STILLWATER – Personally, I wish the transfer portal was still something we pictured in an episode of Star Trek. Instead, the NCAA generally doesn’t know where to begin and they are proving with Wednesday’s recommended action regarding the transfer portal that they don’t know where to end.
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:gary121853 said:
Cali & Gumby (& Robert)....as i posted originally ...it is absurd logic to me (given long professional career) that:
1. Me seeking out a better employment opportunity for professional growth would be construed as a 'quitter' mentality
2. That a 3rd party (NCAA) could impose restrictions upon me in pursuit of my goals
First, I don't think using the ability for a person to change employment as a reason for allowing athletes unfettered transfers is valid. If for no other reason, athletes are supposed to be students first. And a multiple transfer rule probably isn't a net positive for the achievement of a college degree given the number of athletes that have given up their scholarship because they're stuck in the portal.
But if you want to go down the employment route, let's at least put it into a more comparable perspective.
How many people are actually willing to (1) quit their job two or more times in 2-4 years, (2) do so without first talking to a perspective employer, (3) forego your current employer paid healthcare benefits and any vacation or other benefit vesting, and (4) run the risk of the the good possibility you are unable to get hired for the rest of your life in your heretofore chosen profession?
I'd guess that population is close to zero.
I agree completely that I am not using a fair apples to apples comparative...ie... indeed, there are unique/important differences between the employment and student-athlete comparative..... however, here is where that defense breaks down.... Everyone (i do mean everyone), put under a spot-light in a dark room and forced to say 'what they truly believe' .....the student-athlete (apple pie and motherhood statements) mantra is a 'thing of the past' .... this college football industry is headed toward a 'pay-for-play' model within the next decade if not sooner..... the networks are tired of paying to subsidize any program(s) (looking at you Vanderbilt - Kansas - Rutgers - etc) that bring no valuable tv content to the party ..... the networks and streaming services can get all the content/inventory of quality games they can eat from the top 30-40 program(s) ... Rutgers getting a $100M(+) check every year for media rights is absurd and networks/streaming services are not going to keep paying top $ for that .... today's student-athlete is tomorrow's employee .... when that transistion is completed.... my 2 points become reality IMHO ...gary121853 said:GumbyFromPokeyLand said:gary121853 said:
Cali & Gumby (& Robert)....as i posted originally ...it is absurd logic to me (given long professional career) that:
1. Me seeking out a better employment opportunity for professional growth would be construed as a 'quitter' mentality
2. That a 3rd party (NCAA) could impose restrictions upon me in pursuit of my goals
First, I don't think using the ability for a person to change employment as a reason for allowing athletes unfettered transfers is valid. If for no other reason, athletes are supposed to be students first. And a multiple transfer rule probably isn't a net positive for the achievement of a college degree given the number of athletes that have given up their scholarship because they're stuck in the portal.
But if you want to go down the employment route, let's at least put it into a more comparable perspective.
How many people are actually willing to (1) quit their job two or more times in 2-4 years, (2) do so without first talking to a perspective employer, (3) forego your current employer paid healthcare benefits and any vacation or other benefit vesting, and (4) run the risk of the the good possibility you are unable to get hired for the rest of your life in your heretofore chosen profession?
I'd guess that population is close to zero.
absolutely .... the structure of the whole legal entity will have to be addressed at the proper time .... maybe the independent athletic depts today end up having to pay license fee(s) for logo use ... conference realignment(s) are just step one in long painful process ....sadly..CaliforniaCowboy said:
I don't dispute anything that you say in that post Gary, but I don't believe that you have carried the demise of college football to it's eventual end (figuratively)...
If there is ever an employee "pay for play" model, then those programs should no longer be able to claim "nonprofit" status, and all such revenues would become taxable.
the Universities have been able to maintain their nonprofit status with regard to sports, because the "profit" was used to fund scholarships for other athletes, and there was no "payroll". The sport was a means to pay for the opportunity for the kids to participate athletically and provide an educational opportunity. The P&L statements were primarily for the benefit of the school to obtain loans and bonds.
IMO, it would be very difficult for the Universities to prove that pay-for-play multi-mega dollar TV contracts are in any way beneficial to the students nonprofit education opportunity.
If they lose nonprofit status for athletics, then athletics will need to be set up as a separate LLC or some other type of corporation.... perhaps even allowing boosters to become stock holders (like Green Bay does).
gary121853 said:
Im sorry ...you kind of lost me with the rant ...are you simply doubting the long-term possibility that the student-athlete to employee and non-profit to for profit model(s) is not a possibility? Then just say so ...
that number would be so few that it's not really worth much debate. The issue is NOT if they can transfer, they should be able, you sound concerned about illegal recruiting through NIL. I agree that should be curtailed, whether it's their first transfer or their 2nd or 3rd, or straight out of HS.GumbyFromPokeyLand said:
Right, there are probably very, very few that need a third chance - unless they're continuously shopping for a bigger and better NIL deal. We don't need a system that promotes or encourages cheating.
