Should college athletes get a free pass to transfer if ...

TG,
Answer is no.

Players sign an agreement with the school. Not the coach. This is why it is sooooooo important to make sure your player is aware that things change, will he be happy with those changes.

I undestand the dilemma. My son chose to go to Clemson because he preferred the pitching coach over others but if by chance the coach left before he arrived he would have been very happy anyway. We made sure his choice was not just based on the baseball program.

I think that is where the problem lies, too many of our kids (all sports but in this case I'll go with baseball) base their decision on the baseball program. That's not, IMO, finding the perfect fit. School comes first. There is so much more to it than baseball on the college campus.

My sons pitching coach left after being with the same program for 9 years. Obvioulsy he had a long time to wait for the HC position and he was ready to take the next step. It was no secret that he would most likely leave if the right opportunity came along. That's acceptable to most. But when a HC decides to make a change when school begins and wants to take his entire coaching staff with him, that signals to me that he had his best interests in mind, no one else. That to me doesn't sit right. JMO.

I do agree too much movement in the HC department but in the GAME of baseball it is a BUSINESS and it's about money. It's about more money for the coach and more money for the student. Many base their decisions on that factor alone. We teach our kids loyalty and commitment, but I have learned to be successful the only commitment and loyalty in baseball, is to yourself.

I hope that UIC is able to make a quick replacement so that the UIC program can move forward. And I hope that UIC will make a stronger commitment to their athletics program, one of the reasons Serrano had been out looking. Schools need to make these commitments to keep top HC talent. And parents need to make inguiries about how those programs are supported. Before DK committed, we found out about Clemson's endowments and gift giving and their commitment and support to the athletic programs. Sounds strange but I didn't know much about Clemson at the time. There is a lot to learn in the recruiting process.

And I hope when they play CSF, they beat the cr*p out of them.

YES a player SHOULD be able to transfer but we all know that is not the way it. There are a lot of things we "SHOULD" be able to do ---- but aren't allowed to.

The coaching staff is a big part of a college player's decision... part of the package so to speak. I feel strongly that a player should be able to make a move without penalty if part of what made his decision changes. Like Fungo said, that's not the rule... but should be IMO.

sounds like a can-o-worms, but confident that hsbb-websters can work out the kinks

how would it be determined which coach recruited which player??
# of letters?
# of calls?
length of calls? (rounded UP to nearest minute)


some guys are recruited by the HC
some guys are recruited by the Recruiting Coach
some guys are recruited by the Pitching Coach


if the coach took a job a another school, could his players follow him??

if coach retires, must his players also retire??

if coach is fired, are his players then fired too??

YES!

BEE your thoughts could offer some good material for an NCAA think tank.

An NCAA Think Tank is an oxymoron

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:

if the coach took a job a another school, could his players follow him??

Coaches recruit on needs of that particular program.
What makes you all think that a coach who recruited you to small ABC university needs or wants you at large XYZ State?

The coach who has recruited you and given one an opportunity did so because you, to him, were a perfect fit for that particular program.

This of course, depends on whether the coach has done his job, at that particular school, as far as recruiting.

At many big programs, coaches have to report to their bosses on who they have recruited and why they offered particular scholarship amounts to that particular recruit. All schools and their athletic departments have different goals and base their recruiting on those goals.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but has anyone thought about this?

You sign with intent to play at the school you are going to attend, period. Your son's decisions should be based on liking the school's environment first, the overall program second, coaches third.

If coaches leave, IMO, it should be the athletic department's responsibility to remind the new HC that the players in the porgram were accepted by the program and have a right to remain in the program if they meet all requiremements.

NCAA Think Tank?
The NCAA is a think tank... it just needs a little chlorine.

quote:

Originally posted by Tiger Paw Mom:
TG,
Answer is no.

Players sign an agreement with the school. Not the coach. This is why it is sooooooo important to make sure your player is aware that things change, will he be happy with those changes..........

I'd have a tough time telling this to the ten or so kids on the team that signed no LOI and are getting no money!! Those are the kids that are really screwed and most likely to be cut/run off by the new coach without any compensation or thanks!

Bee>

quote:

some guys are recruited by the HC
some guys are recruited by the Recruiting Coach
some guys are recruited by the Pitching Coach

I understand what you are saying but I think we all have seen that in many cases where the head coach leaves, his assistants either go with him or are released when the new coach is hired and wants to bring in his own hand picked staff. That has happened at several schools we have watched over the past 5 years or so. And because of this, I too think the players should be able to transfer out without penalty of sitting out a season. So I suspect that ... with the new transfer rules ... players will be staying in programs when they really want to transfer and will be working with coaches who may not have the same commitment to their predecesors' recruits as the players might hope.

