(01-18-2018 02:29 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Watched a Mick interview and he makes the important point that this will really hurt graduation rates in the two college sports, MBB and football, that need help the most. It's basically screwing players out of an extra year of college to get their degrees. He made the argument that sitting out a year isn't a penalty for transferring for most players, because the vast majority aren't gonna hit it big playing post college so they need their degree, and many run into the issue of non transferable credit which really puts them behind the 8 ball.

Mick reiterated this last night on the radio show when asked by a fan of his thoughts. The lower graduation rate angle is one I had not considered, but makes sense as the 5-yr. graduation rate is much higher than the 4-yr. one. He also posed a rhetorical question to the audience of who there would view an extra year of free school as a bad thing, for them or their kids.

I think the fact that this is a complex issue and there are a lot of concerns from many different angles and stakeholders that it's likely the NCAA will take its time on this. It seemed from the article I posted their main beef is they want to protect a kid from being "blocked" from transferring to another school. It's also about the balance of power - coaches and students can change schools "at will" but not student-athletes. Fine, tweak the system to address the "outlier" cases but don't create a damn mess for the rest of us.

Why don't they just make it so that transfers still have to sit a year but they don't lose a year of eligibility?

(01-19-2018 08:10 AM)UCengr Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 02:29 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Watched a Mick interview and he makes the important point that this will really hurt graduation rates in the two college sports, MBB and football, that need help the most. It's basically screwing players out of an extra year of college to get their degrees. He made the argument that sitting out a year isn't a penalty for transferring for most players, because the vast majority aren't gonna hit it big playing post college so they need their degree, and many run into the issue of non transferable credit which really puts them behind the 8 ball.

Mick reiterated this last night on the radio show when asked by a fan of his thoughts. The lower graduation rate angle is one I had not considered, but makes sense as the 5-yr. graduation rate is much higher than the 4-yr. one. He also posed a rhetorical question to the audience of who there would view an extra year of free school as a bad thing, for them or their kids.

Wasn't paying real close attention last night, but didn't Mick add that the thing that precipitated this whole thing was a law suit filed against the NCAA, so this is basically just a reaction to avoid anything that could threaten their power/cash?

(01-19-2018 08:43 AM)BeerCat Wrote:  Why don't they just make it so that transfers still have to sit a year but they don't lose a year of eligibility?

I thought that was already the case?

Coaches can leave whenever they want look at Brian Kelly, I say let the players transfer without having to sit out a year. I enjoy College Football and Basketball however there is nothing amateur about those 2 sports. They are Billion $ businesses and the players get hardly anything where as the Universities and Coaches make Milions of $. Besides if UC was still in the Big East of another power conference most of you guys would be complaining about this proposed rule change.

(01-19-2018 10:24 AM)Loco Bearcat Wrote:  Coaches can leave whenever they want look at Brian Kelly, I say let the players transfer without having to sit out a year. I enjoy College Football and Basketball however there is nothing amateur about those 2 sports. They are Billion $ businesses and the players get hardly anything where as the Universities and Coaches make Milions of $. Besides if UC was still in the Big East of another power conference most of you guys would be complaining about this proposed rule change.

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it is what is best for the sport or the student-athletes. I agree 100% with Mick who said that this is going to cause problems for the 99% of the kids who are not going to be playing professional FB/BB. The graduation rates are going to drop and if they do graduate even fewer players are going to be able to do it in 4-5 years. When you transfer schools you often lose credit hours. Some schools do not even have the same majors as others.

Thomas Sowell was speaking politics but I think this quote applies in this situation, "Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good'.

I have long thought that any athlete on scholarship that completes 4 years should get a free tuition, room and board for a fifth year to allow completion of a degree or a start on grad school.

I say this despite getting my BBA in four years and working 25 hours a week and 2 jobs in summer.

What I'd like to see:

Eliminate the "Red Shirt". You have four years to play. No ifs, ands or buts. Definitely no more 6th year given. Tired of seeing 23-24 year old men play college sports.

Give players at least five years of free education to complete their bachelor's degree.

If you go to a prep school after high school, you lose one year of eligibility.

To quote at Tillman (on being red shirted): "Coach, you can play me or not play me, but I'm only going to be here for four years. And then I've got things to do with my life."

p.s. I say this because high school sports are ridiculous. Not only are parents holding starting their kids later, but many are also holding them back an extra year so they will be more physically mature. I can't believe youth football hasn't stepped in and gone strictly with AGE LEVELS and not GRADE LEVELS. Same problem with basketball. Yet, soccer and baseball are done by age levels, where physicality is not nearly as important as the basketball/football.

(01-19-2018 10:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 10:24 AM)Loco Bearcat Wrote:  Coaches can leave whenever they want look at Brian Kelly, I say let the players transfer without having to sit out a year. I enjoy College Football and Basketball however there is nothing amateur about those 2 sports. They are Billion $ businesses and the players get hardly anything where as the Universities and Coaches make Milions of $. Besides if UC was still in the Big East of another power conference most of you guys would be complaining about this proposed rule change.

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it is what is best for the sport or the student-athletes. I agree 100% with Mick who said that this is going to cause problems for the 99% of the kids who are not going to be playing professional FB/BB. The graduation rates are going to drop and if they do graduate even fewer players are going to be able to do it in 4-5 years. When you transfer schools you often lose credit hours. Some schools do not even have the same majors as others.

