Now that we have unrestricted free transfers 100% of the time, how will college basketball maintain competitive balance?

This is my only concern about the new transfer and NIL rule changes. I think it's good that players can transfer and I think it's even better they can make money on NIL.

The NBA understands competitive balance is important for the sport. How does the NBA try to maintain some semblance of competitive balance? At least 3 ways:

#1 salary cap

#2 priority draft (lower performing teams get earlier draft picks, which they can use to either sign higher rated impact rookies, or trade the pick for money they can use for #1)

#3 player contracts - NBA players are only 'free agents' based on their contract terms. They are NOT free agents most of their years with a team - this also allows teams a certain level of stability and ability to plan, and develop players for the future. With full time college free agency, a team (for example) could find out in July that both their PGs are gone


Also, in the NBA, when a player is a free agent, it goes both ways... the team does not have to keep the player. In college, the players are free agents 100% of the time, but have to commit to the player for 4 years.

Competitive balance among 30 NBA teams has got to be easier (less complicated) than 350+ teams.

I agree - this may be good for the players, but may not be good for the sport .

Or I should say, will likely have unforeseen ramifications for the sport. Could be good, could be bad. I felt college Bball has deteriorated over the last decade or so, but that is likely because of my experience with Cal

I have heard from at least 1 D1 coach that the new rule could, and probably will, lead to fights between coaches on the floor during post game handshake lines....Coach A, during the handshakes, takes a few moments to congratulate a player on Coach B's team about how well he played....Coach B sees this and confronts Coach A about what's he doing talking to his player....this leads to more action, especially when players can transfer within conference without a penalty....I can see it happening in the heat of the moment...

This could leave Cal relatively better off since our strong academics provide an incentive for (the right) players to stay here.

bearmanpg said:

---

I have heard from at least 1 D1 coach that the new rule could, and probably will, lead to fights between coaches on the floor during post game handshake lines....Coach A, during the handshakes, takes a few moments to congratulate a player on Coach B's team about how well he played....Coach B sees this and confronts Coach A about what's he doing talking to his player....this leads to more action, especially when players can transfer within conference without a penalty....I can see it happening in the heat of the moment...

---

I'll never forget the warm, EXTENDED congratulations that then-Kansas coach Roy Williams offered Jerod Haase after Kansas beat us in the Sweet Sixteen game. Just struck me as odd. And then...

Yeah, tampering at center court on national TV

You can imagine what happens behind the scenes

Big C said:

---

bearmanpg said:

---

I have heard from at least 1 D1 coach that the new rule could, and probably will, lead to fights between coaches on the floor during post game handshake lines....Coach A, during the handshakes, takes a few moments to congratulate a player on Coach B's team about how well he played....Coach B sees this and confronts Coach A about what's he doing talking to his player....this leads to more action, especially when players can transfer within conference without a penalty....I can see it happening in the heat of the moment...

---

I'll never forget the warm, EXTENDED congratulations that then-Kansas coach Roy Williams offered Jerod Haase after Kansas beat us in the Sweet Sixteen game. Just struck me as odd. And then...

---

In general, I think it will be better for competitive balance. Top teams will be less able to stockpile top recruits. Better starting 5s at more schools.

It will be bad for the harass coaches (charming during recruiting) and put more of a premium on coaches who are players' coaches, who are teachers and make the game fun. Word of mouth gets around among the players.

Cal could thrive with the right coach.

HoopDreams said:

---

Now that we have unrestricted free transfers 100% of the time, how will college basketball maintain competitive balance?

This is my only concern about the new transfer and NIL rule changes. I think it's good that players can transfer and I think it's even better they can make money on NIL.

The NBA understands competitive balance is important for the sport. How does the NBA try to maintain some semblance of competitive balance? At least 3 ways:

#1 salary cap

#2 priority draft (lower performing teams get earlier draft picks, which they can use to either sign higher rated impact rookies, or trade the pick for money they can use for #1)

#3 player contracts - NBA players are only 'free agents' based on their contract terms. They are NOT free agents most of their years with a team - this also allows teams a certain level of stability and ability to plan, and develop players for the future. With full time college free agency, a team (for example) could find out in July that both their PGs are gone


Also, in the NBA, when a player is a free agent, it goes both ways... the team does not have to keep the player. In college, the players are free agents 100% of the time, but have to commit to the player for 4 years.

