing or would they rather just lounge around instead?
 

Eight

Member
I figured it would happen on reviewing changes. Interesting enough that out of 29 transfers that asked immediate eligibility ruling and waive the existing policy of sitting a year and one year loss of eligibility, 19 out of 29 requests have received immediately eligibility from the NCAA.

Thomas Mars represented Justin Fields and Shea Patterson in their successful requests for immediate eligibility. He appears to care less about the cause and effect of the action based on the few quotes that I read from him. He thinks it is a reflection that maybe coaches need to treat their players better. Maybe Mr. Mars thinks coaches should ask their players beforehand if they feel up to practicing or would they rather just lounge around instead?

irony is he was general counsel for wal-mart. not exactly the gold standard of employee relations and i am curious if he was there when wal-mart got nailed for the dead peasant policy scandal.
 

Froggish

Active Member
I think there is some merit to allowing kids to have more flexibility and power over their own college experience. Having said that, it shouldn’t come at the expense of a programs ability to compete. Pure free agency is going to be crippling for all but a dozen schools. I’d institute 2 rules

1. Any player can transfer and have the option immediate eligibility if he chooses. However if he wants immediate eligibility he looses a year of playing time..He can sit out a year and keep the extra year to play or play right away and loose a year.

2. If a player graduates and is eligible as a grad transfer he can be granted a 5th year to play if he stays at the school he graduated from. 6 years to play 5
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I think there is some merit to allowing kids to have more flexibility and power over their own college experience. Having said that, it shouldn’t come at the expense of a programs ability to compete. Pure free agency is going to be crippling for all but a dozen schools. I’d institute 2 rules

1. Any player can transfer and have the option immediate eligibility if he chooses. However if he wants immediate eligibility he looses a year of playing time..He can sit out a year and keep the extra year to play or play right away and loose a year.

2. If a player graduates and is eligible as a grad transfer he can be granted a 5th year to play if he stays at the school he graduated from. 6 years to play 5

Not bad ideas. I think all the player movement is a bad thing all around but what you propose would be a good middle ground IMO.
 

HFrog1999

Member
I hope that's sarcasm. If not, you probably failed economics.

Lol, no I did very well in Economics and apparently understand it much better than you do.

Was this your Economics Teacher?

tenor.gif



Do you even Supply & Demand Bruh?
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I don't know about that... most people would take a 7 dollar an hour job over unemployment,

Based on my experience, this is only the case for kids. Most adults who are in the market for $7-8/hour jobs would rather sit on their butt and watch TV all day and collect unemployment than work for $8/hour. You could actually probably bump that to $10-12/hour and it would still hold true.
 

Pharm Frog

Full Member
I don't know about that... most people would take a 7 dollar an hour job over unemployment, but it doesn't necessarily make that pay fair.

What does "fairness" have to do with it? If your labor is worth $7 an hour to a potential employer, you either choose work for $7 an hour, find another employer willing to pay you more for your labor, or enhance your abilities to do work that commands more compensation. (And, yes, I realize "minimum wage" exists). Where I find the breakdown in the metaphor related to collegiate athletics is in the exchange of services for the opportunity to earn a college degree. Unfortunately I don't think the perceived value of that opportunity is weighted appropriately.

I would have to think about it some more (and probably won't) but I think the Froggish idea is pretty solid if it included an additional component for progress toward a degree and subtraction of one "o" in the word "loose". I realize that the ratio of "student" to "athlete" is nowhere near where it used to be but that doesn't make it right, IMO. What I summarily reject however is the premise that these college athletes have no other options to engage admirably in the economy outside of their chosen sports.
 

HFrog1999

Member
What does "fairness" have to do with it? If your labor is worth $7 an hour to a potential employer, you either choose work for $7 an hour, find another employer willing to pay you more for your labor, or enhance your abilities to do work that commands more compensation. (And, yes, I realize "minimum wage" exists). Where I find the breakdown in the metaphor related to collegiate athletics is in the exchange of services for the opportunity to earn a college degree. Unfortunately I don't think the perceived value of that opportunity is weighted appropriately.

I would have to think about it some more (and probably won't) but I think the Froggish idea is pretty solid if it included an additional component for progress toward a degree and subtraction of one "o" in the word "loose". I realize that the ratio of "student" to "athlete" is nowhere near where it used to be but that doesn't make it right, IMO. What I summarily reject however is the premise that these college athletes have no other options to engage admirably in the economy outside of their chosen sports.

I think one important question is how much is a college degree worth?

What's the current cost of a TCU degree? $250,000?

How much more will an athlete earn over their lifetime with a TCU degree than with no degree?

I've known several TCU athletes who've done quite well in their careers after leaving athletics.

If I had been talented enough, I would've happily played for TCU in exchange for a scholarship.
 

Zubaz

Member
Lol, no I did very well in Economics and apparently understand it much better than you do.

Was this your Economics Teacher?

tenor.gif



Do you even Supply & Demand Bruh?
There's a lot of variables here, I think was @Frog Island 's point. For example, the purchasing power of $7 when you took that job that made you happy, vs what it is today where it is less than the federal minimum wage, would change the conversation quite a bit. As would what that $7.00 / hr represented to you at the same (supplemental income vs. primary source of living).

Secondly, the discussion over the cost / price of labor, particularly given the disparate power in negotiating position of unskilled labor, is a very complicated one. Determining labor's "fair" value exclusively on supply and demand (and a relatively simple view of supply and demand at that) is fairly controversial from both an economic and ethical standpoint.
 

satis1103

DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
Duly noted. Concept of a fair wage for different levels of work is not popular here. We must have a bunch of true laissez faire economic theorists.
 

BABYFACE

Full Member
Thread is officially derailed. But to play along, we all want earn more money. Put yourself in the position of hiring someone. Say as simple as mowing your lawn. You have in mind what you are willing to pay and how much you think the job is worth. The lawn guy knows what he gets paid for a similar yard. So, in this case you need to meet the lawn guy’s minimum amount for him to accept the job whether it is within your price range or not. Or you have to find someone to do it within your price point. The other scenario is you are unhappy with the quality of lawncare you are getting. You can then make the choice to pay more than the going rate to attract and employ a better lawn guy with better results.

This is how wage compensation works. Companies do not offer higher wages than their competition out of the goodness of their heart. They do it to attract a better candidate. Also, when the jobs available stretches the available candidate pool, wages go up. When jobs are scarce, wages go down.
 
Last edited:

satis1103

DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
So question then - what is the opinion of a minimum wage? It sounds as if this system works better with no wage floor.
 
Top