http://www.swishappeal.com/2017/5/11/15576216/mariya-moore-transfers-usc-ncaaw
Joining her sister at USC
Joining her sister at USC
Mariya chooses where to transfer...
- Thread starter OnBall8
- Start date
Too bad for Cal ...
But you know, if college athletes weren't treated like medieval serfs (tied to their plot of land, required to give their production to their more privileged overlords), she and Minyon could easily have been at Cal.
Explain the logic is requiring Minyon to sit out two years for transferring to Cal. If USC hired a Cal assistant football coach, would he have to sit out for two years? Or one year? Or a week?
And what precisely is the difference?
But you know, if college athletes weren't treated like medieval serfs (tied to their plot of land, required to give their production to their more privileged overlords), she and Minyon could easily have been at Cal.
Explain the logic is requiring Minyon to sit out two years for transferring to Cal. If USC hired a Cal assistant football coach, would he have to sit out for two years? Or one year? Or a week?
And what precisely is the difference?
That is a new rule to me. The only thing I had heard of was blocking schools.
Thanks
And to your point Clay, I think public pressure in football and mens basketball helps the player in these cases
Thanks
And to your point Clay, I think public pressure in football and mens basketball helps the player in these cases
piling on to your point is the fact that USC could solicit, recruit, entice the assistant to come over with no penalty on anyone. Yet, if there is a material change at a university, i.e. the entire coaching staff leaving a player may have to sit a year and lose a year. Crazy
Should the standard for coaches be that they can terminate scholarships at any time for any reason? Including mid-season? Technically, scholarships are just for a year, but that's not the expectation. And how about giving the school the right to withdraw admission at any time? After all, acceptance goes hand in hand with recruitment, right?
The point being that there are considerable mutual obligations created between a college and scholarship athlete. Players should expect a serious development and support from their colleges, and colleges should expect players to commit to providing a return on that investment. If serious problems arise, there of course need to be mechanisms to terminate the relationship. But giving either side free rein to terminate with no consequences defeats the mutuality of the arrangement.
The serfdom analogy doesn't seem appropriate. Given the large number of transfers, it might be argued that it's really the colleges who are getting the short end of the stick in a lot of cases. Not a great situation to devote a lot of resources to a player from recruitment onward only to have her bail after a year or two, taking her services elsewhere.
The difference between a scholarship athlete and a coach? The coach is providing services for a contractually specified period of time for a specific amount of money and that's the sum total of the expectation. Players expect a four year education in exchange for which colleges expect four years of dedication to their program.
How many people who work for a company have to sit out a year if they change jobs and not generate income?
This is an employer-employee relationship, and though some employees in some industries are restrained from working in that industry should they leave, they are also generally very highly paid. Scholarship athletes do not fall into that category.
This is an employer-employee relationship, and though some employees in some industries are restrained from working in that industry should they leave, they are also generally very highly paid. Scholarship athletes do not fall into that category.
Don't really care for the employer-employee assertion. Would prefer to think of student-athletes choosing a college based on their academic and personal goals, with athletics as just part of the experience.
But ok, if it's employer-employee, I assume you're ok with a college terminating a player's "employment" (including admission as a student) at any time for any reason not otherwise prohibited by employment law?
Ok, if it's an employer-employee relationship, are you ok with a coach terminating a player's "employment" (including college admission) at any time any reason? If the rules/expectations place no obligations on a player, the same thing should apply to the college. Right?
Absolutely ... they can do that now, as a matter of fact, by suspending a player. The player, of course, has no recourse as he or she has no legal status to sue.
Scholarships are for one year only, so why shouldn't players have a one-year contract with the school as well? The school can tie down the player for two or even three years while its obligation is only for one year -- unless the player is thrown off the team (again with no checks and balances) in which case it's even less than that.
Scholarships are for one year only, so why shouldn't players have a one-year contract with the school as well? The school can tie down the player for two or even three years while its obligation is only for one year -- unless the player is thrown off the team (again with no checks and balances) in which case it's even less than that.
The student-athletes get the short end of the stick in a major way, but lets not forget they have a choice in this. To use the employee analogy, a player can choose to go play in Europe or pay their way in school and walk on and go work straight out of high school.
The student-athletes are taking advantage of their abilities to get their education paid for. There are issues in the system that all go against the S-A, but they still reap some of the benefits.
The student-athletes are taking advantage of their abilities to get their education paid for. There are issues in the system that all go against the S-A, but they still reap some of the benefits.
Until free agency, MLB players made decent money while owners got rich. One could argue that the MLB players got benefits, but the benefits were not in proportion to the value they brought.
Same issue here: Without players, there is no MLB, and there is no such thing as college athletics.
Meanwhile, administrators -- who make the rules to benefit themselves and the organization that hires them -- make much more money and have much more freedom.
Same issue here: Without players, there is no MLB, and there is no such thing as college athletics.
Meanwhile, administrators -- who make the rules to benefit themselves and the organization that hires them -- make much more money and have much more freedom.
Yes, administrators are the BIG winners in this scenario. I would prefer that money going to other places, including back to the athletes in some shape or form.
Going to to the baseball free agency example, baseball players got to cash a check playing a game instead of being a cars salesman for example.
Everyone knows the rules to playing college sports. Agree to them and continue your dream. Don't and be a regular student.
Going to to the baseball free agency example, baseball players got to cash a check playing a game instead of being a cars salesman for example.
Everyone knows the rules to playing college sports. Agree to them and continue your dream. Don't and be a regular student.