---

The 13 scholie limitation......

Basically, smaller lower-ranked schools are going to become farm teams for major programs. It is already happening.

And freezing out players you don't want so they will transfer is also proving effective in the other direction.

Civil Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'll never forget the warm, EXTENDED congratulations that then-Kansas coach Roy Williams offered Jerod Haase after Kansas beat us in the Sweet Sixteen game. Just struck me as odd. And then...

---

My money is on Hasse approached Williams.

---

Mine too.

stu said:

---

This could leave Cal relatively better off since our strong academics provide an incentive for (the right) players to stay here.

---

If this were the case, we should be doing much better in the pre-free agency milieu. I think there is no question free agency will increase the concentration among elite teams at the expense of have-nots. It also seems likely that NIL will have greater value at a high profile "power" program just because of the greater exposure that teams like Duke, Gonzaga, Kentucky, Kansas and North Carolina enjoy. Rich getting richer continues to be the order of the day.

71Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Now that we have unrestricted free transfers 100% of the time, how will college basketball maintain competitive balance?

This is my only concern about the new transfer and NIL rule changes. I think it's good that players can transfer and I think it's even better they can make money on NIL.

The NBA understands competitive balance is important for the sport. How does the NBA try to maintain some semblance of competitive balance? At least 3 ways:

#1 salary cap

#2 priority draft (lower performing teams get earlier draft picks, which they can use to either sign higher rated impact rookies, or trade the pick for money they can use for #1)

#3 player contracts - NBA players are only 'free agents' based on their contract terms. They are NOT free agents most of their years with a team - this also allows teams a certain level of stability and ability to plan, and develop players for the future. With full time college free agency, a team (for example) could find out in July that both their PGs are gone


Also, in the NBA, when a player is a free agent, it goes both ways... the team does not have to keep the player. In college, the players are free agents 100% of the time, but have to commit to the player for 4 years.

---

The 13 scholie limitation......

---

Scholarship limitations won't be a meaningful leveler, particularly in basketball, because it only takes 1 or 2 top guns to make a mediocre team good or a good team great. Coaches will find a way to accommodate their needs even if it requires them to always keep a spot or 2 open and fill the back end of the bench with walk-ons.

Totally agree

Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kansas super teams

We are already seeing top players transfer from good teams to elite teams that have a shot at the ring

No surprise as the best players try to do that in the nba but #2 and #3 limit that

Zero restrictions in college basketball 100% free agency

Play for a super team with a shot at a championship and make more cash with NIL

Cal is not going to do well in this world, especially with our academic admissions requirements

59bear said:

---

stu said:

---

This could leave Cal relatively better off since our strong academics provide an incentive for (the right) players to stay here.

---

If this were the case, we should be doing much better in the pre-free agency milieu. I think there is no question free agency will increase the concentration among elite teams at the expense of have-nots. It also seems likely that NIL will have greater value at a high profile "power" program just because of the greater exposure that teams like Duke, Gonzaga, Kentucky, Kansas and North Carolina enjoy. Rich getting richer continues to be the order of the day.

---

59bear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Now that we have unrestricted free transfers 100% of the time, how will college basketball maintain competitive balance?

This is my only concern about the new transfer and NIL rule changes. I think it's good that players can transfer and I think it's even better they can make money on NIL.

The NBA understands competitive balance is important for the sport. How does the NBA try to maintain some semblance of competitive balance? At least 3 ways:

#1 salary cap

#2 priority draft (lower performing teams get earlier draft picks, which they can use to either sign higher rated impact rookies, or trade the pick for money they can use for #1)

#3 player contracts - NBA players are only 'free agents' based on their contract terms. They are NOT free agents most of their years with a team - this also allows teams a certain level of stability and ability to plan, and develop players for the future. With full time college free agency, a team (for example) could find out in July that both their PGs are gone


Also, in the NBA, when a player is a free agent, it goes both ways... the team does not have to keep the player. In college, the players are free agents 100% of the time, but have to commit to the player for 4 years.

---

The 13 scholie limitation......

---

Scholarship limitations won't be a meaningful leveler, particularly in basketball, because it only takes 1 or 2 top guns to make a mediocre team good or a good team great. Coaches will find a way to accommodate their needs even if it requires them to always keep a spot or 2 open and fill the back end of the bench with walk-ons.

