Potential changes to NCAA transfer rules

This would certainly be a deviation from the current transfer process.

Comments

The transfer rule was stupid anyway, IMO.

Recruit Prosim

But imagine a world where everyone transfers and all the best players end up at Bama and Ohio St. That would be unfair... oh wait

yeah.. stablity, schmability. Who needs it.
/s

I think you'll see more stability in coaching staffs. Schools are going to be reluctant to fire coaches now

If this does end up coming to fruition - I'm assuming any kids currently having to sit out due to the transfer rules would also be grandfathered in/become immediately eligible to play at their new schools.

Wow, I could really see this becoming a potential shitshow nationwide for programs.

“Also, a microwave has never danced it's ass off to Jackie Wilson.” - AssPocketFullOWhiskey

There could be some good ways to do this...

-minimum 2.7 (B-) average to transfer
-schools can impose limit on programs they play while the player is eligible
-transfer window
-have to complete two academic years before you can transfer

this could work out...

This would only make an already shady process shadier. Recruiting for the most part ends when a player enrolls on campus. Now it would start back up during or after a breakout season. This recruiting will become a distraction to the player athletically and possibly academically (if anyone even cares about that anymore.)

I don't think you can tie it to grades unless it is strictly at the minimum requirements for eligibility because you will have institutions tanking a player's grades to keep just eligible but not able to transfer.

UNC won't know what the hell to do...

Recruit Prosim

I only like this rule for when there is a coaching change. I don't find it fair a coach can leave (or school can fire them) and the kids can't tranfer without sitting out.

Other alternative is to make the coaches sit out a year :)

We put the K in Kwality

Being a "runner" could become a career path. Being an unofficial go-between could be lucrative, especially in the SEC.

Bama is going to start grey shirting their players at UAB.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Best comment of the day!

Hokie fan | W&M grad

If you only knew the relationship that Bama has with UAB...

They're both run by the same BoT. Bama jokingly referred to as University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. UAB, UAH (HUnstville) and Bama are all run by the same university sytem. Bama boosters are almost solely responsible for shutting down UAB football, as they didn't want any resources ($$, time, HS talent) wanting to go anywhere within the U.A. system that wasn't 'Bama. Good ole Bear Bryant's progeny were largely behind that whole push.

I learned all about that when UAB closed their team for that year.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I think it helps us, we are going to be able to poach mid-major kids while I don't see many starters wanting to transfer. Plus we have a good coach, we won't get stuck w/ a coach for fear of losing kids

I can see a couple of factors that might work against the big name schools.
"You would be deep on the bench at OSU for 2 years before you know if you would play. Come here and play now, get experience, and transfer there if you do not go pro early."
"Looks like that guy is gonna get the start over you until he goes pro. Somebody else like that comes along in two years and you will never get a chance to show what you have. Transfer here and start."
It looks like you are square peg in a round hole here. Our system would be a better fit for you talents"

They won't lose the top DE in the nation, but would not anyway, but it will be harder to squeeze the 2nd level players away from the competition by getting them to commit but not playing them.

Sometimes we live no particular way but our own

Pros: A lot more fair to the players who can switch schools without losing a year of playing the sport they love.

Cons: Free agency in college football seems like it could be heavily abused by top teams and really hurt smaller P5 teams and G5 teams who may have to start worrying every time one of their players starts to have a really good season. Teams will be recruiting elite players from smaller schools every year and potentially building even more dangerous super teams.

I really think this should be limited to one transfer for free and you have to be making the grades.

I think that is the plan. Except it's functionally two because you would still be able to grad transfer and play instantly also. So someone could conceivably play for three teams without sitting out.

I don't like it unless there it's limited to major coaching changes. The 2 and 3 star players that turn out to be some of the best at their position are going to be essentially recruited by the big time programs after breakout seasons. Instead of Alabama reloading every 2 years due to the draft they'll just restock from the hot players every season leading to a much more top heavy CFB World.

Plus you won't have the random G5 or bottom feeder P5 pop up as often to make things interesting every year.

This rule should help us more than hurt us. We are already operating on getting at least 1 or 2 big transfers each year, and this should only help that. Any school that is looking to contend or is in contention should be helped. Not sure schools like Bama and Clemson would benefit too much, they already stockpile elite talent, this will just help concentrate that talent to a greater number of the top programs, of which VT will be included.

This will significantly hurt the middling P5 and top G5 programs. One year prove yourself signings at the lower school and then bump up to an upper tier where you'll get the recognition you want. This will make it incredibly difficult for those middling programs to break into the field, as they won't be able to build depth as their better talent keeps cycling out.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

I'm conflicted on the idea of it. I agree that if a coaching change occurs that you should be able to transfer without having to sit out. I don't really like the idea of freely being able to transfer as you please without some sort of penalty. The schools went to 4 year guaranteed scholarships instead of 1 year renewables (at least tech did) so they've made a 4 year commitment to the athlete. Say a player comes in, redshirts, and then leaves. You've spent an entire season of your coaching, strength and conditioning, tutoring, etc resources for someone to just use it and leave.

I also don't think it makes the best better necessarily either. If you are constantly replenishing your roster with transfers, no matter how talented, there is an element of team unity and bonding that makes a team work. If there are always new guys coming in that haven't bonded with the rest of the team, that could hurt them. Also some of those 2nd and 3rd stringers at the tops schools that they need for depth could transfer to another school to get playing time earlier. It COULD be a 2-way street.

"We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior" Stephen M.R. Covey

“When life knocks you down plan to land on your back, because if you can look up, you can get up, if you fall flat on your face it can kill your spirit” David Wilson

I think you and I are on the same page. Allowing the transfer with little to no restriction is just making the college game closer to the NFL game, which the NCAA would be foolish to do as it would add fuel to the pay-the-players fire. I love the idea that a head coaching change would allow every player to transfer without restriction as this puts a little more power back on the player's side. The coaching change exemption should be limited to head coaching changes and would allow players to both follow a coach to another school or find a better fit if the new coaching hire isn't a match. It should be limited to a 3-6 month window following the termination of the player's current coach.

