The Bobcat Nation

Obviously all of the recent talk has spurred a lot of different thoughts in lots of different people. In my mind, it got me thinking more about the concept of transfers in general.

I have no problem with the graduate transfer rule, although I think everybody would agree that its premise is a bit of a farce -- people aren't using it for educational purposes (the stated goal of the exception) but are instead using it for athletic motivations. I'm totally fine with that, though. The ends justify the means.

Taking it one step further, how about it we got rid of limitations on transfers all together? We are all in agreement that college football is a business, and that college athletics is (in the minds of many/most fans) a job or a career for each player.

In order to let each player fully determine their own career path (in the same way everybody does in the workforce), is there any reason why we shouldn't let these guys transfer at will in true free market fashion? If a guy does well at the FCS level, let them open themselves up to recruitment to any other school that might be able to use them. If an FBS player sees better opportunities for themselves elsewhere, allow them to transfer to that other school immediately without the punishment of sitting out a season. Basically, let all of the players evaluate their opportunities at any given time and let them improve their own situation by way of transfer any time they think it will be of benefit to them ... just like any other job.

It seems like the rules against transfers are largely a result of collusion between the various universities in order to be able to have as much control over the athletes as possible. Maybe it is time for all of those rules to be blown up so that each athlete can have full control over their own decisions?

SonomaCat wrote:Obviously all of the recent talk has spurred a lot of different thoughts in lots of different people. In my mind, it got me thinking more about the concept of transfers in general.

I have no problem with the graduate transfer rule, although I think everybody would agree that its premise is a bit of a farce -- people aren't using it for educational purposes (the stated goal of the exception) but are instead using it for athletic motivations. I'm totally fine with that, though. The ends justify the means.

Taking it one step further, how about it we got rid of limitations on transfers all together? We are all in agreement that college football is a business, and that college athletics is (in the minds of many/most fans) a job or a career for each player.

In order to let each player fully determine their own career path (in the same way everybody does in the workforce), is there any reason why we shouldn't let these guys transfer at will in true free market fashion? If a guy does well at the FCS level, let them open themselves up to recruitment to any other school that might be able to use them. If an FBS player sees better opportunities for themselves elsewhere, allow them to transfer to that other school immediately without the punishment of sitting out a season. Basically, let all of the players evaluate their opportunities at any given time and let them improve their own situation by way of transfer any time they think it will be of benefit to them ... just like any other job.

It seems like the rules against transfers are largely a result of collusion between the various universities in order to be able to have as much control over the athletes as possible. Maybe it is time for all of those rules to be blown up so that each athlete can have full control over their own decisions?

Your idea would truly turn FCS into the D league. Duckota worked hard and deserves it, but this would decimate the FCS ranks.

allcat wrote:

SonomaCat wrote:Obviously all of the recent talk has spurred a lot of different thoughts in lots of different people. In my mind, it got me thinking more about the concept of transfers in general.

I have no problem with the graduate transfer rule, although I think everybody would agree that its premise is a bit of a farce -- people aren't using it for educational purposes (the stated goal of the exception) but are instead using it for athletic motivations. I'm totally fine with that, though. The ends justify the means.

Taking it one step further, how about it we got rid of limitations on transfers all together? We are all in agreement that college football is a business, and that college athletics is (in the minds of many/most fans) a job or a career for each player.

In order to let each player fully determine their own career path (in the same way everybody does in the workforce), is there any reason why we shouldn't let these guys transfer at will in true free market fashion? If a guy does well at the FCS level, let them open themselves up to recruitment to any other school that might be able to use them. If an FBS player sees better opportunities for themselves elsewhere, allow them to transfer to that other school immediately without the punishment of sitting out a season. Basically, let all of the players evaluate their opportunities at any given time and let them improve their own situation by way of transfer any time they think it will be of benefit to them ... just like any other job.

It seems like the rules against transfers are largely a result of collusion between the various universities in order to be able to have as much control over the athletes as possible. Maybe it is time for all of those rules to be blown up so that each athlete can have full control over their own decisions?

Your idea would truly turn FCS into the D league. Duckota worked hard and deserves it, but this would decimate the FCS ranks.

