Should players have to sit a year after transferin

[kramer]

The yearly renewable deal is one of the biggest crocks in the NCAA. Kids get screwed having to sit out a year if they want to go elsewhere. Meanwhile, coaches can jump around, get paid, as can AD's and everyone else that is making millions on these kids.

 

[Benard]

You have to have this rule or it would be a big mess. Anytime a player was pissed at a coach, they would transfer. There would hundereds every year.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

You have to have this rule or it would be a big mess. Anytime a player was pissed at a coach, they would transfer. There would hundereds every year.

Benard I actually agree with you on this. There has to be something to keep kids from bolting year after year. I do think there should be some instances where the players shouldn't have to sit. Like if the coach bolts, gets fired.

 

[Eric the Red]

You have to have this rule or it would be a big mess.  Anytime a player was pissed at a coach, they would transfer.  There would hundereds every year.

Benard I actually agree with you on this. There has to be something to keep kids from bolting year after year. I do think there should be some instances where the players shouldn't have to sit. Like if the coach bolts, gets fired.

But then you would run into that same problem = A Big Mess...It's tough if I were a a player or parent of a player, I would ditch the rule. I'm a fan so I almost need the rule in place. It would be a to complicated.

You always tell kids to grow up and act like adults. But then the coaches jet whenever a "better deal" comes around, so why can't the students.

Although you are at a University and without continuity in your schedule it would become tougher to graduate.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

One of the reasons behind this rule is to help curb having programs constantly raiding other programs. Decades ago - before the NCAA - it was not uncommon for kids to jump from program to program to program. In essence, they became carpetbaggers looking for the best deal. Teams would use any means necessary to get them - sort of like CU today.

The rule prevents this from happening, and is supposed to help foster the image of the athlete being a student first.

 

[Red November]

They should be able to go where they want, when they want.

 

[gamecocks]

I totally agree with Benard and AR, if they didn't have to sit out then teams would be raiding each other all the time. Any time a team had a down year, other teams would come in and grab their players because they would promise them success.

 

[Eric the Red]

I totally agree with Benard and AR, if they didn't have to sit out then teams would be raiding each other all the time. Any time a team had a down year, other teams would come in and grab their players because they would promise them success.

But the coaches will leave when something is promised or appears better to them...

 

[gamecocks]

But for the coaches, it is a job. For the players, their first responsiblity is to be a student.

 

[Benard]

You have to have this rule or it would be a big mess.  Anytime a player was pissed at a coach, they would transfer.  There would hundereds every year.

Benard I actually agree with you on this. There has to be something to keep kids from bolting year after year. I do think there should be some instances where the players shouldn't have to sit. Like if the coach bolts, gets fired.

But then you would run into that same problem = A Big Mess...It's tough if I were a a player or parent of a player, I would ditch the rule. I'm a fan so I almost need the rule in place. It would be a to complicated.

You always tell kids to grow up and act like adults. But then the coaches jet whenever a "better deal" comes around, so why can't the students.

Although you are at a University and without continuity in your schedule it would become tougher to graduate.

I think the best rule would be that a player can transfer without sitting out a year to another school if the team fires a coach. This would make people like pederson think twice about firing coaches and not so many coaches would get fired. I just don't think it's fair to alot of kids that if they bring in a new coach and they run a different offense say west coast compared to option then they shouldn't have to stay. just my opinion.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

You have to have this rule or it would be a big mess.  Anytime a player was pissed at a coach, they would transfer.  There would hundereds every year.

Benard I actually agree with you on this. There has to be something to keep kids from bolting year after year. I do think there should be some instances where the players shouldn't have to sit. Like if the coach bolts, gets fired.

But then you would run into that same problem = A Big Mess...It's tough if I were a a player or parent of a player, I would ditch the rule. I'm a fan so I almost need the rule in place. It would be a to complicated.

You always tell kids to grow up and act like adults. But then the coaches jet whenever a "better deal" comes around, so why can't the students.

Although you are at a University and without continuity in your schedule it would become tougher to graduate.

I think the best rule would be that a player can transfer without sitting out a year to another school if the team fires a coach. This would make people like pederson think twice about firing coaches and not so many coaches would get fired. I just don't think it's fair to alot of kids that if they bring in a new coach and they run a different offense say west coast compared to option then they shouldn't have to stay. just my opinion.

Nobody forces anybody to stay if they fire a coach. Players can transfer if they don't like the firing/hiring. I don't think making a rule that stops people from getting fired is helping anything. It is a job people get fired everyday.

 

[Benard]

You have to have this rule or it would be a big mess.  Anytime a player was pissed at a coach, they would transfer.  There would hundereds every year.

Benard I actually agree with you on this. There has to be something to keep kids from bolting year after year. I do think there should be some instances where the players shouldn't have to sit. Like if the coach bolts, gets fired.

But then you would run into that same problem = A Big Mess...It's tough if I were a a player or parent of a player, I would ditch the rule. I'm a fan so I almost need the rule in place. It would be a to complicated.

You always tell kids to grow up and act like adults. But then the coaches jet whenever a "better deal" comes around, so why can't the students.

Although you are at a University and without continuity in your schedule it would become tougher to graduate.

I think the best rule would be that a player can transfer without sitting out a year to another school if the team fires a coach. This would make people like pederson think twice about firing coaches and not so many coaches would get fired. I just don't think it's fair to alot of kids that if they bring in a new coach and they run a different offense say west coast compared to option then they shouldn't have to stay. just my opinion.

Nobody forces anybody to stay if they fire a coach. Players can transfer if they don't like the firing/hiring. I don't think making a rule that stops people from getting fired is helping anything. It is a job people get fired everyday.

Yeah but they have to sit out a year. Would you want to sit out a year? No

most people don't want to sit out a year.

I'm not really making the rule to stop the firing of head coaches, I'm making it for the players who get screwed in the process of a firing of a coach when they made a big decision in their life to go play for that coach and that system. I also think the firing of coaches have gotten outragous in the past 5 years. Look back 10 to 15 years ago and you might have seen 5 coaches fired a year and most of them are for getting in trouble a just a couple for records. Now it is a business and not a game.