Without penalty and able to play immediately under certain circumstances, like a coaching change.

I'm for it but i wonder how long will it be before a coach is hired for the players he can bring with him from his current school to a new school.

So, in 2020 Nick Saban retires, and Bama, being Bama, pulls in Dabo + every high 4 and 5 star from the clemson campus. This effectively doubles the talent on that campus and gives Bama the National championship for the next five years.

I worked for years with multiple noncompete clauses. They all had a period of time that I could not take my talents from Acme inc to Schmendrich inc. or from Dilly's Bagelshack to Billy's Bakery. I wonder how quicly LOI's will begin to include those.

waltu said:

---

They already are paid with a first class education, meals, lodging, Tudors and stipend. As well as medical care. Sounds good to me.

---

Tooters

I'd speculate it hurts mediocre teams like us the most. Your top players are looking at better teams and your depth guys are looking at non power 5 for starter time. The biggest challenge will simply be discipline. Just imagine, the Baylro thing happened while Briles held the stick of being able to suspend a player for the year and then said player has to try to transfer and sit out another. How much more crap gets swept under the rug when guys can just say, "hey, don't like me doing X? That's fine I will go to UH, Ole Miss or wherever els and play next year. Bye."

How about You have 4 years you can play. You can transfer once during your undergrad, but you have to sit for 2 years. These two years do not count against you.

BMX Bandit said:

---

waltu said:

---

They already are paid with a first class education, meals, lodging, Tudors and stipend. As well as medical care. Sounds good to me.

---

ye olde american football scholarshipe?

---

I'm gonna go ahead and call this POTD.

The haves will poach from the have nots and create a larger divide.

If you are on the cusp now it probably won't help.

GreatSullysGhost said:

---

I worked for years with multiple noncompete clauses. They all had a period of time that I could not take my talents from Acme inc to Schmendrich inc. or from Dilly's Bagelshack to Billy's Bakery. I wonder how quicly LOI's will begin to include those.

---

Non competes are illegal in California. Might complicate some things.

amercer said:

---

GreatSullysGhost said:

---

I worked for years with multiple noncompete clauses. They all had a period of time that I could not take my talents from Acme inc to Schmendrich inc. or from Dilly's Bagelshack to Billy's Bakery. I wonder how quicly LOI's will begin to include those.

---

Non competes are illegal in California. Might complicate some things.

---

Saw em off

BMX Bandit said:

---

waltu said:

---

They already are paid with a first class education, meals, lodging, Tudors and stipend. As well as medical care. Sounds good to me.

---

ye olde american football scholarshipe?

---

They give 'em houses? That's a hell of a compensation package.

GreatSullysGhost said:

---

I worked for years with multiple noncompete clauses. They all had a period of time that I could not take my talents from Acme inc to Schmendrich inc. or from Dilly's Bagelshack to Billy's Bakery. I wonder how quicly LOI's will begin to include those.

---

Going from Acme to Billy's Bakery sounds like a significant downgrade.

Unless they are paying you to sign the non-compete, most terms will not hold up in court because they are coercive. Additionally, once employment is terminated, you are generally free to work for whoever will hire you, so long as you do not use knowledge of the prior employer to poach their business. And they have to prove that in court. At least in Texas. I don't know what other states' laws are.

I'm for the idea in principle, but in practice it may be a major clusterfux.

There would need to be restrictions, such as you can not follow to the same school that hired the coach to prevent the easy poaching of players. Keep similar rules as far as there is still a penalty to stay in the same conference or even a scheduled team that would cause the player to play against their old team.

I am against transfers in general, but I do sympathize with the players. If they are on the bench, transfer so you can play somewhere to showcase and develop your talents, maybe help being undrafted free agent or practice squad.

What if you are a TE at Arizona? You might want to be thinking about a transfer, Sumlin might forget to even include them in the annual football program, let alone use them.

waltu said:

---

They already are paid with a first class education, meals, lodging, Tudors and stipend. As well as medical care. Sounds good to me.

---

This reminds me of the old Curt Flood MLB free agency fight.

No doubt it's a great deal in a vacuum, but not in proportion to how much money they are making for the school, and how much coaches and ADs are getting paid. Not totally dissimilar from how Osteen-type megachurches are big business masquerading as church to enjoy tax benefits, big-time college football/hoops are pro sports masquerading as amateur in order to not have to pay the athletes.