That's definitely how it is justified currently -- as a way to look out for the business interests of college football programs by taking choices away from the athletes. But thinking about it from the player's perspective, don't they all work hard and don't they all deserve to be able to make the most of the opportunities they have worked for? All of these transfer rules really only serve to artificially limit the ability of athletes to maximize their opportunities.

SonomaCat wrote:Obviously all of the recent talk has spurred a lot of different thoughts in lots of different people. In my mind, it got me thinking more about the concept of transfers in general.

I have no problem with the graduate transfer rule, although I think everybody would agree that its premise is a bit of a farce -- people aren't using it for educational purposes (the stated goal of the exception) but are instead using it for athletic motivations. I'm totally fine with that, though. The ends justify the means.

Taking it one step further, how about it we got rid of limitations on transfers all together? We are all in agreement that college football is a business, and that college athletics is (in the minds of many/most fans) a job or a career for each player.

In order to let each player fully determine their own career path (in the same way everybody does in the workforce), is there any reason why we shouldn't let these guys transfer at will in true free market fashion? If a guy does well at the FCS level, let them open themselves up to recruitment to any other school that might be able to use them. If an FBS player sees better opportunities for themselves elsewhere, allow them to transfer to that other school immediately without the punishment of sitting out a season. Basically, let all of the players evaluate their opportunities at any given time and let them improve their own situation by way of transfer any time they think it will be of benefit to them ... just like any other job.

It seems like the rules against transfers are largely a result of collusion between the various universities in order to be able to have as much control over the athletes as possible. Maybe it is time for all of those rules to be blown up so that each athlete can have full control over their own decisions?

This kid just took advantage of all the opportunities afforded him through a combination of AP and dual enrollment college courses in high school yet it still took him 3.5 years to complete the bachelors program at MSU. Now he's transferring to a school that provides full cost of attendance for graduate work. I'd say we may see many more FCS kids leaving upon completion of their degrees or FCS schools are going to be forced to provide FCOA. FCOA is a great first move by large schools to show their student-athletes they support them.

SonomaCat wrote:

allcat wrote:

SonomaCat wrote:Obviously all of the recent talk has spurred a lot of different thoughts in lots of different people. In my mind, it got me thinking more about the concept of transfers in general.

I have no problem with the graduate transfer rule, although I think everybody would agree that its premise is a bit of a farce -- people aren't using it for educational purposes (the stated goal of the exception) but are instead using it for athletic motivations. I'm totally fine with that, though. The ends justify the means.

Taking it one step further, how about it we got rid of limitations on transfers all together? We are all in agreement that college football is a business, and that college athletics is (in the minds of many/most fans) a job or a career for each player.

In order to let each player fully determine their own career path (in the same way everybody does in the workforce), is there any reason why we shouldn't let these guys transfer at will in true free market fashion? If a guy does well at the FCS level, let them open themselves up to recruitment to any other school that might be able to use them. If an FBS player sees better opportunities for themselves elsewhere, allow them to transfer to that other school immediately without the punishment of sitting out a season. Basically, let all of the players evaluate their opportunities at any given time and let them improve their own situation by way of transfer any time they think it will be of benefit to them ... just like any other job.

It seems like the rules against transfers are largely a result of collusion between the various universities in order to be able to have as much control over the athletes as possible. Maybe it is time for all of those rules to be blown up so that each athlete can have full control over their own decisions?

Your idea would truly turn FCS into the D league. Duckota worked hard and deserves it, but this would decimate the FCS ranks.

That's definitely how it is justified currently -- as a way to look out for the business interests of college football programs by taking choices away from the athletes. But thinking about it from the player's perspective, don't they all work hard and don't they all deserve to be able to make the most of the opportunities they have worked for? All of these transfer rules really only serve to artificially limit the ability of athletes to maximize their opportunities.

The Alabamas used to have 125-150 kids. They could do this again, just by stocking an Fcs school with talent, then they would bring them up and drop them as they needed.

allcat wrote:The Alabamas used to have 125-150 kids. They could do this again, just by stocking an Fcs school with talent, then they would bring them up and drop them as they needed.

Sure, but players are smart enough to know if they are going to be buried on the depth chart (or at least they should be trusted to make that assessment) or anything else that would make it a bad move for them. Let the players make the decision instead of having a huge self-serving government-like entity making arbitrary rules that takes the decisions away from them.