I don't want players to have a free pass on their commitments as that is a bad life lesson, but OTOH, the average college student can transfer without restrictions and only at the risk of some lost course credits. So this rule change would help keep the student part first in "student-athlete".

Come to Blacksburg and see what the Hokie Pokie is really all about

would allow players to both follow a coach to another school

I think this would be a pandora's box. Could you imagine Jimbo leaving to A&M and taking his starting 22 with him? Then to make room he pulls the schollies from 22 of the back of the roster kids at A&M?

I think we are on the same page, but I just see that part of your thought as a massive issue.

"We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior" Stephen M.R. Covey

“When life knocks you down plan to land on your back, because if you can look up, you can get up, if you fall flat on your face it can kill your spirit” David Wilson

It would be a very tricky thing, but how could you tell a player that he is not allowed to play for the coach that he wanted. I am willing to bet that most of the Bama kids don't give two craps about Tuscaloosa or the program, just want to play for Saban.

Come to Blacksburg and see what the Hokie Pokie is really all about

For basketball, this is dumping gasoline on an already chaotic transfer situation and lighting the match.

Basically... it's gonna be a lot of LeBronning going on if this goes through.

No, I *don't* want to go to the SEC. Why do you ask?

We don't love dem Hoos.

Finally evens the playing field, between athletes, coaches, and students. A regular student can transfer schools, a coach can change schools, and neither is penalized. An athletic scholarship is renewed on an annual basis, so a player can have their scholarship removed at any time. An athlete is penalized for transferring and what is the rationale for that? To protect the schools? Because it definitely doesn't protect the athlete. That being said, it will definitely be a different landscape if this rule is changed.

I don't think the general student is remotely relevant here. They are paying their way through college and at best have a year to year academic scholly. I agree that if evens the playing field between coaches and players. Free agency in college football (which essentially what this is) is a bad idea. Even in the NFL, the rookie is signed for 4 years before he can hit free agency.

it's 100% relevant. any non-athlete student can transfer and continue pursuing his/her career. student athletes are not afforded that same treatment

Its not fair to compare non-athletic students to student athletes on scholarship. The school has committed to fund 4 years of a student athlete's education provided they maintain academic progress. The price for that commitment is a restriction in transfer options. The school makes no such commitment to non-athletic students and thus there is no restriction.

And if student athletes are willing to give up their athletic career at a D1 university for a couple of years, they are afforded the opportunity to transfer.

The school has committed to fund 4 years of a student athlete's education provided they maintain academic progress.

As mentioned by Hokierick, many are commitments of less than 4 years, that may be renewed.

This article is from 2014, so maybe times have changed:
CBS Sports

But according to that article, most schools still give out less than 4 years.

🦃 🦃 🦃

Maybe they all don't give 4 year scholarships, but the ones who likely would be poached are ones that would get 4 (or more) years on scholarship. And a year to year scholarship is still a differentiating factor between student athletes and non-athletic students.

But clearly you think that student athletes are getting the short end of the stick and I'm not going to change your mind, so i will just leave it here.

It seems a reasonable compromise would be an incoming student athlete having a choice of a yearly, 2-year, or 4-year contract. If he signs a 4-year contract, he would not be allowed to transfer until end of 4th year or graduation. If only 1-year or 2-year, can transfer after contract terminates. Team can also choose not to retain that scholarship (i.e., the numbers always work out) when the contract terminates.

Freedom of contract - The Lochner era would be so proud.

🦃 🦃 🦃

An athletic scholarship is renewed on an annual basis, so a player can have their scholarship removed at any time.

Virginia Tech offers 4-year scholarships. Many other schools did that as soon as the NCAA allowed it a few years back.

This feels like the Rule 5 draft in MLB.

Not really. The rule 5-eligible players are those not protected on a team's 40 man roster, and who have payed a certain number (can't remember) of years in the minors. The equivalent for the NCAA would be to allow the school to prevent its top N players from transferring, and only allow, say Jrs. and Srs to transfer.

I'm not a fan of an unfettered transfer system, which I think would be exhausting for players, coaches, and fans. Instead, I'd like to see the following:

  • Players free to transfer immediately upon major coaching changes (e.g. head coach)
  • Scholarships guaranteed for 4 years, given sufficient academic progress
  • A player could be released from an athletic scholarship, but that player would:
    • Continue to receive an equivalent academic scholarship.
    • Be eligible for transfer without penalty to another school offering an athletic scholarship

Lots of details to be worked out, but I think this offers a fairer framework from which to work.

Good framework. Can you clarify how your your 3rd bullet point is different from what is being discussed?

because what's being discussed is free transfers for any and all reasons. He's saying you can only do it if your coach leaves or if your scholly is pulled.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Correct.

Just imagine the effect on recruiting. Not only would coaches have to recruit high school players almost year round, they would also have to scout and recruit the college game as well. I think it is possible with all the recruiting services and the 10th asst coming on board (and I don't really feel sorry for them and their ballooning salaries), but would be a big change to the landscape.

Come to Blacksburg and see what the Hokie Pokie is really all about

Don't forget they would have to continue to recruit their players who they don't want transferring to a bigger name school.....so high school, other college players and your players....that you already recruited....

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Personally, I am super excited at the prospect of Saban, Dabo, Roy, Coach K and their staffs and unlimited budgets heavily recruiting our current players- LOVE that idea . s/

Just one more stake in the heart of "collegiate athletics". In the current system, Bruce Smith is known as a VT grad. He is a Hokie. He comes back to support his fellow Hokies. He gives to the school and the school honors him. Once we change the system to allow free movement of players between schools, we will eventually lose the connection between player loyalty to his team, and school loyalty to the players. Bruce Smith would be playing for Alabama before he graduates. They all become semi-pro athletes. Even the NFL has a bit of the same problem with rise of player mobility, which has led to fantasy leagues. Why bother with team loyalty, when both coaches and players all move around anyway. Just build your own team and forget the charade of NFL team loyalty. When the players you love betray you and move away to our rival schools, it destroys one of the crucial elements of why we love the game. The school doesn't even matter anymore. What does it mean to be a Team fan anymore? I guess we can still root for our stadium.

