I don't like it. If the coach can do this every year then the player should be allowed to leave without sitting out a year. Make them all free agents, 24-7. That's what the coaches have, despite their contracts. I also think the players should be paid. The players get the short end. Many of you think it's such a great deal to get a scholarship and maybe it used to be back when I played, but with the money being thrown around today it is not. the WSJ today said that Louisville's market value is 291 million if it could be sold. Do the math: the players are getting screwed.

Surely you see the difference between your academic/employed work and the NCAA machine. One could argue keeping amateur status on these people is screwing them. And, really, are they even amateurs at this point? Or are we just pretending they are?

JSF, "machine" is an accurate moniker. The only thing amateur about it is the players cut of the action. Dale Bandy made about 28k to coach the Bobcats in his last year 1979-80. With about 4% inflation, that works out to 102k today. That's about a DIV III salary. Those guys are amateurs.

A few tings to note:

- The NCAA is around to benefit the student athletes, not to make recruiting easier for coaches.  Sitting out a year could be very detrimental to a student athlete, let him make the choice.  

- Anyone who can say these guys are amateurs and keep a straight face must be crazy.  Look at the money they make schools...... DJ Cooper has made this school millions and also tons of exposure.....

These are young adults playing a game, there is no reason they should be controlled on where they want to play.  If players transfering causes problems, then let the NCAA and their billion dollar tv deals figure out how to make it work without screwing the athletes

I'm in violent agreement that the act of telling any person, regardless of age, that they cannot ply their trade in a profession because they must serve a year or two in a continuing education complex completely unrelated to their intended field of trade should be considered a direct conflict with restraint of trade laws.  I don't blame the NCAA, I blame the professional sports for not operating legitimate minor leagues for FB and BB.

Clearly one and done's in hoops, and hardship cases in FB, should be provided immediate access to minor leagues in which they can ply their trade without any schooling requirement.  No hardship waivers; simply direct access for anyone that wishes to become a professional.

And if you have a hard on for requiring all these young men to continue the sham of an educational experience, then try this: simply turn the big 64 college athletic programs into minor league franchises, pay the athletes as professionals, and just give up the sham of attending class.  If they want to attend a class or two while playing for their school's franchise, then so be it.

Then, the remainder of the institutions/athletes in FBS/D1 simply become real college/amateur ranks, with the only quid pro quos for athletic participation being the scholarship provided.

I've always been curious, although I have no way of knowing: how many men's college FB and BB athletes would be able to afford/would be interested in/would qualify to attend the college for whom they play if they couldn't get an athletic scholarship to attend college?

Clearly the data tells us that someone that receives a four year college degree earns significantly more over their lifetime than someone who does not, but typically the people that argue student-athletes should be paid often place little to no value on either the cost of the scholarship OR the multiplier for the value of the education earned.

However, you are just as much a hypocrite if you want to protect your precious Big Dance/FBS playoffs by continuing the education requirement AND requiring the institutions to make payments to the players.

D.A., I agree that players should be allowed to go directly to the pros if they are interested and if there is interest on the other end.  The one-and-done business is a mockery of nearly everything.  Colleges have no right to lock kids in via tacit agreements with the NBA or NFL to not draft until a kid reaches a certain level in college.  That is restraint of trade.  But, once you are in the college system you are an amateur for that period of time and you need to abide by the rules that are in place.  I'm even uncomfortable with the current system that allows you to be a pro, in say, baseball, but still an amateur in basketball.  I think it muddies the lines too much, but that is the way it is right now. 

There are a lot of legal non-profits out there that are anything but.

that may be but on the surface this very high profile non profit, in their online explanations are giving the impression that they are returning the money to the member schools. I do not see the member schools raising hell about not seeing it or implying that the financials are implicitly wrong.'\

we can cast opinions and aspersions all day long but a little fact based research to back them up would be really nice. You talk about creating straw men and not mistaking opinions for facts in other threads but you keep referring to things as if you are speaking with factual data. All I am asking for, since I have no opinion or background in the inneer workings of the NCAA is to provide data and educate me as to what is happening.

Totally agree with both of you on this. I do not know why we require kids to go to college. If any other kid blew off school and went into the workforce and failed there would be no violins of sorrow or lamentations.....why do we want to make sure basketball players have to head to school?

