Discussion in 'Football' started by BranMart, Apr 30, 2020.
I doubt the NCAA could possibly deny hardship waivers this year anyway.
Maybe you mean the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority? Because the NCAA I know will summarily deny everything not associated with Ohio State or Alabama quarterbacks.
Not looking doubtful -
Just doubtful for right now.
However - TML will start as scheduled.
Factory school coaches expressing concern for the welfare of the players wanting to transfer from their program. What a joke!
The simple solution is to ensure that transfers do not count against the 25 player limit. This should already be the rule.
If a player ends without a landing spot that was there choice. Most will find a team although it may not be a P5 school.
Waiver dead for now.
So unbelievably dumb.
They just screwed all the SA’s playing for West coast schools.
öööö you NCAA. I hope some SA sues and tears the whole thing down.
That’s most likely why it failed. No PAC school is going to vote yes and see all their athletes abandon them if they don’t play this fall.
Yep- if it’s allowed, why wouldn’t someone like Connor McLaughlin transfer to Tech?
I think the one-year rule is good for everybody. My biggest complaint is the apparently uneven nature of how hardship waivers are granted. But there shouldn't be a transfer free-for-all. If you think it's hard to convince the Jahmyr Gibbs of the world to keep their commitments through signing day... just imagine if LSU could keep coming at him after he's on campus and throughout his freshman year. At some point you gotta dance with the one that brung ya.
Not to be argumentative, by why is that? If a student on a full academic scholarship wants to leave the school after his freshman year and transfer to another school, also on a full academic scholarship, Georgia Tech has no right to stop him/her and does not try.
Similarly, if a coach being paid millions of dollars has a contract with GT and leaves to go to another school, unless there is buyout money involved in his/her contract, that coach can leave without penalty. Even if there is buyout money involved, the coach can leave if the money is paid.
The only one who cannot leave is the one who is on an athletic scholarship and from whom the school stands to make a lot of money. Doesn't that seem duplicitous to you or anyone else?
I acknowledge there are many different ways to look at this – and so I don't think my view is 'obvious' or 'indisputable' or anything. But my opinion is that being recruited by other teams – by coaches whose primary interest in you is, let's remember, essentially monetary – is very distracting to players who are trying to acclimate to life away from home, a difficult academic load, new teammates/friends, the "big city," etc. There's a season to enjoy being courted, and there's a season to enjoy being married. But if you're still courting after you're married... it's really gonna undermine any chance of a happy marriage! And sometimes it takes some periods of difficulty in a new marriage before you really understand how great commitment is.
The comparisons with academic scholarships are not, IMHO, very fair. There's WAY less recruiting of academically-gifted students than of athletes. Where is the 24/7 or Rivals or ESPN 150 or The Hive or ST for academically gifted students? What professor has the same kind of monetary incentives to persuade an academic scholarship from another school to transfer? The pool of academically gifted students is much larger than the pool of athletes, so the nexus of interest is lower and the incentives to poach are lower. The similarities are abstract and tenuous. Practically speaking, there's just no comparison between the real-world pressures and tensions these kids go through.
The problem is just amplified because it is precisely the most vulnerable kids – the ones with an early injury, with early disappointment with playing time, with early academic struggles – who are most likely to be targeted for transfers. Obviously there are times when transfer is the right thing to do – but the one-year rule prevents kids from doing it lightly, from overlooking the good things about their current situation, from giving in too easily to the siren-call of coaches making unenforceable promises of better classes, more playing time, etc.
Coaches are not comparable at all. They're employees, not students. They're full grown men, not teenagers. They're paid millions, not room and board. They don't need/deserve/warrant the limitations on freedom that kids do.
I should also make clear that I'm completely in favor of the hardship waivers – in fact, there ought to be a standing waiver available to anyone who wants to "move home" for school. (Or for anyone who wants to go to GT, but that'll probably be harder to get.)
I acknowledge that the one-time transfer rule would cause its own issues, but I am in favor of it because I think it is the right thing to do. Kids are signing before they turn 18 and I think they deserve one change of heart, particularly since many are promised things that never materialize. I also think the NCAA is a terrible arbiter of what constitutes a hardship, and the current system just incentivizes kids to make something up or exaggerate. I don't see a way to fix hardship waivers.
There's tons of ways to fix hardship waivers. There's an expression in jurisprudential theory: mud or crystal? Mud means rules that are ambiguous so that they can be tailored to achieve maximum justice in individual situations. Crystal means clear-cut rules that provide lots of guidance in advance, but necessarily will leave out some deserving cases at the margins. We need more crystalline rules – specify exactly what kinds of conditions apply, and enforce those rules rigidly. Some kids will get left out, but everyone else will understand what the rules are, and live by them.
PS. The idea that kids are young and make mistakes and should be given a "do over" completely ignores what really happens in these cases. Kids are incessantly courted by grown men with a financial incentive to pull them out of their current situations, with little incentive to wonder what's truly best for the kid.
Right, but this describes recruiting kids straight out of high school just as accurately. Financial incentive to get a kid to sign, whether or not that school happens to be the best fit for the kid. Of course, when it comes to transfers, coaches aren't allowed to contact them until they are already in the portal, but I have no doubt they skirt this rule easily by communicating through intermediaries. If we really think about it, the entire system is probably wrong, but I am in favor of giving more freedom to the SA in that case.
There has been an attempt at having crystalline rules, like the 100 mile rule for kids looking to move "closer to home". Antonneous Clayton got screwed by that rule by virtue of living in the middle of nowhere. What about sick relatives? How closely do they have to be related and how sick do they need to be? I think it's too complicated to attempt it. In other words, it's always going to be muddy. Give them the one freebie, IMO.
There's nothing more crystalline than saying everyone gets one free waiver. I would go a step farther and say no further waivers granted, regardless of circumstance (Grad transfers would still be immediately eligible).
You are right that the conflicting interests of coaches and recruits are a problem in high school, too. But generally when there's conflicting interests, our goal is to reduce the breadth of the conflict. Eliminating the transfer 'penalty' is just exacerbating a problem we both agree is already bad by allowing that conflict to continue to operate through what is likely the kid's most challenging year ever at that point.
Might a H.S. kid make a mistake? Of course – but that's why crystal rules are better than mud ones. Rules that have clear consequences result in better decisions than rules with loose or uncertain consequences. The current rule gives the kids an incentive to be very thoughtful about their choice when they know it is hard to get out of it. If you give them a free out, it reduces their incentives to get it right. Which just means more discontent freshmen, and more transfers, and more coaches courting freshmen on their rivals teams. It'd turn into any absolute farce. As CPJ said, when a kid makes a commitment, it just means you have a chance to get them to actually sign. You could give 'em a free transfer, then it would be, when a kid signs and enrolls, it just means you have a chance to get them to actually stay.
In general, we need clearer rules with firmer consequences. It's the way to make people make good decisions on their own. Anyhow, just my 2¢.
Fair points. It's not a hill I would die on either way.