I think the new rule should be allowed only in hardship cases under unusual circumstances.

This proposed transfer rule is bad because that's how you get fantasy football????????????????????????

Chem PhD '16

That isn't what I said. I said fantasy football is all you are left with, after you've destroyed the fan relationship with a home team.

The rise of player mobility has nothing to do with fantasy leagues.

Chem PhD '16

I for anything that gives student athletes more leverage. They're already making tons of money for schools/admins/coaches without seeing a dime of it, give them the freedom to transfer just like Fuente did when he left Memphis for VT.

They are paid 6 figure scholarships, a cost of living stipend, room, and all the food they can eat. They are also on ESPN 10 times per season show casing their skills for NFL scouts. They get admitted into Virginia tech with lower standards than the average student as well. They are provided world class academic, medical, and fitness support and live in the best dorms. They see more than a "dime", far more. To your point about Fuente, Head Coach of a major football program is a different skillset than "player". Different skills have different values in all walks of life. Tim Settle is more expendable than Justin Fuente is, thus the two are "compensated" differently. Coach K is far more valuable to Duke than any number of his one and dones that will be replaced by more great players next year. That is basic supply demand capitalism. You might not like it, but thats the way it works in most walks of life.

if tim settle were so expendable why did anyone give a shit that he left?

also

Good Lord. Indentured servitude? When you set the bar for debate that low, I don't think it leaves much room for actual rational discussion.

Yep..zero athletes are forced or required to sing with VT. They all choose to, knowing that they are not paid 6 figure salaries. Their choice..thus 100% NOT indentured servitude.

no more ridiculous then claiming scholarships represent the ideals of capitalism

Fine. Raise the athlete admission standards to those of normal students. Pay them a salary commensurate with the experience of an 18 year old, but make them pay for school. Let's see if they would trade. Hey guys - stop the press - you get "paid" 60K per year to play football at virginia tech- no more "slavery", you are being PAID cash to play for VT!! woo hoo!!- and more than the NBA G League salary, BTW .....but no soft admission standards, no full ride, no training table, no free tutors, no special dorms. Let's see what they would choose.

Most football players could make far more than 60K if the NCAA allowed them to profit off of their own image.

Also, if they are treated the same as regular students, they can transfer whenever they want.

Most football players could make far more than 60K if the NCAA allowed them to profit off of their own image.

Most is an over-exaggeration. You have 85 guys on scholarship and I doubt even the starting 22 would be able to pull that. How many people would rush out to buy a Kyle Chung or Eric Gallo jersey?

If you want it to be fair then give them a choice. You can profit off your own image but you then have to pay for the coaching, training, nutritionists, tuition, and other items that are part of the scholarship. I'd suspect that most wouldn't take the risk.

"We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior" Stephen M.R. Covey

“When life knocks you down plan to land on your back, because if you can look up, you can get up, if you fall flat on your face it can kill your spirit” David Wilson

If you want them to exist in a true free-market system, then let the schools give them schollies (which they still would) AND let the athletes profit in any legal way they see fit.

It's getting harder and harder to defend the status quo when coaches make $2M+ per year, facilities are nicer than the Ritz Carlton, etc. The old excuse of "there's no money for the players" rings hollow.

It's getting harder and harder to defend the status quo when coaches make $2M+ per year, facilities are nicer than the Ritz Carlton, etc. The old excuse of "there's no money for the players" rings hollow.

no it doesn't. what value does the athlete have that the school hasn't provided to them? All that money you want to give them for their image has been afforded on the back on the university making a risky investment on them in the first place.

How about this... let's start a business you and me. You pay for the startup costs, the office space, the decorations, equipment, insurance, staffing, marketing, my housing, my food, medical bills, nutritionist, health and conditioning trainer, etc. You pay for it all. AND I want a 60K salary and money any time my image is used. You do all of that and, for my part, I will hopefully be good enough at whatever this company does so that we make money in the future. Oh and I am only going to be part of this company for 4 - 5 years.

deal?

The Big10 commissioner makes over $10 million a year. There is plenty of money going around, it's just not going to the students. You had a point earlier in this thread, but if you're seriously arguing the system has no money to spare for the athletes you've gone off the deep end.

great point! If we took his salary and distributed it to all the scholarship football players in the big ten, each would get a whopping $8400!! So...no, not a great point.

Yes there is a crap ton of money flowing in and around college sports. However, there are thousands of players and it gets pretty thin when you spread it around equally. Now what happens if we pay players who are better/do more for the schools/conferences? Then you have situations where a kid gets injured or maybe has a sophomore slump and all of a sudden isn't making the money he expected. Not to mention the inherent team issues of having each player paid differently based on his performance.

And we need to remember that football money doesn't just stay with football. How many thousands of other college athletes get to compete in non-revenue sports because of the money football brings in?

I'm not actually convinced one way or the other on this issue, I'm just tired of hearing overly simplistic arguments from both sides.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

No, it is a fine point, you just mischaracterized it and didn't put any thought into your response. First of all, the fact that one person's earnings who isn't even directly involved could provide a decent stipend for every player in the conference is pretty astounding. So you kind of bolstered my point there.
Secondly, I was simply illustrating that the money flowing around is getting bigger and bigger, that doesn't mean you have to directly pay the players, but that there is money there to be used for their benefit that they had a part in earning. I'm not convinced one way or the other either, and anyone who makes it into a simplistic argument is doing an injustice, I just refuted the idea that the money wasn't there to find a solution, which is what was fernley was driving at.

and here I thought I was trying to keep it civil by using "overly simplistic arguments" instead of "dumbass arguments"

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

I don't know what "dumbass arguments" is a reference to but ok. But yeah, I could have used a softer wording there, especially considering we mostly agree anyways.

which is what was fernley was driving at.

you just mischaracterized it and didn't put any thought into your response.