It would be the perfect world if a player committed to the school first, to the program, to the coaching staff but I suspect that in the majority of cases, it is the program/coaches and then the academic fit to which players commit. That may not be the best way to do it, but I think that is what happens in many, if not the majority, of cases. JMHO

quote:

by FBM: I think we all have seen that in many cases where the head coach leaves, his assistants either go with him or are released when the new coach is hired and wants to bring in his own hand picked staff.

sure, but a waay more common situation is a pitching coach leaving who recruited and landed guys specificly wanting to learn from & pitch for him ... where would ya draw the line?

quote:

where would ya draw the line?

I believe the line is a peripheral issue or perhaps a red herring issue Bee>.

Just because there may be some grey area does not mean a coherent policy could not be drafted - a policy that accounts for unforeseen circumstances and is flexible and fair to both sides. Perhaps the NLI could reflect who the recruit considered deal makers i.e., the head coach and/or one or more assistant coaches.... perhaps an appeals process could be set up... etc. etc.

I agree with FBM. Recruits often do not commit to bricks and mortar or location or academic prestige. I like to use Stanford as an example. Most of us would thank our lucky stars if our kids could attend such school. If the coach suddenly left, the player is still probably not going to be harmed in any significant way other than perhaps the new coach is not going to think as highly of said player. This only accounts for about 35 players however. Not every kid (or perhaps most kids) is going to get an offer to a school where everything else is so fabulous that who coaches the team does not matter.

It may sound heady to advise players not to use the coach as a deciding factor on where to attend but I for the life of me cannot figure out how a "player" would decide otherwise. There are risks in life. It seems to me if it is reasonable for coaches to go to better opportunities then it ought to be fair game for the players.

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:

quote:

by FBM: I think we all have seen that in many cases where the head coach leaves, his assistants either go with him or are released when the new coach is hired and wants to bring in his own hand picked staff.

sure, but a waay more common situation is a pitching coach leaving who recruited and landed guys specificly wanting to learn from & pitch for him ... where would ya draw the line?

My son wanted to go work under Clemson's pitching coach, no one else. And we explained that he might leave, and he said he could accept that, because he loved the school as well.

You all bring good points to the table, but coaches leaving doesn't affect the APR, transfers do, that's why these new rules were created. Coaches leaving is especially tough on the incoming class, for those already in the program, it's a bit easier to adjust. It just doesn't happen in baseball. I do agree there should be a balance somewhere and athletic programs (large or small) should respect the decision of the coaches who recruited players while he/she was there.

While many don't commit to the mortar and bricks, they are student athletes, not athlete students. One has to make serious decisions based on that premise, especially now that the rules have changed.

With mutual consent between the coach and the player the transfer should be allowed ans should only be allowed to transfer to a different conferance..

What about the player who verbals a year before he signs because he loved the coaching staff? Two years later he shows up and the coach is gone.

Transfers, IMO, should be allowed (rewarded ?) if the student has kept on track and has an acceptable GPA.

That's why I don't like very early commitments based on coaching.

A new coach coming into a program, now that transfers will not be allowed, should be prevented from letting a player go because he wants his "own' type of player. He should be honorable and work with his current roster and begin the recruiting process from that point forward.

While every person has the right to change their mind, I tend to be a little "old fashion" and believe that unless you have real "issues" with the new coach you should honor the commitment to the institution. They are the one with the checkbook, not the coach.

If the coach was the main reason you are attending the school, I think the decision making process was a bit flawed to begin with. He is a piece of the puzzle but by no means the only piece. If a coach leaves, a recruit should show respect to the institution by having a "sit-down" with the new coach to make sure all the cards are laid out.

The NLI is with the school not the coach!

this topic is exactly why hsbbweb needs to have a rep in ncaa/college president's meetings

vote - - (candidates in no particular order)

1) MnMom

2) "let me be Frank" Martin

3) TPM

4) TR

5) DaMoose

6) MCO (google MCO, see #2)

7) Hi-Volunteer

8) Bama Bomber

9) LafMom

10) Fungo

You are too funny.

How about a direct email address to the head honcho?

The school - gives the student baseball athlete a ONE year committment.

The NCAA is now requiring the student baseball athlete to give a TWO year committment in return for the school's ONE YEAR committment.

I think the NCAA is a political motivated corrupt organization. And I also hope that some day - they get brought to the table for what they are doing - and for what they have done to countless young athletes.

The NCAA is a multi billion dollar money making organization. They need to play by the rules that all other multi billion dollar organizations play by.

They have totally abused tens of thousands of basketball and football players over the last 20 years - all the while lining their pockets - and now they want more.

I pray that at some point - some powerful person or some powerful entity says NO to these faceless - nameless bureaucrats that comprise the NCAA.

11) itsinthegame

The reason I posed the question is I see an environment that is a one way street that's not in the students favor. It's important for an incoming prospective college athlete to ask himself if the school is the right place if the sport is taken away (cut, injured, tire of playing). But let's be real. A lot of baseball players select D1 programs with the hope of going to the next level.

