Executive order aims to limit NCAA athletes to 5 years, 1 transfer

[PhillyRam]

It's odd to me to be advocating for taking choice away from the players while simultaneously claiming it's for their benefit. They're adults. They can decide. Free market and all.

Why are there any rules then?

It's freaking college where academics should matter a little. Shouldn't they?

By your logic if a kid is failing he can keep playing ball then too. Should be no reason why a kid can ever be academically ineligible. Right? I mean, why even go to class? Give them the freedom to do what they want.

I can't believe some don't get it that the longterm impact on the avg kid is really bad. So a kid gets a few bucks hopping from school to school. In some cases they could be hurt if another kid transfers in and takes his $$. In the end though the kid who went to 3 or 4 schools, doesn't graduate, got minimal money maybe $100k total over 4 yrs, then ends up in a low paying job somewhere after pissing his money away.

You guys are focusing on the big time guys who rake in big bucks and then become professionals. Thats like 1 or 2%.

At the very least, when a kid signs his NIL agreement, they should have a 2 yr commitment from both the school and the student athlete. That will limit the school hopping and give them a better chance of actually graduating.

You guys say they should be free to do what they want. Well, they are free to not go to college. Do something else. It's a free country. However if you are entering into an collegiate association like the NCAA, then their needs to be guardrails that make academics somewhat important.

 

[jrry32]

Why are there any rules then?

Money. It benefited everybody but the players. Beyond that, rules should be about maintaining fair competition, not limiting the players' ability to make money. The teams that sign them are free to negotiate multi-year contracts. Alternatively, the universities can collectively bargain with the players like the NFL does with its players.

It's freaking college where academics should matter a little. Shouldn't they?

By your logic if a kid is failing he can keep playing ball then too. Should be no reason why a kid can ever be academically ineligible. Right? I mean, why even go to class? Give them the freedom to do what they want.

Let's be honest, it's the minor leagues for the NFL. Some of the kids will take advantage of the educational opportunities, but many of them are there because it's the path they have to take for the NFL.

I can't believe some don't get it that the longterm impact on the avg kid is really bad. So a kid gets a few bucks hopping from school to school. In some cases they could be hurt if another kid transfers in and takes his $$. In the end though the kid who went to 3 or 4 schools, doesn't graduate, got minimal money maybe $100k total over 4 yrs, then ends up in a low paying job somewhere after pissing his money away.

You guys are focusing on the big time guys who rake in big bucks and then become professionals. Thats like 1 or 2%.

At the very least, when a kid signs his NIL agreement, they should have a 2 yr commitment from both the school and the student athlete. That will limit the school hopping and give them a better chance of actually graduating.

You guys say they should be free to do what they want. Well, they are free to not go to college. Do something else. It's a free country. However if you are entering into an collegiate association like the NCAA, then their needs to be guardrails that make academics somewhat important.

I don't find this argument to be at all persuasive. If the NFL had a legitimate minor league that made college football purely for kids who wanted an education, fine, they're free to not go the college football route. But that's not reality. The free market benefits the players. They hop schools because it offers the prospect of more money or more playing time. They're adults. It's their call. If they're prioritizing playing time or NIL money over academics, that is their right and choice. If at the end of the day they don't make the NFL and don't earn a college degree, that's their loss. Choices have consequences. I'm comfortable letting the players make the call.

 

[PhillyRam]

Money. It benefited everybody but the players. Beyond that, rules should be about maintaining fair competition, not limiting the players' ability to make money. The teams that sign them are free to negotiate multi-year contracts. Alternatively, the universities can collectively bargain with the players like the NFL does with its players.

Let's be honest, it's the minor leagues for the NFL. Some of the kids will take advantage of the educational opportunities, but many of them are there because it's the path they have to take for the NFL.

