A difference between a coach leaving on his own vs. being fired?

Putting this in the college football forum, but could just as easily pertain to college basketball as well. Seems like there's already been several announcements about college coaches being fired, or in one instance (Chris Peterson) stepping down on his own.

It begs the question, at least in my mind, what options should there be for the athletes who were recruited to come play for that particular coach.

I've seen one end of the spectrum who staunchly maintain that the athletes should have NO choice...that they came to play for the school, not the coach. Doesn't matter if Mickey Mouse will be at the helm next, they are still tied to whomever the next guy is.

The other end of the spectrum says kids should be able to leave whenever they want to, if the guy who recruited them is no longer there.

Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle. If a coach is fired, then everyone he's recruited has a right to opt out. Regardless of what schools may think, the majority of decision making is dependent on who the head coach is. You can't change that one factor and still expect everyone would've made the same commitment. But, on the other hand...if a coach leaves on his own...then there's no way he should be able to take his players with him. You can't have a coach with the ability to singlehandedly build one program up by simply destroying another. There'd need to be a waiting period.

Where stand you?

Kids should always be allowed to transfer, regardless of the circumstances. What other segment of the student-population do we restrtict from being able to choose a different school?

Players should be allowed to leave and transfer whenever they want, wherever they want, regardless of what their coach does.

Every student athlete should get one free transfer, for whatever reason, without having to sit out. Beyond that, they should always have to sit out. The waiver process has become so arbitrary, the NCAA should just get out of that business and give every kid one freebie.

I will add, a part of the problem is student athletes aren't picking schools the same way "regular students" are, they are going for who kisses me the most often, how many banners are up there, and who is the coach today.

What other segment of the student-population do we restrtict from being able to choose a different school?

This is a false narrative, student athletes at Division 1 schools aren't treated anything like regular students once they are there, why should we apply this narrative to transfers? Chemistry students don't get cost of living stipends, they don't unlimited food, they don't get chartered airfare and steak dinners around chemistry competitions, so sorry if a little more is expected of the student athlete.

Every student athlete should get one free transfer, for whatever reason, without having to sit out. Beyond that, they should always have to sit out. The waiver process has become so arbitrary, the NCAA should just get out of that business and give every kid one freebie.

 

I will add, a part of the problem is student athletes aren't picking schools the same way "regular students" are, they are going for who kisses me the most often, how many banners are up there, and who is the coach today.

I agree with the one free transfer rule and I believe the NCAA already does that in baseball.

I think kids that have signed LOI, should have the option of going on to the school or released from it if there is a coaching change at any point after they sign up until they enroll.

As for others, I agree with one free transfer but I think they should still have to sit out for a year. If an additional legitimate hardship comes up that should be ruled on by a third party outside of the NCAA.

I also think it should be much harder for a new coach to pull scholarships from existing players.

I would agree with giving each kid 1 free transfer, but I would also put steep stipulations if any contact from either side of the recruiting process reached out before a name hit the transfer portal.

If parents or handlers were found to reach out to another program before entering the portal, they would lose the year...if college coaches reached out, NCAA sanctions.

This is a false narrative, student athletes at Division 1 schools aren't treated anything like regular students once they are there, why should we apply this narrative to transfers? Chemistry students don't get cost of living stipends, they don't unlimited food, they don't get chartered airfare and steak dinners around chemistry competitions, so sorry if a little more is expected of the student athlete.

Chemistry students also don't generate millions of dollars for the institutions on a yearly basis either. We can play that card both ways. Yes, athletes get some things normal students don't. They also make sacrifices other students don't.

If we really want to use the term Student Athlete, then athletes should be able to transfer, without sitting out, just like any other student could.

I think a big problem with this is many look at it from a doomsday scenario where every kid from every school will be transferring every season. To begin, a small segment have any interest in ever transferring. Most kids assume a sense of loyalty towards the universities they sign with. There are only so many slots available.

I get the deterrent in place of making kids sit out a year when transferring. But what really is gained out of this? For every scenario player X is transferring to be on a better team, player Y is transferring because a new guy is being brought in to take their minutes. Regardless of the situation, the student-athlete is making the decision to leave because he/she has determined it is the best move for their future. Isn't that what college is supposed to be about? Setting yourself up for the future? In what walk of life do we say, "I made a poor decision in coming here (or you made a mistake in hiring me). However, since I agreed to work for you, instead of parting ways for the better of both sides, I will stay here against my will in the name of entertainment."

Chemistry students also don't generate millions of dollars for the institutions on a yearly basis either. We can play that card both ways. Yes, athletes get some things normal students don't. They also make sacrifices other students don't.

That is my point, they aren't like every other student, so saying we are going to treat them that way is disingenuous.

I think you'll see the NCAA end up with the Everyone gets a Free Transfer, no sit-out year, over the next two years.

Players should be allowed to leave and transfer whenever they want, wherever they want, regardless of what their coach does.

So, if Miami would've waived a big enough check in front of Petrino after Lamar's freshman year, and he took it...you'd have no problem with him being able to take Jackson with him?

So, if Miami would've waived a big enough check in front of Petrino after Lamar's freshman year, and he took it...you'd have no problem with him being able to take Jackson with him?

From the standpoint of the athlete, absolutely not.

Putting this in the college football forum, but could just as easily pertain to college basketball as well. Seems like there's already been several announcements about college coaches being fired, or in one instance (Chris Peterson) stepping down on his own.

 

It begs the question, at least in my mind, what options should there be for the athletes who were recruited to come play for that particular coach.

 

I've seen one end of the spectrum who staunchly maintain that the athletes should have NO choice...that they came to play for the school, not the coach. Doesn't matter if Mickey Mouse will be at the helm next, they are still tied to whomever the next guy is.

 

The other end of the spectrum says kids should be able to leave whenever they want to, if the guy who recruited them is no longer there.

 

Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle. If a coach is fired, then everyone he's recruited has a right to opt out. Regardless of what schools may think, the majority of decision making is dependent on who the head coach is. You can't change that one factor and still expect everyone would've made the same commitment. But, on the other hand...if a coach leaves on his own...then there's no way he should be able to take his players with him. You can't have a coach with the ability to singlehandedly build one program up by simply destroying another. There'd need to be a waiting period.

 

Where stand you?

First, the scholarship should be for four years, instead of year to year. If the coach leaves so be it, the student stays in place. The student committed to the four year deal with the said school, not the coach. The coach is not paying for the scholarship out of his pocket.