If a new coach comes in he may not like the existing player and bench or cut them. The incoming coach may the the coach at a school the athlete didn't select because he didn't like the coach. I see a process where none of the rules are in the favor of the student-athlete and several work against him.

What bothers me is that one of the purposes of the NCAA is to PROTECT the student athlete.

quote:

The reason I posed the question is I see an environment that is a one way street that's not in the students favor.

Should it be in the students favor? Most of us are old enough to realize that nothing in this life is really equal and it's usually the side who holds the "dollar" who also holds the advantage. Now if you were sitting in the NCAA seat you could be completely justified with their way of thinking.

As parents we sit on the other side of the fence and our fight, if we have one, will be against "big brother". I will always be convinced that their rules are not made to make life miserable for the family.

This is probably is not going to be a popular opinion but my 20 years of facilitation I've been forced to step back and let the devils advocate come out look at things from multiple perspectives.

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:

I think the NCAA is a political motivated corrupt organization. And I also hope that some day - they get brought to the table for what they are doing - and for what they have done to countless young athletes.

They have totally abused tens of thousands of basketball and football players over the last 20 years - all the while lining their pockets - and now they want more.

Its, so why don't you quit mincing words and tell us how you really feel?

It most certainly doesn't seem right that kids who, thanks to the NCAA, only get a partial scholarship (or maybe no scholarship) will now have to sit out a year to transfer.

Here comes that devils advocate

Do professional athletes who refuse to honor their contract have to sit out and not go to another team until that contract expires? Some will say that these kids are not pros, but they receive compensation for their contributions.

I do think that I'm on the same page as others here, but I will throw this thought out there regardless.

rz,
Good point and I agree.

My son received a scholarship by his school (not coach) so he was expected to fulfill his commitment, coach or no coach.

It doesn't make sense that because a coach leaves you should have a right to transfer. But what about the player that gets cut by the new coach, not by his choice, and now has to sit out a year if he transfers. Is that really fair?
I understand parents concerns.

Been thinking, will coaches be less apt to cut anyone at all, because of the need to have graduation rates increase?

The NCAA makes clear rules for coaches to follow, but leaves confusion for the player. That's not protecting the student athlete.

Applying the sit-out rule to baseball is a travesty.

If the coach can come to a kid at the end of a year and cut his scholarship substantially, that kid ought to be able to look elsewhere without penalty. Otherwise you are rewarding the coach who may be breaking a promise, or even have planned ahead to do that all along. You don't face this problem in football or basketball (the other "sit-out rule" sports) because in those sports everyone has a full ride.

And TPM, I appreciate your points about the school coming first, but I strongly disagree with the thought that a change of coaching staffs should not permit a transfer without penalty. College is the one time in a player's life he gets to have some say in who he'll play for, and now we're taking that away, too. The fact is that baseball dominates these kids' lives and consciousness and I think we ought to let them feel comfortable with their bosses, so to speak. Especially when we're asking them to play for as little as 25% scholarships. Not to mention, doesn't the rule even apply to walk ons?

I was having this discussion with respect to VMI recently. For those not familiar, VMI's famous "rat line" is tough to survive. Kids leave school on the first day. Something like 30% of the freshman class is gone by the end of the first year. I'm not talking about baseball, just about VMI in general. VMI has to recruit a large incoming baseball class every year because they know from experience the attrition they will face. But now when one of those who leave school is a baseball player, he has to lose a year of eligibility. It's ridiculous.

The sit-out rule was adopted at the urging of the coaches for the benefit of the coaches, and any contention that it had anything to do with academics is a masquerade. No one was at the table to defend the interests of the student athlete.

In life you may have to live by the rules, because there will always be others with power over you whether you want to admit it or not. But you don't have to respect rules that are made by others for their own selfish reasons. Respect is not an entitlement, you have to earn it. The NCAA does not earn my respect.

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
Applying the sit-out rule to baseball is a travesty.


And TPM, I appreciate your points about the school coming first, but I strongly disagree with the thought that a change of coaching staffs should not permit a transfer without penalty. College is the one time in a player's life he gets to have some say in who he'll play for, and now we're taking that away, too. The fact is that baseball dominates these kids' lives and consciousness and I think we ought to let them feel comfortable with their bosses, so to speak. Especially when we're asking them to play for as little as 25% scholarships. Not to mention, doesn't the rule even apply to walk ons?

I do not disagree with anyone about the new sit out one year rule for baseball players (this has been in effect for other sports). I don't like it and have stated that before.

Once your son or anyones son goes to play in a college setting, it's better understood.