I don't find this argument to be at all persuasive. If the NFL had a legitimate minor league that made college football purely for kids who wanted an education, fine, they're free to not go the college football route. But that's not reality. The free market benefits the players. They hop schools because it offers the prospect of more money or more playing time. They're adults. It's their call. If they're prioritizing playing time or NIL money over academics, that is their right and choice. If at the end of the day they don't make the NFL and don't earn a college degree, that's their loss. Choices have consequences. I'm comfortable letting the players make the call.

I honestly I think your preferred scenario exploits the kids more than having the guardrails that helps them get a degree.

Throw the kids some cash so the university can make more dollars, then throw the kids away where they are working retail 10 yrs later for $15 an hour.

 

[fearsomefour]

The adults in the NCAA set up rules to help the supposed "student athlete". If they are doing their jobs, they would put guardrails in place to help guide 18, 19 and 20 yr olds to better outcomes.

I think almost no one in the whole structure is watching out for kids.
Does the NCAA care? Hard for me to tell.
Do most coaches care? Not even two drops of piss.

 

[fearsomefour]

I honestly I think your preferred scenario exploits the kids more than having the guardrails that helps them get a degree.

Throw the kids some cash so the university can make more dollars, then throw the kids away where they are working retail 10 yrs later for $15 an hour.

These kids aren't any more or any less special than any other young person starting to find their own way.
Its all their choices as to what they end up doing.

 

[PhillyRam]

These kids aren't any more or any less special than any other young person starting to find their own way.
Its all their choices as to what they end up doing.

I see it as a kid who enrolls into a university to play a sport, that school and the NCAA in general owes that kid some guidance and policies to ensure they are not taken advabtage of.

So still pay NIL if that's the way it has to be, but the unlimited transfer situation is hurting most kids long-term without question, especially kids from disadvantage households that struggle.

Again let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[jrry32]

I honestly I think your preferred scenario exploits the kids more than having the guardrails that helps them get a degree.

Throw the kids some cash so the university can make more dollars, then throw the kids away where they are working retail 10 yrs later for $15 an hour.

My preferred scenario trusts the players to make their own choices. If they end up worse off, it's because they made the wrong choice. They're adults. That's life. Some people make good choices. Others don't. I don't believe I have the standing or right to decide what's best for them and then put rules in place that limit their market value and freedom of movement. That's paternalistic.

 

[PhillyRam]

My preferred scenario trusts the players to make their own choices. If they end up worse off, it's because they made the wrong choice. They're adults. That's life. Some people make good choices. Others don't. I don't believe I have the standing or right to decide what's best for them and then put rules in place that limit their market value and freedom of movement. That's paternalistic.

Why do universities have any policies for their student's? Just let them do what they want, their own free will. Why are there counselors in college to help guide kids?

I think the NCAA does bare some responsibility for their athletes. Take a poor kid from the inner city or a poor rural kid, neither with much if any parental guidance, they should be guided by policies that prevent them from being exploited and then washing out once their teams are done with them.

You say they are adults capable of making their own decisions. Maybe you don't have kids, but when mine were 18, 19 or 20, they didn't always make good decisions or they certainly often asked for guidance when making one. Many of these athletes, who are from bad backgrounds, dont have that option.

In the end the NCAA should push to have policies in place that force more positive outcomes than negative ones. If you want to go to college, then you must abide by those policies. Kids can still get paid, but there should be an emphasis on stability so they have the opportunity to graduate. And not saying you can't transfer, just saying the goal should be that they are capable of graduating. Afterall that's what colleges are for. Again, you don't want to follow those policies then don't go to college.

 

[jrry32]

Why do universities have any policies for their student's? Just let them do what they want, their own free will. Why are there counselors in college to help guide kids?

Many different reasons. To minimize legal liability. To protect students. To ensure fairness. Transparency. Notice. So on and so forth. Of course, there isn't an antitrust issue with university policies. If a student dislikes the policies at one university, they can choose a different one. As for counselors, it's good to ensure the students have guidance and information. Last I checked, though, counselors don't tell students, "You're going to be a science major, not a history major, because I've decided that's what's best for you."

