NCAA about to finish leveling the playing field

[Bobcat AirRaid]

D1 Council approved last night:

DI Council endorses Transformation Committee concepts - NCAA.org

The Division I Council on Wednesday endorsed several recommendations intended to better support student-athletes, improve efficiency and timeliness in the infractions

www.ncaa.org

Three highlights:

…the Council endorsed a concept that would eliminate the blanket rule prohibiting transferring more than once. The concept would also implement transfer portal "entry windows," or periods of time in which student-athletes must provide their school with written notification of transfer to be eligible to compete immediately the following academic year.

For winter and spring sports, students could provide written notification of transfer the day after NCAA championship selections in that sport for 60 calendar days. In fall sports, two separate windows would provide a total of 60 calendar days. The first window would be 45 days beginning the day following championship selection and the second would be from May 1 to May 15. Reasonable accommodations will be made for participants in the Football Bowl Subdivision and Football Championship Subdivision championship games.

Additionally, schools that accept four-year transfer students receiving financial aid will be required to provide financial aid to the student-athlete through the completion of the student's five-year period of eligibility or undergraduate graduation, whichever comes first, unless the student transfers again or enters a professional draft. The student would continue to count against roster and financial aid limits unless the student is medically disqualified, exhausts eligibility, transfers or enters a professional draft.

 

[LTK5H]

the Council endorsed a concept that would eliminate the blanket rule prohibiting transferring more than once. The concept would also implement transfer portal "entry windows," or periods of time in which student-athletes must provide their school with written notification of transfer to be eligible to compete immediately the following academic year.

Jake right now:

 

[2centsworth]

Unlimited transfers sounds ridiculous. A school accepting a transfers should have to repay the financial aid provided by the prior school. For example, TXST Dalton Cooper is offered $100k to transfer to Texas Tech. Tech should then have to pay TXST for 3 years of cost of attendance. Otherwise, why in the world would any G5 program recruit high school players?

 

[LTK5H]

Unlimited transfers sounds ridiculous.

As far as I know, all the "minor" sports have always had this. A soccer or lacrosse or water polo player could always transfer whenever they wanted.

For example, TXST Dalton Cooper is offered $100k to transfer to Texas Tech.

That's illegal. It certainly happens, but it's 100% illegal by NCAA rules.

Otherwise, why in the world would any G5 program recruit high school players?

Completely valid point. At least the HS coaches can be mad at everyone now and not just us.

 

[Bobcat AirRaid]

1) Unlimited transfers sounds ridiculous.

2) …why in the world would any G5 program recruit high school players?

1) In addition to athletes in certain other sports already having this freedom, the change helps put reins on things like coaches lying when they recruit players, NIL collectives not paying what they said they’d pay, or players getting “processed” or de-prioritized when the school hires a new coach (current coach takes another job, etc.). I’m all for it.

2) Each year approximately 20 to 25% of players across the country run out of eligibility, in normal times, and the sport requires an infusion of 20 to 25% high school graduates. The extra Covid year - now THAT was ridiculous and horribly unfair to younger college players and HS kids at the time— screwed that all up for everyone except the kids granted the extra year. It’ll take another two or three years before “steady state” for high school recruits resumes.

 

[JustinS09]

For example, TXST Dalton Cooper is offered $100k to transfer to Texas Tech.

That's illegal. It certainly happens, but it's 100% illegal by NCAA rules.

Call it NIL if you want, but everyone knows it's kids getting paid to play.

 

[LTK5H]

Call it NIL if you want, but everyone knows it's kids getting paid to play.

Do you understand the difference, and what is illegal vs legal, or no?

 

[JustinS09]

Do you understand the difference, and what is illegal vs legal, or no?

Yes, and it's only really different in how it's distributed to the athlete. Obviously the school isn't paying the kid to go there, but at the end of the day the kid is still getting the money essentially for playing at that school.

 

[JustinS09]

The idea that you think this isn't going to make recruiting more unfair is simply naive. This is opening Pandora's Box into paying athletes to come to your school. I don't think that aspect will necessarily affect TXST so much, but you're going to see an open market for paying players via NIL. Schools like UT, tOSU, Bama, Clemson, USC, Michigan, etc are going to widen the gap between them and the Iowa State, Boston College, Oregon State, Vanderbilt, Pittsburgh level schools.

 

[LTK5H]

OK, so no, you don't.

A school can't use an NIL deal to recruit a player to sign with them. They can't say "We have a $100K NIL deal for you if you sign." That's what is illegal - enticing a player to sign.

 

[slycat]

Unlimited transfers sounds ridiculous. A school accepting a transfers should have to repay the financial aid provided by the prior school. For example, TXST Dalton Cooper is offered $100k to transfer to Texas Tech. Tech should then have to pay TXST for 3 years of cost of attendance. Otherwise, why in the world would any G5 program recruit high school players?

Should TXST be paying tuition to other schools for players that transfer here?

 

[atxman]

As far as the issue of enticement is concerned, I see no practical difference between a school saying “you’ll get this $50,000 NIL deal if you sign with us” (illegal) and the rich owner of Bubba’s Cars-r-Us saying “I’m going to give every offensive lineman at the school a $50,000 NIL deal” (legal). The money is clearly an enticement for recruits who are offensive linemen. And the school is a key actor here — they decide whether you get $50,000 by offering you a place on the team. The silly distinctions the NCAA is trying to make are meaningless.

