Gerry DiNardo: It's time to change an outdated transfer rule

per DiNardo:

When I played at Notre Dame (now an associate Big Ten Conference member in men’s hockey) for Ara Parseghian in the mid-1970s the school had a policy that the head football coach could not be paid more than the highest paid faculty member.

Wow, how things have changed. And by the way, I am not in favor of that old pay schedule. More on that in a bit.

There was also an NCAA rule back then that continues today that when an athlete transfers they have to sit out a year before becoming eligible at their new school. I am in favor of that rule being changed. I believe that any student-athlete should be able to transfer at any time as long as he or she is in good academic standing and should be able to do this without having to sit out for a year, and here is why.

Let’s go big picture first. Head coaches and some assistant coaches are now being paid enough money to provide their families with generational wealth, much like many CEOs of major American companies. I am not opposed to this – that is the market value set by university presidents all over the country.

What I oppose – because the economics of coaching and college athletics has changed so much – is punishing a student-athlete that wants to make a change.

The money that coaches and schools are making should impact the transfer rule and penalty. If you look at the amount of money being paid and made, college athletics is more of a business model than an educational model. If it wasn’t, coaches would be paid much like professors.

When the presidents decided to sign off on the escalating coaches salaries they implicitly changed the model. I am not saying the system is broken; I’m saying if it’s “business” for the coaches and the schools, it should be “business” for the student-athletes looking to transfer.

Now let’s look at a specific example. Michigan’s Shea Patterson, one of 12 Ole Miss transfers, has asked to be declared eligible immediately. Does the following make any sense?

Patterson goes to Ole Miss.
Ole Miss is put on probation for NCAA rules violation.
Patterson wants to transfer to Michigan and by rule, he can’t be eligible right away.
Who thinks that’s a good idea? Who thinks that’s a fair idea?

Answer: The people in Oxford who broke the rules and make millions and the people in Indianapolis where at least one who makes the rules makes millions. Really? Those are the people that think it’s fair that Patterson has to sit out a year. This sure sounds like its based on a business model and not an educational model.

Isn’t it worth looking at this rule that allows adults to make generational wealth and at the same time restrict freedom of movement of young people that make a significant contribution to the generating of that wealth? Has there ever been any other or are there now any other organizations structured quite like this?

It’s time to change this outdated rule and not worry about the opinions of the coaches, administrators, and schools who are making millions.

http://btn.com/2018/04/11/gerry-dinardo-its-time-to-change-an-outdated-transfer-rule/

Go Gophers!!

Ultimately it’s the fans that pay the revenue. Do college fans want what could be mass upheaval on their teams every year beyond the normal graduation/attrition/recruiting cycle? Does instant transfer hurt the college football product or is free agency every year an asset to the product? I don’t know what others think but I have my opinion. What I do know is that every big idea like this (doesn’t matter what business) has unintended consequences that rarely get discussed or even thought about by some.

WRONG! There would be musical chairs among QBs and other prima donna top talent players. The unrelenting movement toward rule-breaking and permissiveness in almost all areas of American experience should not extend to football (next will be gender demands for equality in playtime or for trans players to play etc.). The sit-out rule puts some discipline into the situation and is a guard against promiscuous transferring.

Just to play devil's advocate:

If you change the transfer rule and allow transfers to become eligible immediately, then I think you also have to look at roster limits.

If a team loses 3 or 4 kids to transfers, they should be able to add another 3 or 4 kids to compensate. so you would have to change the rules on how many players you could recruit in one season. If a team loses 3 or 4 kids at key positions, is it fair to make them play short-handed? a few transfers and a few key injuries, and a team's depth could go out the window in a heartbeat.

Current rule is (I believe) 85 on scholarship and 105 on roster. Also limit of 25 (scholarship) recruits in a season. I think all of those would have to be adjusted in some fashion if you allow unfettered transfers.

I agree the rules should be changed. Maybe with some rules.
Just some ideas.
1. Must be in good academic standing.
2. Must have already red-shirted
3. Can’t transfer within conference

Great Plains Gopher said:

WRONG! There would be musical chairs among QBs and other prima donna top talent players. The unrelenting movement toward rule-breaking and permissiveness in almost all areas of American experience should not extend to football (next will be gender demands for equality in playtime or for trans players to play etc.). The sit-out rule puts some discipline into the situation and is a guard against promiscuous transferring.

Click to expand...

Kind of a stretch.

Every time the coaching money argument is put forth as a reason to do X, Y, or Z my mind shuts off (hold the snark). Yes, it's gross to the average joe but they are in the entertainment biz and that means big bucks.

Yes, football programs bring in revenue and are forced to pay their staff large salaries as the market dictates. Also, universities are free to compensate coveted researchers, academics, administrators with packages to steal them away from other schools. Professors and administrators are paid nice salaries with perks, retirement, etc that ordinary students don't enjoy. Regarding the coaching salary issue, are universities that employ researchers that hold lucrative patents or other outside income (speaking, consulting, professional witness, publishing) requiring those professors to share that money with their chem 101 students or their research staff? I doubt it. Are coaches tenured?

Free agency, paying players etc IMO would kill the game. I just don't see how it will ever happen, particularly with Title IX requiring everyone be treated the same. The whole thing will collapse. Beware what you ask for.