I think the NCAA does bare some responsibility for their athletes. Take a poor kid from the inner city or a poor rural kid, neither with much if any parental guidance, they should be guided by policies that prevent them from being exploited and then washing out once their teams are done with them.

The NCAA historically exploited those kids to line its own pockets, but now, we're supposed to trust the NCAA to act in their best interests? No thank you.

You say they are adults capable of making their own decisions. Maybe you don't have kids, but when mine were 18, 19 or 20, they didn't always make good decisions or they certainly often asked for guidance when making one. Many of these athletes, who are from bad backgrounds, dont have that option.

Yes, they do. They have coaches. They have agents. They have counselors. They can seek guidance if they want it. As for young people not making good decisions, that's true. Then again, I know people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. who make stupid decisions. Yet, that's still their right. Some of these kids will make bad decisions. Some of them will make good decisions. End of the day, I trust them more than I trust the NCAA.

In the end the NCAA should push to have policies in place that force more positive outcomes than negative ones. If you want to go to college, then you must abide by those policies. Kids can still get paid, but there should be an emphasis on stability so they have the opportunity to graduate. And not saying you can't transfer, just saying the goal should be that they are capable of graduating. Afterall that's what colleges are for. Again, you don't want to follow those policies then don't go to college.

Yet, the NCAA has historically not done that. And there's no evidence that the rules you're recommending will result in more positive outcomes than negative ones. There's also no alternative for the kids who want to play in the NFL to going to college. So you're offering a false choice.

I have an alternative. If the focus here is on making sure the kids graduate, how about we require universities that accept players in the transfer portal to agree to grant that player a full scholarship until they graduate? That way, if a player transfers in, exhausts his eligibility, does not make the NFL, and does not yet have a degree, he will have the opportunity to finish his studies without taking on a huge amount of debt. That way, the universities aren't using up and then spitting the kids out, and we're not taking away their freedom of choice. Win-win, right?

 

[PhillyRam]

Many different reasons. To minimize legal liability. To protect students. To ensure fairness. Transparency. Notice. So on and so forth. Of course, there isn't an antitrust issue with university policies. If a student dislikes the policies at one university, they can choose a different one. As for counselors, it's good to ensure the students have guidance and information. Last I checked, though, counselors don't tell students, "You're going to be a science major, not a history major, because I've decided that's what's best for you."

The NCAA historically exploited those kids to line its own pockets, but now, we're supposed to trust the NCAA to act in their best interests? No thank you.

Yes, they do. They have coaches. They have agents. They have counselors. They can seek guidance if they want it. As for young people not making good decisions, that's true. Then again, I know people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. who make stupid decisions. Yet, that's still their right. Some of these kids will make bad decisions. Some of them will make good decisions. End of the day, I trust them more than I trust the NCAA.

Yet, the NCAA has historically not done that. And there's no evidence that the rules you're recommending will result in more positive outcomes than negative ones. There's also no alternative for the kids who want to play in the NFL to going to college. So you're offering a false choice.

I have an alternative. If the focus here is on making sure the kids graduate, how about we require universities that accept players in the transfer portal to agree to grant that player a full scholarship until they graduate? That way, if a player transfers in, exhausts his eligibility, does not make the NFL, and does not yet have a degree, he will have the opportunity to finish his studies without taking on a huge amount of debt. That way, the universities aren't using up and then spitting the kids out, and we're not taking away their freedom of choice. Win-win, right?

The universities are exploiting these kids now more than ever. The players mean nothing to them now. They have nothing but a pay check invested in them. If they don't graduate, who cares. Some universities used to brag about their athletes graduation rates. Schools with poor graduation rates had those rates published every year which would be embarrassing to some.

Now schools and coaches don't care about the kid at all. At least previously the better programs and some of the good ethical coaches did care about the kids they recruited. Their programs were built on those relationships. It's why some like Jay Wright of Villanova quit. They wanted no part of this nonsense where neither team nor player are committed to each other.