---

That is why players that were top rated out of high school but are not starters will look to transfer. Marcus Lee was a good example. A few players can say "let's leave together" and boom, their new school is competitive. Sure, there will be super teams, there always have been, but their ability to stockpile talent will be reduced. The key is being an attractive place, that players want to be at or go to.

You can't have a coach that is going to be all about "discipline" and "hard work." That works in the military because you can't quit and leave. For kids these days, especially at a place like Cal, it has to be fun, the focus has to ge helping them attain their goals, not yours. The interviews I read/have seen with Gates and Legans are good because they make clear that even guys that we think are young coaches have had to change and adapt to the generation coming up. At a place like Cal, where our student athletes are even smarter and better informed, it is even more critical.

HoopDreams said:

---

Zero restrictions in college basketball 100% free agency

---

There is one restriction: Each athlete gets only one "free" transfer. Any transfer after the first reverts to the old rule and the athlete has to sit out one year before being eligible to compete for the new team.

A few athletes will qualify for a second free transfer: They could transfer once, then get a bachelor's degree at their second school, and then go to a third school as a grad transfer without sitting out a year. The athletes who grad-transfer will rarely be pro caliber, though.

Yes, or get a waiver, which presumably be harder to get

Bottom line is a ton more transfers, and not just limited to one time

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Zero restrictions in college basketball 100% free agency

---

There is one restriction: Each athlete gets only one "free" transfer. Any transfer after the first reverts to the old rule and the athlete has to sit out one year before being eligible to compete for the new team.

A few athletes will qualify for a second free transfer: They could transfer once, then get a bachelor's degree at their second school, and then go to a third school as a grad transfer without sitting out a year. The athletes who grad-transfer will rarely be pro caliber, though.

---

calumnus said:

---

59bear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Now that we have unrestricted free transfers 100% of the time, how will college basketball maintain competitive balance?

This is my only concern about the new transfer and NIL rule changes. I think it's good that players can transfer and I think it's even better they can make money on NIL.

The NBA understands competitive balance is important for the sport. How does the NBA try to maintain some semblance of competitive balance? At least 3 ways:

#1 salary cap

#2 priority draft (lower performing teams get earlier draft picks, which they can use to either sign higher rated impact rookies, or trade the pick for money they can use for #1)

#3 player contracts - NBA players are only 'free agents' based on their contract terms. They are NOT free agents most of their years with a team - this also allows teams a certain level of stability and ability to plan, and develop players for the future. With full time college free agency, a team (for example) could find out in July that both their PGs are gone


Also, in the NBA, when a player is a free agent, it goes both ways... the team does not have to keep the player. In college, the players are free agents 100% of the time, but have to commit to the player for 4 years.

---

The 13 scholie limitation......

---

Scholarship limitations won't be a meaningful leveler, particularly in basketball, because it only takes 1 or 2 top guns to make a mediocre team good or a good team great. Coaches will find a way to accommodate their needs even if it requires them to always keep a spot or 2 open and fill the back end of the bench with walk-ons.

---

That is why players that were top rated out of high school but are not starters will look to transfer. Marcus Lee was a good example. A few players can say "let's leave together" and boom, their new school is competitive. Sure, there will be super teams, there always have been, but their ability to stockpile talent will be reduced. The key is being an attractive place, that players want to be at or go to.

You can't have a coach that is going to be all about "discipline" and "hard work." That works in the military because you can't quit and leave. For kids these days, especially at a place like Cal, it has to be fun, the focus has to ge helping them attain their goals, not yours. The interviews I read/have seen with Gates and Legans are good because they make clear that even guys that we think are young coaches have had to change and adapt to the generation coming up. At a place like Cal, where our student athletes are even smarter and better informed, it is even more critical.

---

This touches on a good point in terms of style of program. I agree in general this may reflect what many kids these days have been programmed to buy into (which may be different than how kids were programmed in other eras - Bobby Knight had success in his day and recruits wanted to play for him at one point). So, what is Fox's style? Is it hard work and discipline? As a pretty loyal fan, it sort of seems that way.

Is this staff 'selling' that style? Who knows? Nobody hears anything from them? Maybe recruits parents? How's that working?

Is this staff recruiting to that style? Hard to tell - but it doesn't look like it. Wilcox is not the most outgoing either, but from day 1, it was clear we were recruiting OKGs and we were going to tackle better and run the ball. Everyone got that from him.