Players usually don't transfer because of coaching changes, they transfer because what they thought was a good fit turns out not to be, and usually they want more playing time. Most coaches from good programs, where thought is put into recruititng, DO NOT cut players. They have reputatoins. The problem occurs when players are h*ll bent on going to one school and one school only and have no issue with accepting the little amount or walk on the coach has offered. Then they find themselves on the bench and very unhappy.

For those concerned, a student athlete and his parents need to understand, you sign with the school, not the coach.
We here on the HSBBW have always stated, make sure the coaching staff is not the sole reason you sign with a school.
And this should be a bigger consideration now that the rules have changed.

I have no dog in this fight, but perhaps those that feel so strongly and have a stake in all of this, might be proactive and should perhaps contact the ones who made the new rules.

Maybe if the other side (parents and players) presented their case, someone might listen?

quote:

Maybe if the other side (parents and players) presented their case, someone might listen?

I think that statistically it happens so seldom that it will fall on deaf ears. If this was a common occurrence, it would be an issue, but with so few involved there are bigger issues to deal with.

quote:

Originally posted by rz1:

quote:

Maybe if the other side (parents and players) presented their case, someone might listen?

I think that statistically it happens so seldom that it will fall on deaf ears. If this was a common occurrence, it would be an issue, but with so few involved there are bigger issues to deal with.

Just a thought.

likewise . These issues are supported by numbers. It seems like logical emotion is whats driving this issue from a parent/fan perception. We all know logic does not carry much weight in this world.

rz,
Not to get off topic, but Yankees playoffs today against DK's best friends team, who occassionally opts in as second son. However, good luck and enjoy!

Here's good luck to Aubrrn Doubledays as well!

My oldest is now a high school freshman so it'll be a couple few years before we get to hopefully experience all this fun.Whew! Thanks to all you that have already been there done that,and all the info on this site by the time we do reach college with our son I feel we'll be pretty well informed. My luck will be theyll change all the questions we'll have the answers for. It sounds like Fungo had it right "ncaa think tank"= oxymoron. I'm thinking they are a tank alright with a bowl attatched to the bottom. Is this the part where gotwood posts a great picture of a toilet?

2diamonds,
The recruiting process began for us around 2002. In five years, I do not feel much has changed, other than there is now more opportunities for players to be seen.

Though some NCAA rules have changed, most things remain the same. Good grades, the desire to continue playing after HS, talent, remaining healthy, and a good plan to reach your objectives will get you that scholarship.

That's about it.

Kids should be permitted to leave if the coach leaves at any time.

I think kids should be permitted to transfer at the end of the fall semester, too, so that they might go to a juco and play in the spring...especially when a kid sees at the end of fall ball that he is not in the plans for the springtime.

It seems to me that you should have the right to move to another school to play baseball without penalty. Things change (coach, teachers, kids, and the moon), what difference does it make. You should be able to change your mind for what ever reason. Who out there has not made a mistake?

As itsinthegame pointed out, as long as the commitment to the student-athlete is just one year that is all the student-athlete should have to commit.

Of the very many players that I know, only a few have transfered, and those reasons were either a problem with the coach or very homesick and wanted to be closer to home. There are special circumstances to every situation, that is why I feel the transfer rule is not fair. But not because a baseball program should become a revolving door.

We as parents are very protective of our children and want the best for them. We do our homework and help our boys to make right decisions. When something comes along to upset those plans, we get upset and confused.

For a player first entering into a baseball program, it is very difficult when we think they have made the right choice with helping in the process and the coaches leave before they set foot on campus.

While your son spends many hours with his coaches and teammates, you will find that most really do not care if a coach leaves or not. That is because there is so much more to college than baseball. Most players are very tight with each other and losing one of them usually brings more sadness then their coach. Last year, my son's best friends were either drafted or graduated and he missed them terribly, more so if his coach would have left.

Those of you who have or had sons in school will understand, those who do not have sons playing yet, will understand that someday.

I do not agree with some of the priorities our son's choose about where to go to school. A parent and players first priority should be to inquire about the graduation rate. If it is low this is a signal that either they have many players get drafted and leave early, they don't keep players (finding out why is important) or the program and school is too difficult for some to handle. As much as we do not like the NCAA and their decisions, the purpose of these changes is to increase the GRADUATION rate, not turn out MLB players.

This may have already been discussed however doesn't it seems like there should be some way of weighting the transfer rules to mirror the amount of commitment the school has made to the player.

How about a sliding scale to determine if a player should have to sit out a year?


Less than 33% aid - one time transfer rule without sitting out a year.

33% to 49% aid - option to sit out the first 30 days of the season that counts toward a year of eligibility or sit out for year without losing year of eligibility.

50% aid and higher - sit out for a year as the current rules stands.

Coach's decision to cut player from team (other than grades or conduct): - one time transfer without penalty.

I understand colleges wanting to keep players that they have made significant commitments to however how about making the transfer rules relevant to the amount of commitment a schools makes to the player.

Just a thought....