Executive order aims to limit NCAA athletes to 5 years, 1 transfer

[PhillyRam]

It's odd to me to be advocating for taking choice away from the players while simultaneously claiming it's for their benefit. They're adults. They can decide. Free market and all.

Why are there any rules then?

It's freaking college where academics should matter a little. Shouldn't they?

By your logic if a kid is failing he can keep playing ball then too. Should be no reason why a kid can ever be academically ineligible. Right? I mean, why even go to class? Give them the freedom to do what they want.

I can't believe some don't get it that the longterm impact on the avg kid is really bad. So a kid gets a few bucks hopping from school to school. In some cases they could be hurt if another kid transfers in and takes his $$. In the end though the kid who went to 3 or 4 schools, doesn't graduate, got minimal money maybe $100k total over 4 yrs, then ends up in a low paying job somewhere after pissing his money away.

You guys are focusing on the big time guys who rake in big bucks and then become professionals. Thats like 1 or 2%.

At the very least, when a kid signs his NIL agreement, they should have a 2 yr commitment from both the school and the student athlete. That will limit the school hopping and give them a better chance of actually graduating.

You guys say they should be free to do what they want. Well, they are free to not go to college. Do something else. It's a free country. However if you are entering into an collegiate association like the NCAA, then their needs to be guardrails that make academics somewhat important.

 

[jrry32]

Why are there any rules then?

Money. It benefited everybody but the players. Beyond that, rules should be about maintaining fair competition, not limiting the players' ability to make money. The teams that sign them are free to negotiate multi-year contracts. Alternatively, the universities can collectively bargain with the players like the NFL does with its players.

It's freaking college where academics should matter a little. Shouldn't they?

By your logic if a kid is failing he can keep playing ball then too. Should be no reason why a kid can ever be academically ineligible. Right? I mean, why even go to class? Give them the freedom to do what they want.

Let's be honest, it's the minor leagues for the NFL. Some of the kids will take advantage of the educational opportunities, but many of them are there because it's the path they have to take for the NFL.

I can't believe some don't get it that the longterm impact on the avg kid is really bad. So a kid gets a few bucks hopping from school to school. In some cases they could be hurt if another kid transfers in and takes his $$. In the end though the kid who went to 3 or 4 schools, doesn't graduate, got minimal money maybe $100k total over 4 yrs, then ends up in a low paying job somewhere after pissing his money away.

You guys are focusing on the big time guys who rake in big bucks and then become professionals. Thats like 1 or 2%.

At the very least, when a kid signs his NIL agreement, they should have a 2 yr commitment from both the school and the student athlete. That will limit the school hopping and give them a better chance of actually graduating.

You guys say they should be free to do what they want. Well, they are free to not go to college. Do something else. It's a free country. However if you are entering into an collegiate association like the NCAA, then their needs to be guardrails that make academics somewhat important.

I don't find this argument to be at all persuasive. If the NFL had a legitimate minor league that made college football purely for kids who wanted an education, fine, they're free to not go the college football route. But that's not reality. The free market benefits the players. They hop schools because it offers the prospect of more money or more playing time. They're adults. It's their call. If they're prioritizing playing time or NIL money over academics, that is their right and choice. If at the end of the day they don't make the NFL and don't earn a college degree, that's their loss. Choices have consequences. I'm comfortable letting the players make the call.

 

[PhillyRam]

Money. It benefited everybody but the players. Beyond that, rules should be about maintaining fair competition, not limiting the players' ability to make money. The teams that sign them are free to negotiate multi-year contracts. Alternatively, the universities can collectively bargain with the players like the NFL does with its players.

Let's be honest, it's the minor leagues for the NFL. Some of the kids will take advantage of the educational opportunities, but many of them are there because it's the path they have to take for the NFL.

I don't find this argument to be at all persuasive. If the NFL had a legitimate minor league that made college football purely for kids who wanted an education, fine, they're free to not go the college football route. But that's not reality. The free market benefits the players. They hop schools because it offers the prospect of more money or more playing time. They're adults. It's their call. If they're prioritizing playing time or NIL money over academics, that is their right and choice. If at the end of the day they don't make the NFL and don't earn a college degree, that's their loss. Choices have consequences. I'm comfortable letting the players make the call.

I honestly I think your preferred scenario exploits the kids more than having the guardrails that helps them get a degree.

Throw the kids some cash so the university can make more dollars, then throw the kids away where they are working retail 10 yrs later for $15 an hour.

 

[fearsomefour]

The adults in the NCAA set up rules to help the supposed "student athlete". If they are doing their jobs, they would put guardrails in place to help guide 18, 19 and 20 yr olds to better outcomes.

