GatewayRedbirds.com

Do you think college athletes should have to sit out one year of competition if transferring to another college?

Should be no. Seems like it could get chaotic though?
What about if the are in good academic standing?

Why college athletics again?

$$$$$4$$4$$$$$

lukethedrifter wrote:Should be no. Seems like it could get chaotic though?
What about if the are in good academic standing?

Why college athletics again?

$$$$$4$$4$$$$$

I hear you. I agree. I don't think they should have to sit out. Maybe just a set time, I don't know, 3 weeks where you can declare you are transferring after the season so you don't leave the team in a pinch?

I can see the basis for the rule hoping to prevent players jumping from one school to another who has a better shot at a championship and creating chaos but in the cases where the coach who recruited them is fired or there is a legitimate reason (be closer to home due to a family situation, etc.) then let the players go. The coaches and athletic departments and administrations don't have to show a single bit of loyalty to the players so why should the players have to show any?

As always, the answer is $$$$ of course.

I'm open to both arguments, but how do you keep elite players from transferring to elite teams (college's version of Durant to the Warriors)?

Socnorb11 wrote:I'm open to both arguments, but how do you keep elite players from transferring to elite teams (college's version of Durant to the Warriors)?

You don't.
They sign with them out of college already.

tlombard wrote:I can see the basis for the rule hoping to prevent players jumping from one school to another who has a better shot at a championship and creating chaos but in the cases where the coach who recruited them is fired or there is a legitimate reason (be closer to home due to a family situation, etc.) then let the players go. The coaches and athletic departments and administrations don't have to show a single bit of loyalty to the players so why should the players have to show any?

As always, the answer is $$$$ of course.

Maybe a rule that you can transfer with no penalty if your head coach changes? Reasonable.

Tim wrote:

tlombard wrote:I can see the basis for the rule hoping to prevent players jumping from one school to another who has a better shot at a championship and creating chaos but in the cases where the coach who recruited them is fired or there is a legitimate reason (be closer to home due to a family situation, etc.) then let the players go. The coaches and athletic departments and administrations don't have to show a single bit of loyalty to the players so why should the players have to show any?

As always, the answer is $$$$ of course.

Maybe a rule that you can transfer with no penalty if your head coach changes? Reasonable.

I'm definitely on board with that along with other situations that come up from time to time. In theory they have a process to allow this to happen (University can release a player from their commitment and they can then transfer and appeal to be allowed to play right away) but rarely does the NCAA make the right decision to let the player just play. If I remember there was recently a situation where a coach was fired within a couple of weeks after a player made his decision but but the player started taking early classes and had been on campus for THREE DAYS (with no practices or anything) and it took months and multiple appeals to allow the player to go to another school and play.

tlombard wrote:

Tim wrote:

tlombard wrote:I can see the basis for the rule hoping to prevent players jumping from one school to another who has a better shot at a championship and creating chaos but in the cases where the coach who recruited them is fired or there is a legitimate reason (be closer to home due to a family situation, etc.) then let the players go. The coaches and athletic departments and administrations don't have to show a single bit of loyalty to the players so why should the players have to show any?

As always, the answer is $$$$ of course.

Maybe a rule that you can transfer with no penalty if your head coach changes? Reasonable.

I'm definitely on board with that along with other situations that come up from time to time. In theory they have a process to allow this to happen (University can release a player from their commitment and they can then transfer and appeal to be allowed to play right away) but rarely does the NCAA make the right decision to let the player just play. If I remember there was recently a situation where a coach was fired within a couple of weeks after a player made his decision but but the player started taking early classes and had been on campus for THREE DAYS (with no practices or anything) and it took months and multiple appeals to allow the player to go to another school and play.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll ... 53671.html

Braxton Beverly

Tim wrote:

tlombard wrote:I can see the basis for the rule hoping to prevent players jumping from one school to another who has a better shot at a championship and creating chaos but in the cases where the coach who recruited them is fired or there is a legitimate reason (be closer to home due to a family situation, etc.) then let the players go. The coaches and athletic departments and administrations don't have to show a single bit of loyalty to the players so why should the players have to show any?

As always, the answer is $$$$ of course.

Maybe a rule that you can transfer with no penalty if your head coach changes? Reasonable.

This is kind of what I was thinking. There might be some extenuating circumstances too. Of course some players commit to a location because of an assistant coach, so I don't know how you handle that.