Even the Nfl knows this is a bad idea. Even the pro sports have apprentice periods before they get to cash in.

allcat wrote:Even the Nfl knows this is a bad idea. Even the pro sports have apprentice periods before they get to cash in.

Yeah, the NFL is structured to protect the business interests of the team owners and they do what they can to limit the ability of the players to make their own decisions (draft, salary cap, etc.).

SonomaCat wrote:

allcat wrote:Even the Nfl knows this is a bad idea. Even the pro sports have apprentice periods before they get to cash in.

Yeah, the NFL is structured to protect the business interests of the team owners and they do what they can to limit the ability of the players to make their own decisions (draft, salary cap, etc.).

They know the rich teams would have all the stars

allcat wrote:

SonomaCat wrote:

allcat wrote:Even the Nfl knows this is a bad idea. Even the pro sports have apprentice periods before they get to cash in.

Yeah, the NFL is structured to protect the business interests of the team owners and they do what they can to limit the ability of the players to make their own decisions (draft, salary cap, etc.).

They know the rich teams would have all the stars

They are the largest socialist organization in America as a result of their forced parity.

I don't think that is really a model college sports needs to take its cues from.

SonomaCat wrote:

allcat wrote:

SonomaCat wrote:

allcat wrote:Even the Nfl knows this is a bad idea. Even the pro sports have apprentice periods before they get to cash in.

Yeah, the NFL is structured to protect the business interests of the team owners and they do what they can to limit the ability of the players to make their own decisions (draft, salary cap, etc.).

They know the rich teams would have all the stars

They are the largest socialist organization in America as a result of their forced parity.

I don't think that is really a model college sports needs to take its cues from.

They are only socialist, because that is your take. If it were socialism, they would all be paid the same, and would never have a chance to move.

allcat wrote:

SonomaCat wrote:

allcat wrote:

SonomaCat wrote:

allcat wrote:Even the Nfl knows this is a bad idea. Even the pro sports have apprentice periods before they get to cash in.

Yeah, the NFL is structured to protect the business interests of the team owners and they do what they can to limit the ability of the players to make their own decisions (draft, salary cap, etc.).

They know the rich teams would have all the stars

They are the largest socialist organization in America as a result of their forced parity.

I don't think that is really a model college sports needs to take its cues from.

They are only socialist, because that is your take. If it were socialism, they would all be paid the same, and would never have a chance to move.

It's also the "take" of the commissioner of the NFL:

http://jeffnixon.sportsblog.com/post/32 ... e_nfl.html

So again, I see no reason to look to the NFL for guidance as to how college sports should be run.

You and he are talking about the business as a whole. I thought we were talking about players and their mobility.

allcat wrote:You and he are talking about the business as a whole. I thought we were talking about players and their mobility.

The players and their mobility are also heavily, heavily limited due to socialistic rules. The players don't get to choose where they play (drafted -- worst teams get the highest picks to encourage parity). The players aren't allowed to leave their drafted team until years after they enter the league (and the only reason they are allowed even that is due to a lawsuit filed against the league by a player). There is actually a wage scale based on years of service (as opposed to talent/fair market value). There is a salary cap that limits how much the teams can spend on players (to prevent players from receiving fair market value for their services). These are all rules put in place by the NFL to artificially limit competition.

Again, the NFL is one of the most socialistic organizations in America. There's nothing wrong with that, if you are into that sort of thing, but the fact remains true. I see no reason to use the NFL as a model for college sports in the way you suggested. So can we agree that any further discussion about the NFL is off point?

SonomaCat wrote:

allcat wrote:You and he are talking about the business as a whole. I thought we were talking about players and their mobility.

The players and their mobility are also heavily, heavily limited due to socialistic rules. The players don't get to choose where they play (drafted -- worst teams get the highest picks to encourage parity). The players aren't allowed to leave their drafted team until years after they enter the league (and the only reason they are allowed even that is due to a lawsuit filed against the league by a player). There is actually a wage scale based on years of service (as opposed to talent/fair market value). There is a salary cap that limits how much the teams can spend on players (to prevent players from receiving fair market value for their services). These are all rules put in place by the NFL to artificially limit competition.