No, I put a lot of thought into it. You are essentially arguing that the players already get paid they're full value in aggregate and so don't have a stake in the excess being generated. Saying they don't deserve the money isn't really that much different than saying we can't afford to pay them.

Actually as I have said multiple times I think they deserve more. The point you aren't grasping is that what people are arguing for is not due to them. They shouldn't get money from their likeness. They don't deserve part of what coaches and other people earn. They put zero in to "deserve" a share of this money.

The argument should be that universities, conferences and the ncaa should provide more for them. they deserve a minimum standard livelihood through stipends, better protections, better transfer rules, health insurance for all injuries after college, ncaa clearinghouse needs to be burned to the ground and remade with swift and fair judgement, offer letters that are binding, ability to back out if coaches change position after they commit, and so on.

you, vtmike and others are focused on the money that they don't deserve when the conversation should be about the additional things that should be provided to them that are logical.

I've honestly never heard someone argue that players don't deserve to make money on their likeness, that's a rather extreme viewpoint, and then to declare definitively they don't "deserve" that money is even further outside the norm. I get what you're saying about some of that value being derived from the institution, but to claim that it is 100% someone else's value is hard to fathom. Sure, the coaches and other people create some of that value. But so do the players. By your logic NFL players shouldn't be allowed to profit off their likeness because it's the NFL that benevolently gives them exposure to do it. It's not that I don't grasp your point, I do, I just think you don't grasp how crazy of an idea that you're proposing.

But as long as we can agree there is much more that can and should be offered, I guess we can just leave it at that.

IMO you are still looking at it wrong.

ok, lets break it down:

  • what is their likeness worth when they start college? Zero.
  • What gives their likeness value? A school that provides everything they need to succeed and a national venue to showcase all for free. And the player must be good enough to start (most are not) and be dynamic enough that fans want their likeness.
  • What is the proportion of investment into the value their likeness now has while in college? School: ALL THE MONEY. Player: Zero money in.
  • What is the proportion of value put in during this time that their likeness has value? A school pours in tens of millions of dollars to support their football program, plus players are given additional tens of millions in value to market themselves every Saturday. A player puts in sweat equity. No argument that they don't bust their ass and pour blood, sweat and tears into it. But when did you ever see sweat equity amount to much value in a real business? It doesn't and the only time it does have any value at all is when the person putting sweat equity in does not take any money for themselves during that time. Which players do in tuition, housing and on and on. So their sweat equity is basically nothing because they are already being "paid."

By your logic NFL players shouldn't be allowed to profit off their likeness because it's the NFL that benevolently gives them exposure to do it.

Incorrect and this is THE exact point you are missing. By this time a player has value to their likeness afforded to them by all the tens of millions spent on them by the university. They exit those 4 to 5 years with a better skillset, better training and strength conditioning, better education, better everything and most importantly a national exposure of their own brand; themselves, to which they can use in contract negotiations. The stronger your brand they more bargaining power you have. This is why agents can leverage them into mind blowing contracts with the NFL and sponsorship deals with brand products. If the athletes did not have this all provided to them by the university then they would enter the NFL with no bargaining power at all.

You keep acting like the university is the ones fronting all the money for them. Thats straight up false. Its the boosters that pay.

And all this bs about likeness coming from the school is also wrong. Their likeness starts with recruiting in high school. That's why we knew tyrod before he stepped on campus. We didn't create tyrod

You keep acting like the university is the ones fronting all the money for them. Thats straight up false. Its the boosters that pay

if your argument is that boosters deserve an ROI from the university then that's a completely different topic. As it works now those are donations.

And all this bs about likeness coming from the school is also wrong. Their likeness starts with recruiting in high school. That's why we knew tyrod before he stepped on campus. We didn't create tyrod

then he should have gone straight to playing professionally somewhere and making money on his likeness out of HS.

You have an actual argument to make or is the "it's wrong" comment as substantive as you're getting?

I never said there was no money. I said that there is no argument for the athlete to receive much more than what they already get. BIG difference.

As hokie07me points out when you spread it across it isn't much.

Like I said in my post below. I think athletes deserve more stipend and a lifetime insurance on injuries, at a minimum. But I disagree wholeheartedly that the athlete is due more of the revenue when they make zero investment.

I actually agree with you for the most part, increase on stipend and lifetime insurance would be huge wins and a better use of the money then we have now. But to say they don't put in any investment is egregious. The players pour their lives into these sports and put their health on the line every play, they make huge investments. We can argue the actual value (in all likelihood, the stars earn a fraction of what they are worth, while fringe players make a little more then they would be worth) but to say they make no investment is unfair.

The players pour their lives into these sports and put their health on the line every play,

no one is saying differently. I certainly am not. But like anything if you want a greater share of the revenue then you need to invest at the beginning. Not during and the fact is that they don't put any money in at the start of their time in school. Only during.

Again, as above, if you want to do it this way then fine: you start the company. pay for everything. I will take a salary and only work for a few years. AND now also take more equity of the original investment having put nothing in myself.

The argument is that boosters are literally trying to give more money to the players but they can't. We aren't making up some hypothetical of why they would get more.

The argument is that boosters are literally trying to give more money to the SOME players but they can't. We aren't making up some hypothetical of why they would get more.

fixed it. Not even most starters would get enough money to pay for their living expenses.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I think there are plenty of examples as to why boosters should not be allowed to give money to players. Not sure why this is a point you're trying to make.

The B1G commissioner runs a multi-million dollar business. That is a skill that not everyone can do. In fact FAR fewer people can do that successfully, than catch a football. That is why he makes more than the running back from Northwestern- a MUCH more expendable, lower skill job. This is basic economics. When Adonis Alexander has the skills and experience to run the ACC, maybe he can be paid accordingly.