 

[Bobcat AirRaid]

As far as the issue of enticement is concerned, I see no practical difference between a school saying “you’ll get this $50,000 NIL deal if you sign with us” (illegal) and the rich owner of Bubba’s Cars-r-Us saying “I’m going to give every offensive lineman at the school a $50,000 NIL deal” (legal). The money is clearly an enticement for recruits who are offensive linemen. And the school is a key actor here — they decide whether you get $50,000 by offering you a place on the team. The silly distinctions the NCAA is trying to make are meaningless.

The original California legislation that unleashed this hell was named “Pay for Play” for a reason. Anyone with half a brain knew there’d be no way to ring-fence payments for one purpose vs another.

The distinction promulgated by a then toothless NCAA was as much of a farce as its “no tamper” rule regarding the portal: for appearances of propriety.

 

[LTK5H]

As far as the issue of enticement is concerned, I see no practical difference between a school saying “you’ll get this $50,000 NIL deal if you sign with us” (illegal) and the rich owner of Bubba’s Cars-r-Us saying “I’m going to give every offensive lineman at the school a $50,000 NIL deal” (legal).

While it may be functionally the same as far as an end result, words matter. So the statement "School X offered Player Y $ZZZ to sign with them", is an accusation of cheating, where the statement "Player Y went to School X because they have $ZZZ for that position" is not.

 

[2centsworth]

An unenforced rule is the same as legal. Example: Sodomy is illegal in some states. Collectives are recruiting arms of these programs and it’s pay to play. I want these players to get their money, so I’m not against the arrangement. Simply want to protect the TXSTs of the worlds and high school recruits by forcing these larger programs to reimburse smaller ones for their financial investment.

Those other sports provide limited scholarships, have little fan support and players receive zero enticements to leave.

As far as exhausting eligibility, annual turnover was much higher than 25% to include natural attrition. I would guess it was as high as 35%. I could see this reduced to 20% because players at places like Tech are doing their 5 years. That will amount to about 1500 fewer scholarships offered to high school players. Hence, why there’s momentum to drop the yearly scholarship limits.

Within 10 years a lot of smaller programs will shut down reducing scholarship opportunities even further.

 

[atxman]

While it may be functionally the same as far as an end result, words matter. So the statement "School X offered Player Y $ZZZ to sign with them", is an accusation of cheating, where the statement "Player Y went to School X because they have $ZZZ for that position" is not.

I understand your point. Those words and their legalistic distinctions really matter in court. But in the real, practical world that shapes the emotion and behavior of individuals, there is no meaningful distinction. The money is clearly an enticement. Seems to me the only real questions are whether this is a good thing, whether it should be managed, and whether there is an effective way to manage it.

 

[atxman]

The original California legislation that unleashed this hell was named “Pay for Play” for a reason. Anyone with half a brain knew there’d be no way to ring-fence payments for one purpose vs another.

Once college football became a big business that made people (coaches, ADs, marketing execs, TV execs, etc.) really rich (or richer), I thought it was hard to justify not allowing the guys on the field to cash in as well. But it still disappoints me. The professionalization of college football is sucking out so much of what made the sport special and gloriously different from the NFL. For me, anyway. I realize I’m likely in the minority on that. But when I read about reactions to news like USC and UCLA moving to the Big 10 for more money, I think there‘s a growing number of people who feel like I do.

 

[LTK5H]

in the real, practical world that shapes the emotion and behavior of individuals, there is no meaningful distinction.

I disagree. Correct usage conveys an understanding of the difference between the two. When I hear/read someone say a player was paid to sign somewhere, I understand the speaker/author to mean that to be a cheating transaction vs a legal one. Or that they don't have any idea what they're talking about, because I'm aware that they mean one thing but are saying another.

Seems to me the only real questions are whether this is a good thing, whether it should be managed, and whether there is an effective way to manage it.

I think it's terrible for college athletics, second only to conference realignment in it's detriment. IMO, it can't be managed - you can't implement a salary cap or a limit on individual earnings when there is no involvement from the institution.

 

[atxman]

I disagree. Correct usage conveys an understanding of the difference between the two. When I hear/read someone say a player was paid to sign somewhere, I understand the speaker/author to mean that to be a cheating transaction vs a legal one. Or that they don't have any idea what they're talking about, because I'm aware that they mean one thing but are saying another.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

I think it's terrible for college athletics, second only to conference realignment in it's detriment. IMO, it can't be managed - you can't implement a salary cap or a limit on individual earnings when there is no involvement from the institution.

You are likely right.

 

[atxman]

Iowa coach Ferentz: Sport in need of 'intervention'

Iowa's Kirk Ferentz, the nation's longest-tenured FBS head coach, said Tuesday at Big Ten media days that he's as concerned as he's ever been about the path college football is on right now.

www.espn.com

Excerpts:

"I think we're in a really precarious place," said Ferentz, entering his 24th season as Iowa's head coach. "There's just a lot of vagueness, a lot of uncertainty. We really don't have a firm structure. We don't have a basic set of operating rules. I don't think anybody right now can really explain the NIL [name, image and likeness policy] in detail, what you can and what you can't do. I know you can't entice recruits, but it sure seems like maybe that's going on a little bit. There's just a lack of overall clarity."

…

Ferentz is supportive of players earning money on their name, image and likeness once they get to campus, but said the idea of schools bidding for players coming out of high school combined with proposed legislation to ensure that players can transfer as many times as they want isn't good for anybody.

"So you go into the portal, you come back in my office and say, 'I got a deal for, let's say, $250,000,'" Ferentz said. "How do I know that's right? We have no way of knowing. Is that what his adviser is telling him? There's a lot of that going on already, and I don't know where it ends."