I think almost no one in the whole structure is watching out for kids.
Does the NCAA care? Hard for me to tell.
Do most coaches care? Not even two drops of piss.

 

[fearsomefour]

I honestly I think your preferred scenario exploits the kids more than having the guardrails that helps them get a degree.

Throw the kids some cash so the university can make more dollars, then throw the kids away where they are working retail 10 yrs later for $15 an hour.

These kids aren't any more or any less special than any other young person starting to find their own way.
Its all their choices as to what they end up doing.

 

[PhillyRam]

These kids aren't any more or any less special than any other young person starting to find their own way.
Its all their choices as to what they end up doing.

I see it as a kid who enrolls into a university to play a sport, that school and the NCAA in general owes that kid some guidance and policies to ensure they are not taken advabtage of.

So still pay NIL if that's the way it has to be, but the unlimited transfer situation is hurting most kids long-term without question, especially kids from disadvantage households that struggle.

Again let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[jrry32]

I honestly I think your preferred scenario exploits the kids more than having the guardrails that helps them get a degree.

Throw the kids some cash so the university can make more dollars, then throw the kids away where they are working retail 10 yrs later for $15 an hour.

My preferred scenario trusts the players to make their own choices. If they end up worse off, it's because they made the wrong choice. They're adults. That's life. Some people make good choices. Others don't. I don't believe I have the standing or right to decide what's best for them and then put rules in place that limit their market value and freedom of movement. That's paternalistic.

 

[PhillyRam]

My preferred scenario trusts the players to make their own choices. If they end up worse off, it's because they made the wrong choice. They're adults. That's life. Some people make good choices. Others don't. I don't believe I have the standing or right to decide what's best for them and then put rules in place that limit their market value and freedom of movement. That's paternalistic.

Why do universities have any policies for their student's? Just let them do what they want, their own free will. Why are there counselors in college to help guide kids?

I think the NCAA does bare some responsibility for their athletes. Take a poor kid from the inner city or a poor rural kid, neither with much if any parental guidance, they should be guided by policies that prevent them from being exploited and then washing out once their teams are done with them.

You say they are adults capable of making their own decisions. Maybe you don't have kids, but when mine were 18, 19 or 20, they didn't always make good decisions or they certainly often asked for guidance when making one. Many of these athletes, who are from bad backgrounds, dont have that option.

In the end the NCAA should push to have policies in place that force more positive outcomes than negative ones. If you want to go to college, then you must abide by those policies. Kids can still get paid, but there should be an emphasis on stability so they have the opportunity to graduate. And not saying you can't transfer, just saying the goal should be that they are capable of graduating. Afterall that's what colleges are for. Again, you don't want to follow those policies then don't go to college.

 

[jrry32]

Why do universities have any policies for their student's? Just let them do what they want, their own free will. Why are there counselors in college to help guide kids?

Many different reasons. To minimize legal liability. To protect students. To ensure fairness. Transparency. Notice. So on and so forth. Of course, there isn't an antitrust issue with university policies. If a student dislikes the policies at one university, they can choose a different one. As for counselors, it's good to ensure the students have guidance and information. Last I checked, though, counselors don't tell students, "You're going to be a science major, not a history major, because I've decided that's what's best for you."

I think the NCAA does bare some responsibility for their athletes. Take a poor kid from the inner city or a poor rural kid, neither with much if any parental guidance, they should be guided by policies that prevent them from being exploited and then washing out once their teams are done with them.

The NCAA historically exploited those kids to line its own pockets, but now, we're supposed to trust the NCAA to act in their best interests? No thank you.

You say they are adults capable of making their own decisions. Maybe you don't have kids, but when mine were 18, 19 or 20, they didn't always make good decisions or they certainly often asked for guidance when making one. Many of these athletes, who are from bad backgrounds, dont have that option.

Yes, they do. They have coaches. They have agents. They have counselors. They can seek guidance if they want it. As for young people not making good decisions, that's true. Then again, I know people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. who make stupid decisions. Yet, that's still their right. Some of these kids will make bad decisions. Some of them will make good decisions. End of the day, I trust them more than I trust the NCAA.

In the end the NCAA should push to have policies in place that force more positive outcomes than negative ones. If you want to go to college, then you must abide by those policies. Kids can still get paid, but there should be an emphasis on stability so they have the opportunity to graduate. And not saying you can't transfer, just saying the goal should be that they are capable of graduating. Afterall that's what colleges are for. Again, you don't want to follow those policies then don't go to college.

Yet, the NCAA has historically not done that. And there's no evidence that the rules you're recommending will result in more positive outcomes than negative ones. There's also no alternative for the kids who want to play in the NFL to going to college. So you're offering a false choice.

