Who Cares About The Rules ? Oversigning Continues

MeanGreen61 · February 1, 2011

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2011-01-31-recruiting-schools-oversigning_N.htm

Graddean · February 2, 2011

How does the NCAA justify making the scholarship a year to year on the part of the school, but the player is obligated for four years. He can only transfer by sitting out a year or dropping down in classification if it is a FBS school. I think if some of these lawsuits focus on this situation in might become very interesting.

FloMoGrad · February 2, 2011

How does the NCAA justify making the scholarship a year to year on the part of the school, but the player is obligated for four years. He can only transfer by sitting out a year or dropping down in classification if it is a FBS school. I think if some of these lawsuits focus on this situation in might become very interesting.

Absolutely agree on this point. Coaches can bounce anywhere, anytime, but unless your school straight up releases you, very rarely, can you transfer laterally within FBS and play the next yr. Crock o' shit.

GTWT · February 2, 2011

Absolutely agree on this point. Coaches can bounce anywhere, anytime, but unless your school straight up releases you, very rarely, can you transfer laterally within FBS and play the next yr. Crock o' shit.

Do you really want athletes transferring willy-nilly? The last thing I want is to have Lance Dunbar transferring to UT or OU for his senior year to get better exposure for the draft.

UNT90 · February 2, 2011

Head coaches can't leave if they are under contract. There usually is a buyout provision in the contract where the coach can leave for a better job if offerred, or thee university can reassign the coach to another position if the university desires. A university usually lets the head coach leave because they don't want someone coaching the team who doesn't want to be there. Assistant coaches are on year to year contracts.

Players are immature 18-23 year olds who are provided a free education, room and board, tutors, and meals for providing a service to the university. Think of it as a contract where the university has the option to cancel the contract year tp year, while the player has the option to leave, but wth a penalty of losing one year of eligibility if he CHOOSES to play FBS football. It's a pretty fair deal for the athlete. Remember, what the athlete gets out of the deal will provide an elevated income for the duration of the athlete's life.

Don't like it? Go play NAIA ball.

FloMoGrad · February 2, 2011

Head coaches can't leave if they are under contract. There usually is a buyout provision in the contract where the coach can leave for a better job if offerred, or thee university can reassign the coach to another position if the university desires. A university usually lets the head coach leave because they don't want someone coaching the team who doesn't want to be there. Assistant coaches are on year to year contracts.

Players are immature 18-23 year olds who are provided a free education, room and board, tutors, and meals for providing a service to the university. Think of it as a contract where the university has the option to cancel the contract year tp year, while the player has the option to leave, but wth a penalty of losing one year of eligibility if he CHOOSES to play FBS football. It's a pretty fair deal for the athlete. Remember, what the athlete gets out of the deal will provide an elevated income for the duration of the athlete's life.

Don't like it? Go play NAIA ball.

I actually did play NAIA ball in college. Kind of funny. Just laughed at that ridiculousness of that comment.

The inadequacy comes when you're coach leaves, and you don't have the same opportunity.

I'm not advocating Free Agency in college football, nor did I in my previous post.

I don't think the ability of a coach to leave, even via buyout, and the athlete have no re-course for himself, is an equitable situation. You commit to a coach as much as a school.

So to invalidate your first line, coaches can leave when they're under contract, thru buyout, release, or resigning, with no penalty. Happens every yr. Several avenues and methods for it happening, and regardless, the athlete has no ability to change as well without penalty.

So the school can cancel with no penalty, but the player is not afforded the same basic right? That's inequitable.

I disagree, all good, just perspective right?

Edited February 2, 2011 by FloMoGrad

pastorgrant · February 2, 2011

I actually did play NAIA ball in college. Kind of funny. Just laughed at that ridiculousness of that comment.

The inadequacy comes when you're coach leaves, and you don't have the same opportunity.

I'm not advocating Free Agency in college football, nor did I in my previous post.

I don't think the ability of a coach to leave, even via buyout, and the athlete have no re-course for himself, is an equitable situation. You commit to a coach as much as a school.

So to invalidate your first line, coaches can leave when they're under contract, thru buyout, release, or resigning. Happens every yr. Several avenues and methods for it happening, and regardless, the athlete has no ability to change as well.

So the school can cancel with no penalty, but the player is not afforded the same basic right? That's inequitable.

I disagree, all good, just perspective right?

I know this is a ridiculous analogy, but in 7th grade, we switched coaches in the middle of a season. I was starting as a blocking TE and the new coach ran a spread (I also had a broken thumb at the time). Needless to say, I lost my place in the system.

Now, I know this isn't 7th grade football, but if I were one of these amazing D1 athletes and a similar thing happened to me in college, I would have been really disappointed. Not sure what the best solution would be, just want to say I understand the players' perspective.

forevereagle · February 2, 2011

I think that the player should be able to transfer, without penalty, only when they have their scholarship revoked. The letter of intent is basically a contract. When the coach or school are no longer holding up their end, the player should not longer be obligated. The way the system works today, where players lose a year of eligibility when they leave the school should only apply to them if they leave while under scholarship. I think that is an equitable solution and does allow the player recourse if they have a scholarship denied.

I think that this is the basic proposal from before, but if not, I am offering my two cents.