That you think paid professionals not getting to coach their new team for a year is unfair is pretty silly
non-compete clauses are not a new thing
Femi to Portal
- Thread starter Protes
- Start date
non-compete clauses are not a new thing
Is a non-compete clause even in any coaches contract and if they are why hasn’t anyone enforced it ? Buyouts are .
You don’t want your coach to have the option of leaving put it in the contract that they will be employed by the university in some capacity for the full length of their contact or make the cost so exorbitant for them to leave that no one can pay it .
A university putting restrictions on a coaches movements will only make that job unappealing just like suing them to save money or turning them into the NCAAs .
I’m not so sure that you’re right about that. Or wrong for that matter. At this point, I don’t see him becoming a solid starter at a P6, maybe at the mid major level. He’d have to develop a much better jump shot, work on his defense, and play off the ball at the 2 or 3 to get to that point.
I generally agree, though it's a little different with scholarship athletes. Your average student transfers and it's no big deal for anyone. Hard to build any kind of consistency with a program if you coach guys to learn your system and then they leave.
I prefer going back to the old way of sitting out a year. Don't have them lose eligibility, just not play for a year. I'm sure that would give kids more pause when they are choosing a program and when they are transferring.
As for coaches, there should be some penalty for voluntarily leaving for another program before your contract is up. Buyouts are meaningless if the new school can cover the cost. Perhaps they lose a scholarship each year at the new school for the years left on the old contract? And maybe the school they are leaving gets an additional scholarship for those years?
It absolutely wouldn't be fair.
Just like not allowing a St. Peter's player from moving up to Seton Hall also would not be fair.
Same rules for everyone. If you feel the need to put extra restrictions on anyone, put the restrictions on the people who are walking away with anywhere from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars a year, not the kids who get, relatively speaking, a pittance.
Either way, a functioning program (even now in the new age of transfers) wants to keep a player like him, to see.
They invested the time and energy to recruit him a prep, and then to develop him, you want to have the chance to benefit from him as an upperclassman.
Well said
Like others Femi was pressed into action too soon and too much .
He’s the kind of player good programs being along.
bad programs throw him in the deep end and see him transfer
Femi performed pretty well when pressed into action late last season , he’s a sophomore and guys in their second yr aren’t being thrown into the deep end . He was given a chance to play and that’s what all players want and his performance was mediocre at best . If he feels he can do better elsewhere then he made the right decision for him . I’d preferred he stayed , but he couldn’t be the starting pg .
He should be a 10-15 minute guy off the bench as a defensive stopper who can penetrate on offense
You really want to argue that over a full season starter minutes were overwhelming ?!
Nobody is saying Shaheen Holloway would be forbidden to move up from St. Peter's. He would just he ineligible to coach in games for one season but can still coach the team in practice. This would he similar to the old transfer rule of players being able to practice but not play for one year.
Something needs changed because this era of pick-up teams is bad, really bad. If we need to make coaches ineligible for games for a year to make things equitable, so be it.
Also, guess who SHU hires if Shaheen Holloway has to sit a year: Shaheen Holloway.
That’s double stupid
If you’re getting paid you’re the coach
Start with making the coaches forgoe a year of salary and coaching
Then get back to me about unpaid players sitting out
If that what it takes to get players to sit a year, fine. Its more realistic to pass a rule where any player or coach has to miss a year of games if they change teams.....but can practice. That seems fair.
The only people who really should care if a coach moves on for better opportunities is the players , their parents , who entrusted their sons /daughters to them and their employer . If it was such a big deal to the universities they‘d put a stop to it contractually . If you don’t want to coach here fine sit at home and enjoy early retirement because your not coaching for anyone else until you fulfill your contract . Since there’s buyouts on both sides of the contracts neither side wants locked in .
Whatever they need to do to get rid of this free transfer rule, I'm all for. Its terrible for the sport.
What?
50%-75% of players will end their career at a different school than they began. Its teacher players to quit when things dont go perfect and fans hate it. The sport is on life support.
You are comparing things that aren't equals. Athletes should be allowed to transfer every year if they want, just like regular students. They can receive a scholarship, participate in practice, go on road trips, etc. Just have to sit out a year of games, which they get back at the end. If players need to transfer every season, I'm even willing to extend the 4 in 5 rule
Year 1: FR then transfer
Year.2: RS
Year 3: RS Soph then transfer
Year 4: RS again
Year 5: 5th year junior then transfer
Year 6: RS
Year 7: 26 year old senior
Happy medium. The kid gets a doctoral degree for playing at 4 different schools
Any rule that exists for football and men’s basketball (the only sports that matter) are in place because the TV networks and the about 20 powerhouse sports universities favor it. They must thing unlimited transfer provides better talent to the top programs, and better TV games and ratings. Period.
They don’t care a whit about whether it is fair or good for the students, or the lesser sports schools.
The only way it, or any other rule, might change is if wholesale changes (for the worse) in ratings and attendance. Or if analysis shows that middle to lower level programs benefits more than the top programs.
They don’t care a whit about whether it is fair or good for the students, or the lesser sports schools.
The only way it, or any other rule, might change is if wholesale changes (for the worse) in ratings and attendance. Or if analysis shows that middle to lower level programs benefits more than the top programs.
I disagree. I think this was the NCAA finally thinking its in the best interest of the students and I'm sure they didn't think 30% of all players would transfer in a given year or up to 75% of players wouldn't end their career at their first school. It has become a shitshow and its bad for the business. Its also bad for the kids as its teaching them to quit with no accountability if things get tough.
I don't want to fall into another circular SMF debate but I'll bite.
Regular students are paying to attend the college of their choice. Athletes are paying nothing to attend the school of their choice, and instead are receiving a benefit bestowed upon them by universities that is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That benefit should come with something more than a minimal level of commitment on the part of the athlete.