Is this style a good fit for Cal? Maybe Knowlton likes it and a few donors, but by and large it seems not to be so. And if it doesn't fit at Cal - sort of makes it harder to recruit to. I like the idea of a style that reflects intelligent, diverse, innovative and creative - that's how I see Cal. But we probably need to include bureaucratic too If you're going to recruit a bunch of Ivy league transfers, I'd suggest constant motion, top shelf shooters and pack line defense.

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

Kids can go where they want to play sports. The issue [at least for me] is some level of guaranteed commitment after the school has invested time, resources, and money to recruit and provide a 4-5 year guaranteed scholarship for the kids. I would expect the same if the factors were the same for the drama and robotic kids.

Civil Bear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

Kids can go where they want to play sports. The issue [at least for me] is some level of guaranteed commitment after the school has invested time, resources, and money to recruit and provide a 4-5 year guaranteed scholarship for the kids. I would expect the same if the factors were the same for the drama and robotic kids.

---

Pay to play, or get out of the way.

It's just laundry.

I said players should be able to transfer and earn from NIL

I'm open to other types of compensation as well

My point is competitive balance when we have 100% free agency all the time

The nba has put somethings in place to maintain some level of balance. It's good for the sport and that means it's also good for the players

So what things can the NCAA do to adjust in this new world which favors the powerhouse teams that already have a big advantage (while we have 100% free agency and NIL compensation)

This is not a zero sum game. The players can have free agency/NIL AND the the NCAA can put things in place to protect a level of competitive balance

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

1) Not sure the NCAA currently is that competitively balanced. There are about 20 programs that you can essentially bank that every year 75% of them will make the tournament. OCCASIONALLY one of those programs falls out of favor (UCONN UNLV for structural/NCAA sanction reasons but generally the case that the current blue bloods are well positioned. I am NOT sure that this further restricts that list.

2) At the same time I think we are likely to see the end of the NBA's restrictions that lead to one and done.. It could well be that we start to see a landscape similar to college baseball/minor league - where the kids with the best talent directly sign after HS. 1 & 2 operate in tandem in complicated ways. Both are moving targets and I am not enough of a forecaster to know how it all pans out.

3) Cal COULD thrive in such an environment. Cal BBall has not done TOO badly over the years and programs like Oregon State have risen.

HoopDreams said:

---

I said players should be able to transfer and earn from NIL

I'm open to other types of compensation as well

My point is competitive balance when we have 100% free agency all the time

The nba has put somethings in place to maintain some level of balance. It's good for the sport and that means it's also good for the players

So what things can the NCAA do to adjust in this new world which favors the powerhouse teams that already have a big advantage (while we have 100% free agency and NIL compensation)

This is not a zero sum game. The players can have free agency/NIL AND the the NCAA can put things in place to protect a level of competitive balance

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

---

I believe the last three NBC collective bargaining agreements have included a player revenue share of over 50% (I think it has grown each time). So maybe the NCAA should start with ,,,,

Collective bargaining

50% Revenue share to players. But all player costs, such as scholarships, housing, meal table, etc will be on the players. Now, the cost of tuition and living costs can go into a players recruiting decision.

Come to think of it, we should institute a draft instead of recruiting,

Players that wish to transfer must be part of a multi-player trade. We could include some value system to make sure it is equitable.

This is not intended to come across as sarcastic - but I'm guessing it does. But this is the direction that College basketball has been going for decades - why not embrace the professionalism. So many are hung up on some weird sense of amateurism that an NCAA executive came up with in the 50s in order to avoid congressional oversight of a corrupt system.

Clay K, you know that "what is best for the kids" is not and never has been the motivation in big time sports. Big sports is about money. The "free agency" model is being adopted because of legal actions on the behalf of players that threaten to kill the NCAA. Absent that threat, none of these changes would be happening. The unintended consequence of "free agency" may well be a new stratification of the leagues and championships: hard to imagine that Cal, the Ivies, Stanford and the like are going to change their athletic programs to promote a truly professional basketball program. Likely a super league of schools that are willing to *******ize their academic purposes in order to gain bragging rights on their ability to hire better than the rest. Hopefully, Cal will opt out of such a scenario.