Explain basic economics to the boosters that want to directly give players money

Basic economics might be above the comprehension level of the Harvey Updykes or the Adidas shoe runners out there. They are a low life subculture for the most part. I am a VT booster, and I obviously am close friends with many others. We have never discussed paying players directly or anything of the sort. Just because some Nevin Shapiro dirtbag wants to pay players, doesn't mean that they are any less expendable.

At a certain point the explosion of the salaries and bonuses for these people is a symptom of money not being distributed fairly. Obviously not just anyone can run a business, but to say that someone who can run a college athletics conference deserves that amount of money is just not true. P5 commissioners made ~$500k in 2004. Things haven't changed that much, and yet their pay is continually skyrocketing because money keeps coming in and it's got to go somewhere. The fact that very little of it is going to the players (and I don't mean just paying them, it could go to them in myriad ways, that's a whole different and complex conversation) makes no sense.

Things haven't changed that much

Collective TV rights deals changed everything man. Football networks changed the game of compensation. But that's just good business. It doesn't mean players deserve more of that pie unfortunately.

That's a funny definition of "deserve". I've worked for people with that attitude. That company bled the talent that created the value until the company was crippled and had no way to recover. There's really no way to discuss this further without delving into the economic, philosophical, and political, so let's leave it here. Appreciate the insight and conversation.

Dude.. you make A LOT of assumptions. nearly 500 people work for me or in relation to my companies. My turnover rate is in the single digits across the board because I respect and reward my employees at a very high level.

Your problem frankly is that you clearly don't have a good understanding of how business is in the real world. Deluding yourself to think that it's different won't help you in the future. Let me offer some advice:

Rule #1: who looks after you? Answer: Yourself. If you don't like the position you are in push for a raise or promotion. You don't like the company you work for then make a change. ONLY you are ultimately responsible for your own happiness.

Companies have a responsibility to make money. Employees have a responsibility to make money for them in exchange for a salary. It's not a charity. It's a contractual agreement of exchange. Playing the "woe is me" card about the indifferent Company will never result in anything.

Nobody is forcing my employees to work for me. Nobody forced you to work for the company that bled its own employee dry. And no one is forcing any kid to play for Virginia Tech. It's an exchange.

The fact is these kids don't bring value at the start of their college time, only the promise of added value. That is not worth much in actual business. Yet they are paid all the things they are paid in exchange for their efforts on the field. They aren't forced to play, they aren't being bled dry, they aren't captives. If they want to leave, they can. If they want to stop, they can.

But what you are suggesting is that they get part of money that they are not due. I've explained how the value proposition works. You don't have to believe me, but I have yet to see anyone with an argument that suggest otherwise. again, if you truly believe this is how business should be, then lets start our business tomorrow under the guidelines I suggested above. Even without knowing what business you want to do, I shit you not, I am 99.9% certain I can make it profitable within the next 4 - 5 years. You just pay for everything. Deal?

I was aware you run a business and didn't mean to insinuate you treated your employees unfairly. I've grown up around people who run their own businesses, I understand the point you're making, but it's different when the value of the industry itself increases dramatically. I think all that is besides the point though. The disconnect is that you are making two massive assumptions that are untrue.

One is that the player brings no value coming out of high school. The player does have value and that is evident through the significant amount of money spent in recruiting the player, the money boosters/bag men give those kids, and even the cottage industry of recruiting insiders/news that has sprouted up. If players coming into the program had no value, then there wouldn't be such a large investment of both employee effort and capital to get those specific kids in the door. Schools are investing large sums of money (cough, Clemson's mini golf and water slides) to entice kids to come to their school. You simply don't do that if they didn't have value already. Michael Vick did more to raise the value of Virginia Tech football than anyone not named Beamer. He had value coming coming out of high school, the coaching staff identified it, got him in the door, and the university profited tremendously from it.

The second assumption is that the people who are profiting are somehow ones who have risked capital in order to deserve a cut. That's not how it's working now. The coaches never risked capital, neither did conference commissioners, or the hundreds to thousands of other people in college athletics who have profited from the continued increase in revenue. None of those actors are all that different from the players, they are employees providing labor, yet they've benefited from an exploding industry while the players have not.

Even if we follow your maxims on how companies operate (and I agree, that is how most companies do business), it still leads to players receiving greater compensation in some way.

The player does have value and that is evident through the significant amount of money spent in recruiting the player

Incorrect. they have the promise of value, not value. My own and most, if not all, companies spend a lot of money on attracting new talent. When they ultimately decided to join we have an exchange, as explained. In the case of student athletes, also explained many times, they are given tuition, housing, etc, etc. The promise of their value is already compensated, just as I compensate my new employees for the promise of their value. So what other value do they have that should be compensated more as you suggest?

some kids coming out of HS are truly gifted and could leverage their value at that time. In that case they should take the swiftest route to becoming a professional. Like Kobe Bryant they could be amazing successes. But it is extremely unlikely that any HS football player is ever going to make the NFL. There is less than 2% chance of making it as is after college. Therefore he has the option of going through the NCAA process and trading his promise of value for the items they offer OR go professional in arena, canadian or european leagues. It's a choice. All are an exchange.

None of those actors are all that different from the players, they are employees providing labor

No. They are intrinsically different. Student athletes are not employees. That debate is different than the one we are having. Coaches get paid more because they, when hired, have a value already established from their previous work experience. Just as you do when you go interview for a new job, you're looking to leverage your value for more money.

