Well it is one thing when the player wants to move on to another program and the new transfer rule will make that decision VERY had to make.
But as other threads on this site have pointed out; the coach has no penalty taking away or reducing your $$. From what I understand from other threads the coach can even put you off the team if he wants, he can justify the reason. If this happens now the player is the one that MUST BURN one year of playing time. How is this helping graduation rates?
There are many valid opinions being voiced in this thread. Many times even parents don't know many things that occur within their son's baseball program.
Sometimes the best thing for a coach to do is to get rid of a player (or players) who brings the team down with selfish attitudes, laziness, etc. Should those players also be able to transfer and play right away?
The NCAA makes some policies that not everyone is going to agree with. Their constituents are the schools, the school employees, and the student-athletes. In most situations of conflict (for example, when players want to transfer) the player's perception is different than the coach's perception. Sometimes the coach may seem to be inappropriate and sometimes the player might seem to be inappropriate.
If people think a regulation/rule is wrong, that does not necessarily make it wrong.
I am not being an NCAA apologist here, but most of the time players want to transfer it is because they think the grass will be greener elsewhere. Most of the time that is not the case.......but there are exceptions.
Sometimes the best thing for a coach to do is to get rid of a player (or players) who brings the team down with selfish attitudes, laziness, etc. Should those players also be able to transfer and play right away?
The NCAA makes some policies that not everyone is going to agree with. Their constituents are the schools, the school employees, and the student-athletes. In most situations of conflict (for example, when players want to transfer) the player's perception is different than the coach's perception. Sometimes the coach may seem to be inappropriate and sometimes the player might seem to be inappropriate.
If people think a regulation/rule is wrong, that does not necessarily make it wrong.
I am not being an NCAA apologist here, but most of the time players want to transfer it is because they think the grass will be greener elsewhere. Most of the time that is not the case.......but there are exceptions.
answer - YESquote:by Grateful: Sometimes the best thing for a coach to do is to get rid of a player (or players) who brings the team down with selfish attitudes, laziness, etc. Should those players also be able to transfer and play right away?
but - is the player "really" a problem - or merely "perceived" as a problem by coach?
IF "really" a problem, he'd be allowed to transfer and play, but since no team would take him, it's not really an issue
IF just a "percieved" problem by coach, he'd find greener pastures, everyone's happy
quote:Originally posted by grateful:
There are many valid opinions being voiced in this thread. Many times even parents don't know many things that occur within their son's baseball program.
I mentioned this on another thread. Good post.
Correct me if I am wrong. Without the year sit provision, if a coach left he could take his stud players with him, theoretically multiplying the competitive edge the receiving school may have bought.
I don't like the year sit idea. Perhaps it could be lightened with a restriction that the players couldn't follow the coach to the same school... if this scenario is a problem.
I don't like the year sit idea. Perhaps it could be lightened with a restriction that the players couldn't follow the coach to the same school... if this scenario is a problem.
quote:Originally posted by infidel_08:
Correct me if I am wrong. Without the year sit provision, if a coach left he could take his stud players with him, theoretically multiplying the competitive edge the receiving school may have bought.
The Pied Piper affect. Now that is the "other side of the coin" thinking.
I don't believe that anywhere on the NLI is the coaches name mentioned except maybe where he has to also sign. And, never have I heard a college player respond that he plays for the Univ of Coach X.
Whether it be following a moving coach, or a selfish player looking for greener pastures, the threat of sitting out year may make players think twice about why they are going to college and who they made a committment to. If a player has an issue, they should leave the school, play at a good juco for a year, and return to the "school of choice" the following year.
I have done some re-thinking on this and adjusted my stubborn thought to include that there should be no penalty year if.....
1. There was a scholarship reduction
2. Player was cut
quote:Originally posted by rz1:
Whether it be following a moving coach, or a selfish player looking for greener pastures, the threat of sitting out year may make players think twice about why they are going to college.
Amen to that statment.
quote:Originally posted by infidel_08:
Correct me if I am wrong. Without the year sit provision, if a coach left he could take his stud players with him, theoretically multiplying the competitive edge the receiving school may have bought.
I don't like the year sit idea. Perhaps it could be lightened with a restriction that the players couldn't follow the coach to the same school... if this scenario is a problem.
This is a point I made when I started the thread. While a player could transfer he couldn't follow the coach. Musical rosters would be chaos. If players were allowed to follow the coach there would be the potential for many to leave. But in the past without the "sit rule" how many players left? Most programs tend to recruit in state and then regionally. How many players would relocate halfway across the country if that's where the coach went?