Thomas Sowell was speaking politics but I think this quote applies in this situation, "Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good'.

Thomas Sowell is a political right wing pundit and please don't interject politics into this discussion. Actually more than 1% of College Basketball players play professionally when you include Foreign Basketball Leagues. I couldn't find any stats on that however Mick has a lot of his players playing professionally overseas.

(01-19-2018 11:03 AM)Loco Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 10:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 10:24 AM)Loco Bearcat Wrote:  Coaches can leave whenever they want look at Brian Kelly, I say let the players transfer without having to sit out a year. I enjoy College Football and Basketball however there is nothing amateur about those 2 sports. They are Billion $ businesses and the players get hardly anything where as the Universities and Coaches make Milions of $. Besides if UC was still in the Big East of another power conference most of you guys would be complaining about this proposed rule change.

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it is what is best for the sport or the student-athletes. I agree 100% with Mick who said that this is going to cause problems for the 99% of the kids who are not going to be playing professional FB/BB. The graduation rates are going to drop and if they do graduate even fewer players are going to be able to do it in 4-5 years. When you transfer schools you often lose credit hours. Some schools do not even have the same majors as others.

Thomas Sowell was speaking politics but I think this quote applies in this situation, "Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good'.

Thomas Sowell is a political right wing pundit and please don't interject politics into this discussion. Actually more than 1% of College Basketball players play professionally when you include Foreign Basketball Leagues. I couldn't find any stats on that however Mick has a lot of his players playing professionally overseas.

The quote is apt, I didn't mention political policy.

NBA players don't need to work after their basketball career is up. The overseas guys don't make the coin to retire in their early to mid 30s. They eventually need to find employment and that degree is invaluable.

The only people this is benefitting are blue blood programs and the select few guys who are good enough to play in the NBA or NFL.

(01-19-2018 09:49 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 08:43 AM)BeerCat Wrote:  Why don't they just make it so that transfers still have to sit a year but they don't lose a year of eligibility?

I thought that was already the case?

BeerCat - you are correct. They have 5 years to use their 4 years of eligibility. Transferring doesn't cost a year of eligilibility...unless the student has already had a redshirt year. Then they would only get to play on the field 3 years because their redshirt took one year and their transfer sit out year took one year. For a student that does not redshirt, the sit out year is basically the same as a redshirt year and they would be able to play 4 years over the 5 years they are eligible. They can also petition for a 6th year (like Ben Mauck tried to) due to injury but it has to be proven that the sit out was due to injury by the school and player to earn the 6 the year.

(01-19-2018 10:24 AM)Loco Bearcat Wrote:  Coaches can leave whenever they want look at Brian Kelly, I say let the players transfer without having to sit out a year. I enjoy College Football and Basketball however there is nothing amateur about those 2 sports. They are Billion $ businesses and the players get hardly anything where as the Universities and Coaches make Milions of $. Besides if UC was still in the Big East of another power conference most of you guys would be complaining about this proposed rule change.

If it's such a bad deal then why do the players keep signing up to.play college ball?

The truth is, for most athletes, making money playing sports to retire off of is only a fraction of a percent. They are at college to get a degree, if they don't like it they can go find a pro league that will take them.

Why do we need to turn college into a pro league too? Aren't their enough of these already? Most people dont put a lot of deep thought into this issue. Yes, the NCAA makes a ton of freaking money on this, that is because a ton of people watch. Why do people watch college sports when there are pro leagues with more talented players??? Think about it...

(01-19-2018 09:08 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 08:10 AM)UCengr Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 02:29 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Watched a Mick interview and he makes the important point that this will really hurt graduation rates in the two college sports, MBB and football, that need help the most. It's basically screwing players out of an extra year of college to get their degrees. He made the argument that sitting out a year isn't a penalty for transferring for most players, because the vast majority aren't gonna hit it big playing post college so they need their degree, and many run into the issue of non transferable credit which really puts them behind the 8 ball.

Mick reiterated this last night on the radio show when asked by a fan of his thoughts. The lower graduation rate angle is one I had not considered, but makes sense as the 5-yr. graduation rate is much higher than the 4-yr. one. He also posed a rhetorical question to the audience of who there would view an extra year of free school as a bad thing, for them or their kids.

Wasn't paying real close attention last night, but didn't Mick add that the thing that precipitated this whole thing was a law suit filed against the NCAA, so this is basically just a reaction to avoid anything that could threaten their power/cash?

I believe he did say this whole proposal was an attempt to stave off the lawsuits and potentially defer attention away from the NCAA and their tax exempt status.

(01-19-2018 01:59 PM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 09:49 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 08:43 AM)BeerCat Wrote:  Why don't they just make it so that transfers still have to sit a year but they don't lose a year of eligibility?

I thought that was already the case?

BeerCat - you are correct. They have 5 years to use their 4 years of eligibility. Transferring doesn't cost a year of eligilibility...unless the student has already had a redshirt year. Then they would only get to play on the field 3 years because their redshirt took one year and their transfer sit out year took one year. For a student that does not redshirt, the sit out year is basically the same as a redshirt year and they would be able to play 4 years over the 5 years they are eligible. They can also petition for a 6th year (like Ben Mauck tried to) due to injury but it has to be proven that the sit out was due to injury by the school and player to earn the 6 the year.

wow. Brain fart. I must have been thinking football since it seems like most football players burn their red shirt nowadays.