Tell me, how much were you able to leverage in your first job out of HS? did you get paid as much as student athletes are now? Would your company survive the turnover rate that a college football team has? Every year there is attrition, there are players that just aren't as good as we hoped, get in trouble, want to transfer. And every 4 - 5 years these athletes leave. That's absurd as a company. that's why they are not employees and there is a trade-off with education for amateur athletics. If they were employees then you're talking about youth leagues or minor leagues.

lets compare:
Minor league baseball players make about $2500 per month after Rookie year and most never make it to the MLB.
Virginia Tech in-state tuition plus room and board equals: $21,276 out of state: $38,399 for an average of: $29,838 divided by 12 equals = $2,486.5 hmmm... shocker, and that doesn't include stipends and everything else afforded to them, but let's go on

Minor league players are complaining about wages being too low but that's because pro-teams pay for the league, and to the Pro Teams it is a business of promised value. If they get called up, which is less than 10% chance, you make about $500k minimum. Long odds. Plus, and here's the kicker, you don't get an education to supplement you if you fail to get to the big leagues. If you get hurt you get injury pay or no payment. You pay taxes. You pay your own housing. But wait.... what about these players value out of HS? why aren't they being compensated for that? They are. Just as the football player at VT is.

How about youth soccer in Europe?
success rate is .012% of kids that enter the football academies at age 9 will play at premeireship level in UK. The kids have fairly poor academics. There is no real money until you can at least play League 2 whereby the average age is 25 and you can earn 45k Pounds. That's well beyond graduating age for college football players.

Shall we go on? or better yet, how about you show me one example of a minor league where the players are getting paid more than what college football payers are getting all inclusive.

Back to your Vick example. Yes, Vick launched VT nationally. No doubt. He, despite his issues, has done and continues to do more than likely any other player or athlete for VT. He surely should be compensated for his time yes? easy answer: He was. At the time it was the largest rookie contract EVER. Vick received a $62 million, six-year deal that guarantees $15.3 million through the first three years, including a signing bonus of $3 million.

Do you know anyone other than a football player to get a contract for their first job out of university for that amount of money? That's absurd money dude. In reality the university spent millions on millions on millions to provide him the chance to get that kind of money. He struck gold. If, in your line of thinking, he took more and more money from the university during his college career then shouldn't the university then deserve some of his contract money?

ok, ok. Vick maybe is not a good example after all. What about all the others that give blood, sweat and tears that aren't Vick and don't get the big NFL money? Well, see, there are a lot of those players. Most don't bring much value to the school at all. So instead of being a heartless company that is only concerned about its bottom line there is a minimum standard: tuition, room and board, stipend, etc set to create a equal footing for all student athletes no matter their ultimate value to the university. And they get an education. And those athletes are not just football players but all sports.

you need to broaden your understanding of this. And this doesn't even touch on the point kff17 kind of alluded to, which is that universities don't operate on a bottom line accounting system like businesses. They take donations. If student athletes are employees then universities are businesses, and they cannot take donations like this. Which means the way universities do business would drastically change. non-revenue generating sports will immediately be cut. players that are simply unable to compete at this level, will be cut. Bye bye education. And on, and on.

Look. It's always unfair until you are making more than you thought you could be. Everyone wants to earn more. But in reality, it just cannot be the way you suggest. And it isn't. take more time to understand how businesses operate. How value is created.

If you want them to exist in a true free-market system, then let the schools give them schollies (which they still would) AND let the athletes profit in any legal way they see fit.

Ok, have the schools pay for their tuition and room and board then, but the athletes get a bill for the strength and conditioning, nutrition coaching, use of those facilities, etc. and they can pay for it with the money generated from their likeness. The vast majority of the players will lose money and it would still be an incredibly risky venture for them and most, I would think, would still the current option.

I've never defended the status quo, and really haven't decided overall how I feel about it. Realistically though, I don't think many kids outside of the top 1-2% of all players would end up better off. I kind of like the idea of putting in a deferred comp type of plan where the player gets an annual contribution and upon graduation (or if they leave early for the draft) can take the money out.

"We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior" Stephen M.R. Covey

“When life knocks you down plan to land on your back, because if you can look up, you can get up, if you fall flat on your face it can kill your spirit” David Wilson

But their image is only valuable because the school set the stage to make it so.

I've used this in the past and I am going to again. Think of an artist and an art gallery.

The art gallery takes a chance on the new artists they show. They make little to no money unless the artist is good and desirable. If they are the gallery takes the lion's share of anything sold because they pay for the space, they paid for the decorations, the event, hosting, marketing, publicity, food and drinks and on and on. The artist only needs to show up and hopefully be good. They have almost no risk in this proposition other than if they are not good another gallery may not want them. The gallery though has a long term investment in the short term artists that they show. The gallery needs to build up a reputation of showcasing great artists. And the better they are at it the more money they will make from it.

Now if the artist is in fact good they will make some money from these sales, again the lion's share goes to the gallery. But what they do get, which is invaluable, is a launching pad to start their hopefully lucrative careers through all the free things paid on their behalf. And afterwards they can then sell their paintings directly or have better bargaining power in a new gallery show.

So why, if the school is paying for EVERYTHING, and the athlete is only there for a very short time having paid nothing up to that point to make their image valuable should that revenue go to the athlete? It shouldn't.

Or, if you truly desire that athlete's in college get paid for their likeness, then the school should be allowed to have toeholds into their future contract earnings for having given them all the free things that make their image valuable in the first place. There must be some return on the investment.

You are not looking at this in terms of how value works. You are only looking at it in terms of schools making money and thinking that the amounts are too unbalanced. It's not, because that's how the values are.

Settle is expendable because his replacement next year, whomever that might be will be closer in production to Settle than Al Groh would be to Justin Fuente- that is why Fuente makes more. Wiles will plug Hewitt or Mihota or Goode in there, and the VT program won't fall to 3 wins and the defense wont be rated 100th. Replace Fuente with Randy Edsall and see what happens.

I agree that Randy Edsall would be my choice as the garbagiest coach in my scenario. I don't think your point is correct, though:

If Justin Fuente leaves, we're not automatically stuck with a terrible, washed out coach. We would very likely poach, promote or find a comparable coach.

Justin Fuente makes more money than Tim Settle because it is against the rules for us to pay Tim Settle.