I have an alternative. If the focus here is on making sure the kids graduate, how about we require universities that accept players in the transfer portal to agree to grant that player a full scholarship until they graduate? That way, if a player transfers in, exhausts his eligibility, does not make the NFL, and does not yet have a degree, he will have the opportunity to finish his studies without taking on a huge amount of debt. That way, the universities aren't using up and then spitting the kids out, and we're not taking away their freedom of choice. Win-win, right?

 

[PhillyRam]

Many different reasons. To minimize legal liability. To protect students. To ensure fairness. Transparency. Notice. So on and so forth. Of course, there isn't an antitrust issue with university policies. If a student dislikes the policies at one university, they can choose a different one. As for counselors, it's good to ensure the students have guidance and information. Last I checked, though, counselors don't tell students, "You're going to be a science major, not a history major, because I've decided that's what's best for you."

The NCAA historically exploited those kids to line its own pockets, but now, we're supposed to trust the NCAA to act in their best interests? No thank you.

Yes, they do. They have coaches. They have agents. They have counselors. They can seek guidance if they want it. As for young people not making good decisions, that's true. Then again, I know people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. who make stupid decisions. Yet, that's still their right. Some of these kids will make bad decisions. Some of them will make good decisions. End of the day, I trust them more than I trust the NCAA.

Yet, the NCAA has historically not done that. And there's no evidence that the rules you're recommending will result in more positive outcomes than negative ones. There's also no alternative for the kids who want to play in the NFL to going to college. So you're offering a false choice.

I have an alternative. If the focus here is on making sure the kids graduate, how about we require universities that accept players in the transfer portal to agree to grant that player a full scholarship until they graduate? That way, if a player transfers in, exhausts his eligibility, does not make the NFL, and does not yet have a degree, he will have the opportunity to finish his studies without taking on a huge amount of debt. That way, the universities aren't using up and then spitting the kids out, and we're not taking away their freedom of choice. Win-win, right?

The universities are exploiting these kids now more than ever. The players mean nothing to them now. They have nothing but a pay check invested in them. If they don't graduate, who cares. Some universities used to brag about their athletes graduation rates. Schools with poor graduation rates had those rates published every year which would be embarrassing to some.

Now schools and coaches don't care about the kid at all. At least previously the better programs and some of the good ethical coaches did care about the kids they recruited. Their programs were built on those relationships. It's why some like Jay Wright of Villanova quit. They wanted no part of this nonsense where neither team nor player are committed to each other.

 

[dieterbrock]

It's odd to me to be advocating for taking choice away from the players while simultaneously claiming it's for their benefit. They're adults. They can decide. Free market and all.

Its the scholarships taken away from kids who depend on it
A very small % of D1 players ascend to the NFL, or make NIL $$
A very large % of kids depend on that scholarship and education that comes with, to better their lives

 

[jrry32]

Its the scholarships taken away from kids who depend on it
A very small % of D1 players ascend to the NFL, or make NIL $$
A very large % of kids depend on that scholarship and education that comes with, to better their lives

That's a separate issue. Nothing is preventing the NCAA from protecting athletes' scholarships without limiting their freedom of movement.

 

[dieterbrock]

That's a separate issue. Nothing is preventing the NCAA from protecting athletes' scholarships without limiting their freedom of movement.

They only have a number of scholarships they can give out

 

[jrry32]

They only have a number of scholarships they can give out

Right. And who set that rule?

 

[PhillyRam]

That's a separate issue. Nothing is preventing the NCAA from protecting athletes' scholarships without limiting their freedom of movement.

BTW, the Sorsby kid is another example of this new flawed system. Give a 19 or 20 yr old $6M and then you don't expect him to not handle it well.

 

[jrry32]

BTW, the Sorsby kid is another example of this new flawed system. Give a 19 or 20 yr old $6M and then you don't expect him to not handle it well.

Should the NFL stop giving millions to 21 and 22 year old kids? Because Sorsby is 22 years old. Sorsby's stupid decisions are his own, not a flaw in the system.

 

[PhillyRam]

Should the NFL stop giving millions to 21 and 22 year old kids? Because Sorsby is 22 years old. Sorsby's stupid decisions are his own, not a flaw in the system.

I think NFL teams probably work a little more to help their rookies deal with their money. Look at what the Rams do with their rookies. That and other veteran players provide a bit better of a support system than what a college kid gets, who in most cases are younger and more immature.

 

[jrry32]

I think NFL teams probably work a little more to help their rookies deal with their money. Look at what the Rams do with their rookies. That and other veteran players provide a bit better of a support system than what a college kid gets, who in most cases are younger and more immature.