At this point it's a free for all. It's not sustainable. Significant changes in the next couple of years are inevitable.
There are non-athlete undergrads who have big scholarships who end up transferring for any number of reasons…and if they’re in the university choir, theatre group, debate club, etc., they’re allowed to immediately participate in that at their new school.
I also think this rule can be positioned as unfair to HS recruits. As some/many programs stop recruiting HS players, there may be loss opportunities for HS players, especially at the P6 level. If you're outside the Top 150, I have no idea why a P6 school would offer you. You'll have to mid-major and use that as a JUCO. The whole system is effed up. They have to change it.
Let them have an unlimited number of years to play their 4. That seems fair.
Obviously I don’t agree, and I think history proves that my take is the correct one.
if it ever does change, it will be out of concern from the big programs and TV networks that the poor are benefiting too much (aka, at all) and the rich are not.
Relative to Pitt, it’s arguable that our two most important players in football (Addison) and basketball (Hugely) decided to stay put rather than move to a bigger program.
Assuming(and that’s all it is, an assumption) that this is true for most cases like these, I believe the big programs expected differently … I think they expected to reap more windfalls in talent with this rule.
Perhaps they were also not expecting to lose as many of the depth guys in their programs that decided to transfer. They were happy to lose their dead wood but maybe also lost important depth guys that they’re regretting. And this may be more the perception of the greedy-pig coaches who want ALL the talent, yours and theirs…but their perception typically becomes reality.
If the Sabans or Kelly’s (or counterparts in basketball) are butthurt they lost too many key special teams and backup guys but that more guys like Addison didn’t betray Pitt and join their flock, they won’t let the rule stand for too long.
If that is the case, I think the rule will be modified. For this, and no other reason, no consideration in the least about how great it might be for the players or for the minor programs. As mentioned, those would actually be seen as demerits, at least in the smoke filled mahogany paneled rooms.
Last edited:
First off the cost of a college education is so ridiculously overpriced and hardly anyones pays the full fair .
Second most of these kids in the portal are transferring because they’re going to school for one purpose and that’s to play ball not to study anthropology or literature .
Scholarships are on a one yr basis not a guaranteed four or five yr contract , the school can revoke it and so should the athlete .
Free agency didn’t ruin professional baseball or football the portal won’t ruin college Fb or bb .
Many people pay the full fare.
Many athletes use the free education athletics provides to get a degree and pursue non-athletic endeavors.
The scholarships are basically like payments that auto renew, unless you don't qualify academically or conduct-wise. Yes, many players who can't cut the mustard end up moving on. And I'm sure some coaches are more persistent with that than others. But this notion that programs can just "fire" their under-performing players is false.
Time will tell. As long as new devotees to the sports enter the market and exceed or equal those who lose interest and drop off due to this new model, your side will win. If not, changes will be seen.
I’ll watch the finals tonight because I like bb , I don’t care how many schools a kid goes to or whether he attends class .
Same was said as players switched teams in pro baseball and football .
Thinking that schools don’t advise players to “ move on “ if they ever want to enjoy playing their sport is not being realistic .
There’s no doubt a lot of athletes take advantage of a free education , but the kids who are D1 and highly sought after choose their initial colleges and transfer destinations based on athletics not the faculty in the Philosophy dept .
Many people do pay full fair as I did for myself and my daughter , but a lot also get scholarships especially at private schools .
It's not as "woe is me" as everyone likes to believe.
Here is an article where Jim Boeheim mentions that his players basically do get paid about $1,400 - $2,000/month in the form of a stipend:
https://dailyorange.com/2019/10/jim-boeheim-pay-college-athletes-syracuse-complicated-consequences/
That's on top of free education that is the difference between starting out with hundreds of thousands worth of debt versus $0 in debt.
That's on top of the fact that many of these guys wouldn't even academically qualify to get into these schools in the first place if they weren't good at a particular sport. A regular student might score 1150 on the SATs and not get in, whereas an athlete might score 850 and be admitted.
That's on top of the fact that NIL is now a thing, and these schools are basically giving them a free platform for exposure.
That's on top of the fact that these guys have access to much better medical, dining, tutoring, and management services than the average student.
Everyone thinks these players are such exploited underdogs, and it's just silly. If they come up with a way to pay them, then whatever... I don't really care. But it's just not as bad as some people make it out to be.
Come on. It isn't like EVERY kid in the portal is there of his own volition. Coaches ran kids off before the portal and I'm willing to wager that more coaches do it to more players now that the kids don't have to sit a year. Prior to the portal a lot of coaches didn't want to have a reputation of running a kid or two off ever year. Now, it doesn't matter.
Depends on the school, the student, and the earnings of the parents. An average to even above average student from a middle class (or above) family isn't getting any money from anyone.
And yet the rule for football and men's and women's basketball is now EXACTLY the same as it has been for all the other sports for years. Not forcing people to sit out when they transfer was ONLY a rule for those sports, not for all the others. So if these rules are all about helping the 20 powerhouse schools, why are the exact same rules in place for baseball and volleyball and track and swimming and all the rest?
These rules were put in place for a couple reasons. First of all, the exact same rules haven't destroyed or diminished ANY of the other NCAA sports at any other level of competition. And secondly, because someone at the NCAA finally realized that these sports AREN'T about the 20 powerhouse schools, they are about the people who play the sports. And shockingly, they acted accordingly.
That's the real surprise here. The NCAA had a choice between doing what was best for the 20 powerhouse schools or what was best for the athletes, and by some miracle the NCAA actually chose to do what was best for the athletes.
Is it really the best thing for these kids to allow them to leave on a whim any time they have a bad day? What about teaching resiliency? Arent we just teaching them to quit?
Similar threads