For your point; At FSU, they lost a single player this season that arguably turned them from a top ten team 4 seasons off of a national championship into a team ridiculed for barely becoming bowl eligible.

Yet their coach (who apparently had less to do with success than their QB) was still poached to become the highest paid coach in the country somewhere else.

Texas A&M can only throw money after coaches. If you want to see how a coach ranks on a teams' importance to success, the NFL is a model that permits paying players and coaches.

NFL coaches are some of the higher paid members of any team, but they're not the breadwinners.

They get admitted into Virginia tech with lower standards than the average student as well

Average VT student doesn't bring in a hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the school.

They are provided world class academic, medical, and fitness support and live in the best dorms.

Makes a lot of sense when the school has valued the player and basically put a dollar amount on him. Dorms have to be split 50/50 or 51/49 in terms of Athlete's vs Students. Yeah it helps that schools build these crazy dorms mainly for athletic reasons but normal student reap the benefits as well.

See a lot of student athletes in football and basketball don't come to play school. Yeah that's a shitty way of saying it but its the truth. Not to say that they don't value academics but the have a bigger goal in mind which is the NBA or NFL.

Using 2016 Graduation Success Ratings for Football only
For reference Clemson graduated football players at nearly the same rate (79% vs. 78%) as the rest of the school's male student body.

How much does the school spend on these athletes that are given preferential admission??? A shirt ton of money. You can't simply look at revenue. You must look at expenses too, and if you think VT is wash in cash there, you are mistaken.

schools are reimbursed by donors and booster clubs for scholarships

The average VT student does, in fact, bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars - in the form of tuition, room and board fees. In state tuition, room and board is estimated at $27k per year, mulitply that by 4 and the average, in state student is generating more than $100k for the university.

I don't completely disagree with what you are saying, and understand that College football brings in big, big $. So does tuition that a normal, average student brings in. your statement as worded is a little misleading.

This is an intricate and difficult debate, and is tied to the pay for play debate. I think something must be done to compensate the players relative to how much money they bring in via athletics, but then should not also be something done for the graduate students that do exemplary research that get the university rated a higher level research university and raise the likely hood of greater $ grants (in the millions of dollars)? Most Graduate students tuition and fees are waived, similar to a scholarship.

Just some thoughts, I don't have any answers.

Neither an argument for nor against, paying additional money to students who play football drastically alters the whole of the football playing world. I'm not talking about colleges with more money to spend getting better players, I'm talking money they make in college being competitive with NFL money. I don't know how the NFL would react to that, but I doubt it would be favorably.

If this is basic supply and demand capitalism, let them make money off their likeness and name

Bullshit supply and demand capitalism. If it really were, boosters would be allowed to pay the hundreds of thousands for recruits that they're willing to. Actively suppressing market value is not supply and demand

Comments about capitalism aside dcwilson is correct on this one.

The notion that student athletes are not compensated is a fallacy. I am all for increased stipends and an insurance program that pays for the lifetime of injuries (unless they go professional) as result of sports, but an open transfer rule would wreak havoc on programs.

i love how little credit everyone wants to give the student athletes. most players choose to go to VT over other very good to great programs, this isn't going to all of a sudden change their view on the school. in my view this is mostly going to apply to fringe players who want a more PT which more power to them

This is a debate in general, I think. I actually don't think many of our players would be poached by blue bloods. However, the blue bloods will poach more and better players than we will, leading to a competitive disadvantage. Or worse, they will set up unofficial "feeder" schools.

Biggest thing that we all need to realize is that the School has the final say.. and yes there will be an academic side of this rule if it gets passed.

This will help out the recruits that are lied to about playing time & fit. Also will level the playing field in terms of kids who commit to a school and HC leaves. For instance Taggart has been at 3 schools in 1 year ( South Florida, Oregon and now FSU).

How's the Midwest Jugs? Enjoying the snow and cold?

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

It's been a HUGE CHANGE from palm trees and sun. I'll get the hang of it sooner or later.

I've got a snow blower for sale, your going to need it.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

What about a salary cap for college football? Every team has the same amount of money to spend, and all coaches salaries come out of that money. Let's use 12 million dollars, if Bama wants to pay their coaches $10million, that will only leave 2 million for the players. This will also keep teams from have 50man support staffs.

This will help balance the power in college football.

Most importantly this will let us get NCAA FOOTBALL VIDEO GAMES BACK!!

P.s. Can you imagine how much more fun it will be adding negotiations to the recruiting?!?!

Or you can only transfer to a team with a worse record.

That's how you get players intentionally throwing games late in the year.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

This would be great news for UVA, they would get to recruit everyone! ...Oh wait, Bronco is still too busy preparing for Navy...

This would be total chaos. Every team in the country not named Bama/Ohio State/Clemson/etc would have to be constantly recruiting their own players 24/7, while poaching from the lower levels to desperately keep up. The only path for a non-power to compete (hire good coaches, identify under the radar talent, develop those players) would be completely cut. As a sport, college football needs to have some frank discussions and drastic overhauls to how they treat, value, and compensate the players, but this rule would solve none of the underlying problems while introducing a host of new ones.

Total chaos strikes me as hyperbole. Honestly I'm not convinced that this would have a huge impact on the power imbalance that already exists. I feel confident it would be easier to keep a player who is enrolled, on campus, and part of the team than it would be recruiting a player and trying to fend off elite schools. Teams still have limits on playing time they can provide and the number of scholarships. Players who transfer to Bama/Ohio State/Clemson only to sit on the bench would not be happy about it. Conversely, guys who were recruited and put in the time with the team aren't going to be happy if they lose playing time and scholarships to accommodate large numbers of transfers. If either of those groups becomes a sizeable contingent, it could create an extremely toxic situation and program. With the level they are able to recruit at, the elite schools already field a strong 2/3 deep across the roster. Allowing this type of transfer might help mid-level P5 teams bolster their depth (probably at the expense of G5 schools, but some of the 2nd/3rd string at those elite schools might even leave for a starting role). I could be completely wrong, but in my view the current system already favors elite schools so heavily that I'm not sure this would make it significantly, or any, worse.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinsku, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

Total chaos strikes me as hyperbole.

