just correcting the mis-information...from Gman & you. There is no reasonable comparison between some D-1 programs & milb.
2006, son was drafted out of HS, turned down to attend Tulane, 4 yrs on Travel Roster, drafted 2010, signed with Yankees for a pack of bubble gum, MLB debut May 2013, released end of 2014, picked up by Marlins & Spring Training 2015, injured shoulder, underwent stem cell injections, out all of 2015, released, granted free agency, signed with Giants for 2016 @ AA Richmond, granted free agency again, 2017 picked up by Rangers, Spring Training & is currently the Closer with AAA Round Rock Express.
So, I've got "a little lernin"...
I'm not doubting your knowledge, not at all. This will be my last post on this thread, how about we go to yes and no.
Is it common that when a player transfers from D1 o D1 they must sit a year?
Is it common that when an MiLB player is released they can be picked up by another team and have no restriction on waiting a year to play?
Not "doesn't it always happen this way"...is it common?
I think, what is common, CaCo, is that when you are released or leave team A, you quite often have less leverage and fewer options for your next move.
Golf said...
"Obviously it's time to take these power five type schools and call them what they are - pro ball ( without the money). Change the rules similar to pro ball. Free agency, contracts, no trade clauses, etc. let these kids sell there wares and maybe get an education mixed in somewhere."
My thoughts... no, they are still colleges. I referred in another recent thread that there are some big HS's that have facilities and programs that rival mid-size colleges. So, should we categorize them as colleges? No, they are still high schools, just big ones that happen to have more resources and following than most. But, still high schools. They don't give college degrees, don't play against college opponents, still need to play by HS federation rules, etc., etc. They draw quite a bit more revenue, travel more, etc., but they are still high schools.
Similarly, power 5 colleges are still colleges.
Sure they are still colleges, but their big time sports programs seriously complicate things.
For lots and lots of reasons too numerous to mention here.
For one thing you would think it follows from the fact that these colleges are still colleges that these student athletes are still just students. I mean, after all, they are in a degree granting institution of higher learning and they are pursuing degrees. Except they aren't really pursuing a degree in precisely the same way that most other students are and aren't exactly subject to the same set of pressures and constraints as other students. Neither are they professional athletes, of course. They aren't even considered employees of the universities they attend. Their scholarships are not considered compensation for work done. And on and on.
But precisely that is where tensions between the university's standing as an institution of higher learning and a student athlete's standing as a student rather than an employee creeps in.
Especially if we are talking a revenue sport, it's pretty hard to deny that athletes are NOT just students. They are "commoditized" goods in a way that other students simply aren't. That is, Bigtime U clearly regards them as a valued economic commodity. The collective "labor" of the student athletes -- at least those in revenue sports -- is something the U makes big bucks off. Think of not just the TV revenue, but all the alumni contributions their labor fuels.
Not ENTIRELY without reason is there a move to have big time Universities with their lucrative sports programs face up to reality and pay some "student" athletes -- i.e. pseudo employees -- what they are worth.
It's complicated, of course, because baseball isn't a revenue sport, even at the power five conferences -- or so, I would assume. But what baseball IS in these conferences is sort of an alternative quasi-minor league system that feeds tons of players into the professional baseball pipeline. And it's standing as major league pipeline causes lots of demands and constraints to be placed on student athletes in that pipeline that your typical students just doesn't face.
When you add in the insane one and done rule of the NBA, it becomes clearer that elite basketball players headed for the NBA draft are "student" athletes in name only. Their relation to the university is MUCH more like an employer-employee relationship rather than a teacher-student or school-student relationship.
As a person who has worked in University settings all my adult life, I am of the firm opinion that big time college sports -- as much as I enjoy them, as much as I myself participated in them when I was young and strong -- can have a very corrupting influence and that Universities should pretty much get out of the business of running quasi-minor leagues. That doesn't means sports would be eliminated. It would mean that something like the D3 model would be the model for ALL colleges and universities and that those mainly looking to play professionally would have to look elsewhere.
SD, I know I am in the minority on this topic here and I appreciate your articulate explanation and your background and perspective. But I still sit in the same place. Again, some of the arguments have application to my HS analogy. Those large (usually private) high schools I speak of often draw additional revenue and enrollment (due to their power sports programs and facilities) that benefit the overall financial picture of the institution. Those large power HS's tend to be a more significant pipeline to the next level because they have better programs that produce/draw better/more high level athletes. Similarly, smaller colleges are relying more and more on sports programs to boost enrollment and the bottom line, albeit on a smaller scale. And, while the dollars may be reaching much more significant levels at the major universities, there has always been some level of catering to/exploitation of athletes at the college level. Still, the revenues generated by the top football and basketball programs go a long way toward allowing the other sports to remain in existence... this, too, being a similar model to many HS sports programs.
Do retailers benefit from selling the goods? Of course, just as they always have. The school and NCAA get their cuts and everyone benefits. I still sit in the camp that the student/athlete benefits via a free education (power schools), achieve their goal/dream of playing at State U, enjoy the platform to earn recognition and attention from the pro level, as well as other benefits. Are some of the NCAA regulations and moves questionable? Yes. Do they perhaps pocket too much of the profits? That's what I hear. But it takes a rather large entity to manage regulation of all the issues across all NCAA institution, conference and division athletics. I would rather have it be a profitable institution than one struggling to remain in existence. Are their rules sometimes overly restrictive, inflexible and inconsiderate? I've heard that as well. So, let's lobby to get some of those rules and enforcement modified... not blow up the college sports model as we know it and have loved it for decades.
Regarding alumni donations, this is certainly not unique to power 5 sports programs or even just sports, for that matter. Again, many HS's and colleges rely on alumni support and get it, fueled by a variety of motivating factors... music, sciences, loyalty, appreciation, tax benefits, to name a few. If you pull up the name of any college or university, large or small, you will almost always find a significant endowment amount listed in association with the school.
I do not like the basketball one-and-done model. Aside from that, I prefer the current model of college athletics rather than the model I envision if the power five schools were changed into something more closely resembling a professional sports model. Mostly, I fear the demise of several college sports if you separate the programs and sports that generate the majority of the funding from all the others. JMO.
Apologies for drifting from the OP.
Regarding Goff, I can only go by what I have read. While I agree that you don't have to coach a college program like a tyrant, an awful lot of college coaches use similar tactics with players. I am not condoning, but I can imagine there is a special set of challenges associated with keeping 35 18-23 y.o.'s on task with a team effort that requires a level of sacrifice, work, organization and commitment they have never faced while, at the same time, being out on their own among a bunch of other young men in the same boat for the first time in their lives. I am certain that a blend of positive and negative reinforcement would be necessary. It sounds as though he leaned VERY heavily toward negative. But, more importantly, you surely can't alienate all of the decision makers and influencers in such an undertaking. If it is true that he didn't work with administration, alumni, boosters or the press, on top of handling the players in this manner, this fate was inevitable.