What is your argument here? That they shouldn't pay college players at all? That they should cap the pay?

 

[Wisconsinram]

I admit to not reading it all. And I'm old and admittedly out of sync. So I speak from the perspective as a rabid sports fan as well as a dad who just put his two daughters through college (one from a state university school...$90 k, the other private....$150K plus).
I'm lost on why the need to pay collegiate athletes, tbh. Free tuition, board, and food. And I get "it." A remote few really bring in the revenue. However, on the whole, most don't. But my goodness, most fans (rabid like me, of course) are going to follow their teams regardless. Hell, I hate the state of current collegiate athletics (I am a college hoops fan foremost) and want to stop watching out of principle. But I can't, because I love it.
My daughter has dated a D1 hockey player who plays for a top 10 team (nationally). I get the sacrifice. But even he would suggest it's nutts. Admittedly, he's not the reason why folks pay to show up to the game (in fb terms, the OL, MLB, safeties, and many more).
This idea they need to be "free market" is crazy (sorry, Memento, I really respect you). Make a commitment and stand by it. Sure, if the coach leaves, provide some leeway. But my goodness, how about we look out for the fans who pay? Who subscribe to watch? They are the ones getting screwed by all of this.
A recent college hoops contributor stated it well. The days of cinderellas are gone. How the hell can a lower D1 team keep their players for a couple of years to compete with the big boys? That is what makes it fun for us as fans. Those days are over.
I have no issue with colleges making a few bucks off of the product they produce by issuing free scholarships, room/board, meals to those they determine earn it. The student athletes leave with a degree. Everything short of that, imo, the fans ultimately pay for.
Furthermore, it has now become a world where the billionaires decide. If the team you get behind has a billionaire backer, you are in luck! If not, well, beg your billionaire allumns to be fans like you! What the hell have we become? Sometimes I wonder if we've forgotten our values as a society relative to our fandom. I say this because if we had this conversation when I was in my 30's (20 years ago), I am pretty confident 90+% of the folks in the conversation would think it was absurd. And today, many feel it's normal/okay. Just weird to me.

 

[Memento]

@Wisconsinram

I get what you're trying to say, I honestly do, and know that I have the highest respect for you as well...but I can't agree on this for these reasons:

Considering that the NCAA has marketed players all throughout their existence without any of the players having any say in the matter (i.e., commercials, video games, TV rights, all of everything that the colleges benefit from, etc.) until now, and it really...didn't make any sense. These players - not just football, but hockey, baseball, basketball, etc. - are putting their bodies on the line for entertainment and for the longest time, they weren't paid shit for any of it.

The "free meals" doesn't pass the eye test with me; I look at Arian Foster's anecdote about his time at college. All of the "free meals" only went so far as having only as much as a normal college kid got (they'd need to pay to get more to get extra meals, and the NCAA and the institutions forbade the athletes - in football, at least, but likely more - from having a secondary job whilst under scholarship). It forgets that the athletes need to eat more. Athletes will burn more calories, will go through meals quicker, and need extra food to keep their weight or gain weight, and thus, are always hungrier than a normal college kid.

Transferring isn't that much of an issue for me. To me, it's no different as a normal student wanting to change schools for whatever reason - and honestly, all of that is none of that is our business. If we nixed transferring for athletes, imagine the slippery slope when it comes to regular students if they wanted to leave for another college. And coaches still would have the opportunity to ditch the kids they recruited to move to a better position - or one that paid more. And if we nixed the coaches leaving, where does that leave regular teachers who want to be paid more and wish to leave their college for a better opportunity or somewhere they wish to teach at? There's honestly too much of a slippery slope in that regard.

As for NIL...the NCAA made billions of dollars off of these kids. Why shouldn't the kids have some kind of power for once? Again, it's billionaires vs. millionaires, and I'd rather that these kids make money more than a corrupt institution like the NCAA.

I'm not saying that a free-for-all is perfect, and obviously there should be things changed about it, but it's a lot better than what was going on prior to that. Prior to that, it was that the NCAA had everything in their greedy hands and the kids had nothing. No wealth, no power, no control, nothing. I'm not saying it's fine and dandy now; just that what's happening now is so much better than before.

And I'm also saying that politicians have absolutely no right to decide things like this. Unless something is breaking the laws of the country - and this isn't - politicians of all parties should absolutely keep their fat fingers off of sports and stop meddling in matters that don't concern them.

EDIT: And I can feel for the fans as well. Don't get me wrong, I get why fans feel screwed out of this. But ultimately, we're just fans. These are the players putting their bodies on the line for our entertainment. I feel that they, more than everyone else - the NCAA and institutions and the billionaires especially - deserve to have some manner of wealth and control over their college careers.