That's fair. I still don't see the point though. This rule doesn't really address any actual problems but introduces a whole lot of unknowns and we cant' really predict how it would play out. It could just cause some minor roster churn in the offseason. It could also fundamentally change how we think about college athletes and their identity in relation to their school or many schools.

But if we want to address player's rights, there are far more pressing concerns, and if we want to address kids getting stuck in bad situations or being left behind by a coach, there are far less impactful measures we could take to make progress.

There is only one real way to make it truly fair to all, and it's so unpopular it will hopefully never happen. Get rid of the athletic scholarship completely. If you want to play sports for free and the fun of it in a college you can get into, try out. If you want to get payed to play, join a semi-pro team. Or go to college and join a semi-pro team on the side. The semi-pro teams, or a minor league system or European club style system, will will pop up in a hurry when colleges no longer form a barrier/path for the top athletes to turn pro.

Sometimes we live no particular way but our own

I'm torn here. I'm for players getting more out of their "unpaid" career. At the same time, I know younger people don't always do things for the right reasons. Adults don't always do things for the right reasons.

The only way I'm cool with this is if the restrictions are then moved to the schools.
A school should be limited on the number of transfers it can take. Say, 4 per year. That would keep people from flocking the the reigning champions each year, and require the school to be more selective about who they pursue. I don't see a reason to limit grad transfers.
No recruiting transfers during season. No transfers during season.

I think some guidelines are reasonable but should we be that concerned about competitive imbalance given the system we already have? Alabama has won 5 of the last 9 titles and made every playoff. Clemson has made 3, Oklahoma 2, and Ohio State 2 (and was the alternate this year). As I said above, one of the biggest advantages elite teams have is their depth. But there's only so much playing to go around and I could see mid-level P5 teams being able to use this to their advantage to improve depth and become more competitive.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinsku, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

If players want to get paid go play Arena, Semi-pro, or CFL, otherwise shut up and take your scholarships

Or, let them have their scholarships that they have EARNED, and also exist in a free capitalist system like every other student. They are the reason people pack the stands, not the coaches/admins.

No, the stands get packed because of the school name on the jersey. Very few individual players move the needle. I'm for player compensation to a minor degree and they should definitely be able to profit from their own likeness but we have to stop acting like the success of college football isn't tied to the intense emotion of school pride.

"with all due respect, and remember I’m sayin’ it with all due respect, that idea ain’t worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin gettin’ it on" - Ricky Bobby

I suspect you don't understand what you mean by a "free capitalist system". A free market system would be much worse for players than it is now.

Players are only at schools for 4 to 5 years and most don't play very much. They aren't the reason fans follow teams long term, they only provide for spikes and lulls in income.

This has been a generally civil discussion, so for that I want to thank everyone.

I'll say this - I can't understand why sports fans, IN GENERAL, root for management over labor. Pro/college, the rhetoric is aimed at the "spoiled" athletes who are literally risking their health, vs the owners/coaches, that are making tons of $$ and have the freedom to move to a new job/university whenever they want.

I can't speak for others but I am not rooting for management over labor. What I am trying to say is that arguing for more money is not the correct approach. From a business point of view they are not due straight money. I have yet to see anyone make a valid argument in terms of how actual business operates, valuations are created and money moves to suggest why players are due this money.

But I am a HUGE proponent of players getting a larger, more expansive suite of benefits, perks and protections. These things can be argued successfully without ever touching on the topic of taking straight money from revenue.

Change the approach. Don't chase the money.

I just browsed this thread, and regardless of who I agree with I'd like to say thanks to all the folks who took the time to argue their point. IMO there has been a lot of effort put into the debate.

Regardless of whether athletes are paid enough, I hope that they don't make it trivial for athletes to transfer.

We have too much OMG WHAT IF talk in this fanbase as it is.

.

.
I never met a project that couldn't justify a new tool.

I too appreciate the civil discussion. I for one believe the athletes should get as much as possible. However, I also recognize that at a collegiate level, that means all athletes, even those in non revenue sports, should be treated fairly. The bottom line is that there isn't as much squandered cash flow at these universities as some want to believe. I'll put it this way, if the players are making all this extra money that they should be owed, why is it up to universities to look toward the fan base for supplemental income (our Hokie Club for example)? Every dime that does go to the players has to come from something else. There aren't these mythical boosters lining up to pay players thousands of dollars (at least not in great quantity). So where does the money come from? I'm sure there are wasted dollars out there on lavish facilities, etc. but how do you eliminate that without losing the draw to recruits?

Sorry for rambling, but these are some of my thoughts.

"with all due respect, and remember I’m sayin’ it with all due respect, that idea ain’t worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin gettin’ it on" - Ricky Bobby

Could somebody be eligible if they transfer mid season?

Should not be allowed. See my post above. Schemes are often developed around one player. A mid year transfer would wreck everything. On this one, I side with the program. The team is often significantly invested in the player. That should come with a season's commitment from the player.
Sure, the kid can leave. Just like any player can stop playing. But, I don't think they should be able to transfer and start playing immediately.

I was thinking more along the lines of fuenteball than buzzketball. Thinking about a Sr WR or RB at a big school losing playing time to a frosh phenom and deciding to transfer late October.

Just saw that another proposal is to allow college hockey players to sign with an agent and not lose eligibility. The reasoning behind this is that players annually get drafted but stay in college while the NHL team retains their rights. This would allow the players to have some leverage when dealing with how the NHL program wants to continue their training, and just legitimizes the whole system of players having "advisers" who just end up being their agents ones they're done.

It would be a logical next step to think this would eventually be implemented at the football and basketball level as well.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

NFL and NBA don't draft rights to people still in college. Either you're in college or you're not. Don't see this happening in football or basketball unless both leagues drastically change their drafts.

Always choose joy.