Agree with developing a minor league. Many of those kids do not want to be there anyway and quite a few parents/bball moms are just waiting for the money anyway/ Let em come out when they want and deal with the harsh realities of life.

You got paid. 



The whole point is to change the rules. 

And, rules need to be changed.

I'm going to play the race card too.  Several 99% white sports (like swimming for instance) do not make transfers sit out a year.  The sports with heaviest African American participation sure do.  Hmmmmmmmmm........

I can't believe some enterprising young Congressman hasn't started inserting rules into bills.  Like any educational institution that accepts federal money of any kind cannot prevent any student from immediately enrolling in another institution, immediately receiving a scholarship, and begin participating in athletic events at the start of the next regularly scheduled season for that sport.

Have you actually thought of the reason that is?   And I noticed you didn't mention that ice hockey or baseball have the same transfer regulations.  Or that track and field, another sport with heavy African-American participation, does not have it.  Here is the NCAA explanation for why they have transfer rules for basketball, baseball, football and ice hockey.


The year-in-residence is required to help student-athletes adjust to their new school and ensure that their transfer was motivated by academics as well as athletics. Student-athletes who participate in most NCAA sports are eligible for a one-time transfer exception, which allows them to compete immediately after transfer once in their college experience if they meet all other transfer requirements (such as being academically eligible).

However, student-athletes in sports that are historically academically underperforming –  including basketball, football, baseball and men’s ice hockey – are not eligible for the exception. Though student-athletes in these sports can’t compete in their first year at their new school, they can receive an athletics scholarship and practice with the team. A waiver process is available to all student-athletes, and each waiver request is reviewed individually. From April 2011 to April 2012, the NCAA approved 91 transfer waivers and denied 71.

I feel like with all the NCAA bashing its important to reemphasize a point made above (I think D.A. made the it): Its not an NCAA rule that makes kids wait 3 years (football)/1 year (basketball) between high school and going pro, it is the pro leagues themselves. Hence, no such rule in baseball.

Since this topic has been lingering a few days, and as I stopped watching hoops once the Cats lost to DU, I decided to tune in last night, and was provided an excellent case study with whom I was familiar, and for whom I could try to apply some of the logic posited above in order to see if I could challenge my views and feel some empathy for a "plight" he is currently enduring while being a student athlete: Pickerington's Caris LaVert.

Since he decomitted from OHIO and attended Michigan, he was provided an opportunity to:

• Attend the fourth highest ranked public academic institution in the US (a degree from said institution would carry significant long term financial benefit to Caris)
• Participate in a top two conference in hoops
• As a freshman, be able to showcase his talents to a global audience of fans, scouts, agents, professional team owners
• Plus have the unique opportunity to compete for a national championship, which very few student athletes have the opportunity to experience in their collegiate careers
• And the proceeds generated from the events building up to and including Caris' participation last night permit the NCAA to operate in order to support participation and championships in 85 other men's and women's collegiate sports that do not cash flow

There wasn't a single moment that I felt Caris was getting the shaft in any way except one: he carries a great burden of missing significant class time in order to remain academically eligible.  For that I felt some empathy.  But ultimately I feel that is a pretty good trade for him.

If I were willing to accept the argument that the NCAA "taxing" the revenue generating sports in order to benefit those sports that do not cash flow to allow them to offer championships is unjust, which I am not, then I may feel otherwise.  However I feel there is a significant benefit to an academic institution offering more than just revenue generating/cash flowing sports.

I don't believe the current system is broken.  But what I do know is that if stipeneds are permitted in FB and BB, there will be an immediate detrimental impact to OHIO athletics.  Our current administration will absolutely not increase student fees to increase the level of support to student athletes beyond current levels, and I am certain that most FBS schools will take the same position.

BCS schools will likely rationalize it/pay for it in some fashion, but for FB/BB programs that do not currently cash flow at the BCS level, it will likely mean having to cut sports that do not generate significant revenue/cash flow.  In my opinion, that is not a good thing for the academic institutions as a whole.

Under a stipend system, you will immediately see subdivision of D1/FBS into two separate champoinships for each, one semi-pro and one amateur, and I don't believe anyone here wants us to lose our opportunity to participate at the highest level in either sport.