Again, the NFL is one of the most socialistic organizations in America. There's nothing wrong with that, if you are into that sort of thing, but the fact remains true. I see no reason to use the NFL as a model for college sports in the way you suggested. So can we agree that any further discussion about the NFL is off point?

It's not socialist, it's a cartel. Pretty substantial difference. And, for better or worse, the ncaa operates as a cartel as well. And while it may be better for the players to be able to transfer at will, it would also be better to pay players their market value, cover them under work comp, pay liscencing rights and so on, that would undermine the ability of the ncaa to operate as a cartel. I'd love to see it happen, but it's not likely ever going to.

onceacat wrote:

SonomaCat wrote:

allcat wrote:You and he are talking about the business as a whole. I thought we were talking about players and their mobility.

The players and their mobility are also heavily, heavily limited due to socialistic rules. The players don't get to choose where they play (drafted -- worst teams get the highest picks to encourage parity). The players aren't allowed to leave their drafted team until years after they enter the league (and the only reason they are allowed even that is due to a lawsuit filed against the league by a player). There is actually a wage scale based on years of service (as opposed to talent/fair market value). There is a salary cap that limits how much the teams can spend on players (to prevent players from receiving fair market value for their services). These are all rules put in place by the NFL to artificially limit competition.

Again, the NFL is one of the most socialistic organizations in America. There's nothing wrong with that, if you are into that sort of thing, but the fact remains true. I see no reason to use the NFL as a model for college sports in the way you suggested. So can we agree that any further discussion about the NFL is off point?

It's not socialist, it's a cartel. Pretty substantial difference. And, for better or worse, the ncaa operates as a cartel as well. And while it may be better for the players to be able to transfer at will, it would also be better to pay players their market value, cover them under work comp, pay liscencing rights and so on, that would undermine the ability of the ncaa to operate as a cartel. I'd love to see it happen, but it's not likely ever going to.

Roger Goddell said the NFL is socialist and a cartel.

I agree that it's unlikely that the NCAA will every treat the players that generate all of the revenue for them as employees ... although its getting harder and harder for them to claim that they aren't employees with a straight face.

I don't know that I'd categorize the NCAA or the NFL as "socialist" but I see your point. However I think most of the rules that are designed to encourage parity are really there to maximize profit. In other words it's probably more profitable to have 25 good teams competing against each other instead of 4 excellent teams beating the crap out of everyone else.

SonomaCat wrote:Obviously all of the recent talk has spurred a lot of different thoughts in lots of different people. In my mind, it got me thinking more about the concept of transfers in general.

I have no problem with the graduate transfer rule, although I think everybody would agree that its premise is a bit of a farce -- people aren't using it for educational purposes (the stated goal of the exception) but are instead using it for athletic motivations. I'm totally fine with that, though. The ends justify the means.

Taking it one step further, how about it we got rid of limitations on transfers all together? We are all in agreement that college football is a business, and that college athletics is (in the minds of many/most fans) a job or a career for each player.

In order to let each player fully determine their own career path (in the same way everybody does in the workforce), is there any reason why we shouldn't let these guys transfer at will in true free market fashion? If a guy does well at the FCS level, let them open themselves up to recruitment to any other school that might be able to use them. If an FBS player sees better opportunities for themselves elsewhere, allow them to transfer to that other school immediately without the punishment of sitting out a season. Basically, let all of the players evaluate their opportunities at any given time and let them improve their own situation by way of transfer any time they think it will be of benefit to them ... just like any other job.

It seems like the rules against transfers are largely a result of collusion between the various universities in order to be able to have as much control over the athletes as possible. Maybe it is time for all of those rules to be blown up so that each athlete can have full control over their own decisions?

I think Prukop will continue at Oregon or somewhere to get his Master's if he doesn't make it with a pro team. He will have worked two semesters toward it by the end of the 2016 season. He could also get a third semester if he opts to train for scouts in Eugene or if things didn't pan out on the field.

As far as transfers, doesn't a free market already exist to some extent? Can't a player transfer at any time to any school, you just have to sit out a year to play? Some transfers don't even require a year to sit if the transfer is to a lower division or a release can be granted by he players current school.

You sit out a year and you lose that year of eligibility.