The super soccer league should be a cautionary tale for any sports group that thinks moving too far in the direction of a few benefiting is going to work out long term. If the dream is only accessible to a few then pretty much people will start to check out. The system will not mean anything anymore. We are already on that path. Not to start a political discussion, but there are parallels in that universe as well.

Civil Bear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

Kids can go where they want to play sports. The issue [at least for me] is some level of guaranteed commitment after the school has invested time, resources, and money to recruit and provide a 4-5 year guaranteed scholarship for the kids. I would expect the same if the factors were the same for the drama and robotic kids.

---

Coaches who have multiple years left on their multi-million dollar contract jump ship all the time. Their contracts don't stop them from leaving, they only require that booster money changes hands.

Nobody made Cuonzo Martin sit out a year when he moved from Cal to Mizzou, nobody made Ben Braun sit out a year when he moved from Eastern Michigan to Cal. But you want to shackle unpaid college athletes to a binding commitment?

BearSD said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

Kids can go where they want to play sports. The issue [at least for me] is some level of guaranteed commitment after the school has invested time, resources, and money to recruit and provide a 4-5 year guaranteed scholarship for the kids. I would expect the same if the factors were the same for the drama and robotic kids.

---

Coaches who have multiple years left on their multi-million dollar contract jump ship all the time. Their contracts don't stop them from leaving, they only require that booster money changes hands.

Nobody made Cuonzo Martin sit out a year when he moved from Cal to Mizzou, nobody made Ben Braun sit out a year when he moved from Eastern Michigan to Cal. But you want to shackle unpaid college athletes to a binding commitment?

---

Well.......


The flip side is more complicated. It is an undisputed fact in higher education (and the gov. tracks this data pretty closely) that kids which transfer are far less (by about 20%) less likely to grad with a degree than those that don't. Part of this is institutions' fault as many credit hours do not articulate and so kids don't keep everything they have "earned".

_IF_ (and yes, it is oh so quaint) the goal of higher education, even sports, is to matriculate these kids than having them stick it out makes sense.

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I said players should be able to transfer and earn from NIL

I'm open to other types of compensation as well

My point is competitive balance when we have 100% free agency all the time

The nba has put somethings in place to maintain some level of balance. It's good for the sport and that means it's also good for the players

So what things can the NCAA do to adjust in this new world which favors the powerhouse teams that already have a big advantage (while we have 100% free agency and NIL compensation)

This is not a zero sum game. The players can have free agency/NIL AND the the NCAA can put things in place to protect a level of competitive balance

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

---

I believe the last three NBC collective bargaining agreements have included a player revenue share of over 50% (I think it has grown each time). So maybe the NCAA should start with ,,,,

Collective bargaining

50% Revenue share to players. But all player costs, such as scholarships, housing, meal table, etc will be on the players. Now, the cost of tuition and living costs can go into a players recruiting decision.

Come to think of it, we should institute a draft instead of recruiting,

Players that wish to transfer must be part of a multi-player trade. We could include some value system to make sure it is equitable.

This is not intended to come across as sarcastic - but I'm guessing it does. But this is the direction that College basketball has been going for decades - why not embrace the professionalism. So many are hung up on some weird sense of amateurism that an NCAA executive came up with in the 50s in order to avoid congressional oversight of a corrupt system.

---

The biggest problem with the system you're proposing is that taking college sports further along the path of professionalism is seen by many as well outside the core mission of an institution of higher learning. I have no problem with kids getting paid to play sports but I'd much rather it come from the NBA, NFL, MLB or other private enterprise. The issue is not amateurism, which is largely non-existent beyond Little league or high school. It is whether educational institutions ought to be in the big time entertainment business, often at an operating loss

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

Kids can go where they want to play sports. The issue [at least for me] is some level of guaranteed commitment after the school has invested time, resources, and money to recruit and provide a 4-5 year guaranteed scholarship for the kids. I would expect the same if the factors were the same for the drama and robotic kids.

---

Coaches who have multiple years left on their multi-million dollar contract jump ship all the time. Their contracts don't stop them from leaving, they only require that booster money changes hands.

Nobody made Cuonzo Martin sit out a year when he moved from Cal to Mizzou, nobody made Ben Braun sit out a year when he moved from Eastern Michigan to Cal. But you want to shackle unpaid college athletes to a binding commitment?

---

Well.......