First Title IX: Good in theory, but has become totalitarian nonsense and is only in place to pacify women and keep up the facade. Talking head ADs spout out nonsense about building champions in life and so on, but what they really care about is that the revenue sports do well and that the non-revenue sports (men's and women's) stay out of sight and out of mind. Some richer schools care more than others, but how do you think we were able to "cash whip" Pat Henry into leaving LSU for a mere $250k-ish? LSU didn't care about keeping the best coach in college track enough to pony up what to them is a pittance, in the grand scheme.

This data may have changed, but several years ago I read an article that said that there are 3x as many male high school athletes in the US as female (football plays a large role in these numbers). How then is it "fair" for scholarship numbers to be equal. Shouldn't it be proportionate to the number seeking those opportunities? And shouldn't the amount of money that a school spends on athletes be proportionate to the revenue that each sport generates?

You can't force women to play sports and you can't force people to watch/buy tickets. There are plenty of women out there to support women's sports and they are mostly not buying tickets. I hate to write any (more) sexist comments and generalize about what women are spending their money on, so let's just say that they are certainly spending just spending on other types of entertainment, and men are not forcing women to subsidize male participation in those areas.

Football/Basketball will continue to fight in court. It looks like soon they will get a form of "free agency" and eventually get paid more, just like pro athletes did. Administrators will hold on for dear life so that they can keep getting paid hugely overinflated salaries and will figure out a way that revenue athletes can be semi or full pro, give enough to women's sports to pacify them and have enough left over for ADs et al.

Crazy guess: It will probably come from raising ticket prices/donation levels.

Bad idea. Once you start paying athletes you make it easier for an NFL Developmental League to compete. Once even Bama says, "We'll pay you 75k a year to pay us to attend our school" the D league can say, "We'll pay you 100k (or more) and you can still enroll in a university"

Schools are better off selling their benefits without resorting to only "here's the cash". (I know some still also do that.)

My two cents.

I'm sorry for the Stephen A. Smith dramatic hot take comparison, but slave owners probably also once said "Bad idea" to paying the folks that had previously been working for free.

The circumstances in which players can transfer would need to be very limited. Otherwise, discipline breaks down, even for the "haves."

Think about it- every kid at every program who is not starting could shop himself to other programs. I can see allowing transfers if the HC leaves.

Complain about how silly title lX is but it the law of the land. This isn't something even the congress can change easily, because it is part of the equal protection act and there's plenty of case work to back it up in courts.

It is pretty much just wishful thinking talking about paying players as long as title IX is the law, because the equal pay for female athletes it would require would be a budget buster.

Not a fan of penalty-less transfers. It creates a "free-agency" across CFB landscape and diminishes the value of "committing" to a school.

For selfish purposes, A&M has not proven itself to hold onto a 5-star and this will hurt us until we prove our worth on the field.

However, I am all for it if a university is sanctioned by the NCAA - which I am pretty sure they already allow so no change there.

runontexas said:

---

When can the players get paid for all the money they generate?

---

When the NFL doesnt see 17-18 year old kids doing violent combat with grown ass men as a liability.

No way that's a good idea. A school has made a investment i n the players,. Allowing at-will transfers w/o penalty (sit out a year or whatever) makes no sense. It would be CHAOTIC. Just one scenario: Suppose that A&M's best ten players wanted to and did w/o penalty follow the ,uh, "players' coach" to AZ. That would be nonsense. And, that would mean that to make room for them ten players currently on the AZ roster would be let go. Before the current transfer rules are changed, circumstances would have to be defined with limits. Or, suppose that ten of FSUs players wanted to follow Fisher to A&M. No way. and I don't suggest that even the NCAA would consider allowing transfers in either of these two scenarios.

runontexas said:

---

When can the players get paid for all the money they generate?

---

I would be for it if they would pay for their tuition, room, board, tutors, books, supplies, personal trainers, medical insurance, building use fees, equipment, clothes, shoes and all their other expenses out of it including marketing, schedulers, agents and all the other functions the university pays to promote your sport, And if you dont contribute as a starter then your payment is reduced but not your expenses. Hell lets just do away with the student part and pay them to play for our university that way we can all brag about the team we bought to play for us. That will really be something to be proud of! If the NCAA allows transfers to play immediately it willl be just like free agency anyway.

Im convinced the people clamoring to "pay" the athletes who "generate all the money for the school" were not responsible for one damn penny of their own education. The money generated by football and in a very few exceptions basketball and LSU baseball pay their own expenses and those of all the other non revenue generating sports as required by title iX. I'm interested if anyone out there involved with college athletics financing can speak to how much money from sports goes back to the school for non athletic expenses? My guess is a big fat ZERO.