The flip side is more complicated. It is an undisputed fact in higher education (and the gov. tracks this data pretty closely) that kids which transfer are far less (by about 20%) less likely to grad with a degree than those that don't. Part of this is institutions' fault as many credit hours do not articulate and so kids don't keep everything they have "earned".

_IF_ (and yes, it is oh so quaint) the goal of higher education, even sports, is to matriculate these kids than having them stick it out makes sense.

---

It's only complicated if you insist on treating 18-22 year olds as if they were 8-12 year old "kids".

Colleges and universities don't prevent non-athletes from transferring. They are treated as adults and permitted to make their own decisions. Whether or not a student is talented at a sport that you and I like to watch in a stadium or on TV should not change the correct policy of letting students make those decisions for themselves.

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

Kids can go where they want to play sports. The issue [at least for me] is some level of guaranteed commitment after the school has invested time, resources, and money to recruit and provide a 4-5 year guaranteed scholarship for the kids. I would expect the same if the factors were the same for the drama and robotic kids.

---

Coaches who have multiple years left on their multi-million dollar contract jump ship all the time. Their contracts don't stop them from leaving, they only require that booster money changes hands.

Nobody made Cuonzo Martin sit out a year when he moved from Cal to Mizzou, nobody made Ben Braun sit out a year when he moved from Eastern Michigan to Cal. But you want to shackle unpaid college athletes to a binding commitment?

---

Well.......


The flip side is more complicated. It is an undisputed fact in higher education (and the gov. tracks this data pretty closely) that kids which transfer are far less (by about 20%) less likely to grad with a degree than those that don't. Part of this is institutions' fault as many credit hours do not articulate and so kids don't keep everything they have "earned".

_IF_ (and yes, it is oh so quaint) the goal of higher education, even sports, is to matriculate these kids than having them stick it out makes sense.

---

It's only complicated if you insist on treating 18-22 year olds as if they were 8-12 year old "kids".

Colleges and universities don't prevent non-athletes from transferring. They are treated as adults and permitted to make their own decisions. Whether or not a student is talented at a sport that you and I like to watch in a stadium or on TV should not change the correct policy of letting students make those decisions for themselves.

---

The difference is that, probably for antiquated reasons, many of these students are left without support after 4 years and just have miserable graduation rates but while they ARE in school are wooed not for their ability to graduate or succeed in the classroom.

Speaking of which...Jordan Brown is now in the Transfer Portal. Will Cal be his 3rd school?

BearSD said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

Kids can go where they want to play sports. The issue [at least for me] is some level of guaranteed commitment after the school has invested time, resources, and money to recruit and provide a 4-5 year guaranteed scholarship for the kids. I would expect the same if the factors were the same for the drama and robotic kids.

---

Coaches who have multiple years left on their multi-million dollar contract jump ship all the time. Their contracts don't stop them from leaving, they only require that booster money changes hands.

Nobody made Cuonzo Martin sit out a year when he moved from Cal to Mizzou, nobody made Ben Braun sit out a year when he moved from Eastern Michigan to Cal. But you want to shackle unpaid college athletes to a binding commitment?

---

And coaches who have multiple years left on their multi-million dollar contract get fired all the time. The buy-outs are part of their mutually agreed-upon contracts. And I wish coaches couldn't bolt so easily.

The new scholly rules make it more one-sided for the players, but I doubt the arrangement is going to be good for the sport. The sport's popularity is what drives these scholarship offers, so I hope they are not killing their proverbial golden goose.

so if some think the entire ncaa sports landscape is wrong, and we should pay players like professionals, and allow them to move as unrestricted free agents 100% of the time, with no new mechanisms to maintain some level of competitive balance, then how should we set the appropriate level of compensation? 2 questions:

Question 1: Which of these market-based approaches is best for the sport?

1) just like the job market - teams post openings, and players apply. they agree on compensation. most employees are 'at will' employment meaning the player can leave for any reason with no notice, and companies can dismiss them without cause (unless it violates employment laws, etc)

2) collective bargaining - basically a player union (the way the NBA does it)

3) the way entertainers like movie stars do it - with full contracts that are negotiated on any terms the two parties agree to, including restrictions/financial penalties to leave the company/team outside the term of the contract

4) other, but I think the above 3 options are the most likely


Question 2: Which of these options would Cal agree to participate in?