Interesting thought with all this coach hopping..

[RegionWarrior101]

Heard on the Jonathan Kincaide show this weekend the idea about "being under contract" and still interviewing for other jobs like what happens with college football coaches. How many other jobs can you be under a contract and negotiate with another entity? It is a good point on how these coaches can jump from place to place for a pay raise, but a player has to sit for a season if they don't like the situation they are in.

His idea was if a coach does that they have to #1, quit their job and sit out a year before applying for the next gig or if a school hires a coach, put a transfer rule in like a player and they have to sit out a year. Like Jimbo Fisher just signed last year through 2025? then bolts a year later?

 

[Bob the Boiler]

Heard on the Jonathan Kincaide show this weekend the idea about "being under contract" and still interviewing for other jobs like what happens with college football coaches. How many other jobs can you be under a contract and negotiate with another entity? It is a good point on how these coaches can jump from place to place for a pay raise, but a player has to sit for a season if they don't like the situation they are in.

His idea was if a coach does that they have to #1, quit their job and sit out a year before applying for the next gig or if a school hires a coach, put a transfer rule in like a player and they have to sit out a year. Like Jimbo Fisher just signed last year through 2025? then bolts a year later?

I like some sort of idea like this. Or, structure the contract like the NFL players for the coaches. If Jimbo wants to leave, then they can trade him. Maybe get $$ from the other school plus their D coordinator and a percentage of concession / ticket revenue for 3 years. It would make it more interesting and less appealing for schools to poach.

 

[snowsquirrel11]

Your idea sounds fair and reasonable but unfortunately fair and reason matter little when big $$$ are at stake. No way the schools or NCAA institute something like this IMHKO.

 

[Purdue85]

Heard on the Jonathan Kincaide show this weekend the idea about "being under contract" and still interviewing for other jobs like what happens with college football coaches. How many other jobs can you be under a contract and negotiate with another entity? It is a good point on how these coaches can jump from place to place for a pay raise, but a player has to sit for a season if they don't like the situation they are in.

His idea was if a coach does that they have to #1, quit their job and sit out a year before applying for the next gig or if a school hires a coach, put a transfer rule in like a player and they have to sit out a year. Like Jimbo Fisher just signed last year through 2025? then bolts a year later?

I'd be surprised if you're under contract with your current position, but is that what you want for yourself? Don't be offended, but do you want to have to sit for a year if you find a better opportunity?

I've advanced this theme with a couple other posts/threads, and I'm astounded the hurdles/obstacles some people want to put in the way of the careers for other people.

You want to have Purdue pay Brohm to sit for a year if he finds another opportunity that better suits him? Or have him sit on his own dime? Or, just create an obstacle so other programs don't offer him a better opportunity?

Is that what people want for themselves? For the government (or some other entity) to create mandatory barriers to bettering their careers . . . and the opportunity to provide for their families???

 

[Bob the Boiler]

I'd be surprised if you're under contract with your current position, but is that what you want for yourself? Don't be offended, but do you want to have to sit for a year if you find a better opportunity?

I've advanced this theme with a couple other posts/threads, and I'm astounded the hurdles/obstacles some people want to put in the way of the careers for other people.

You want to have Purdue pay Brohm to sit for a year if he finds another opportunity that better suits him? Or have him sit on his own dime? Or, just create an obstacle so other programs don't offer him a better opportunity?

Is that what people want for themselves? For the government (or some other entity) to create mandatory barriers to bettering their careers . . . and the opportunity to provide for their families???

I agree, but people have to sign non-compete clauses every day.....

 

[Purdue85]

I agree, but people have to sign non-compete clauses every day.....

That's true. And a compelling argument.

IMO, it's naive to think we're going to get coaches to start signing non-compete clauses. The best we're going to get is what we have . . . buyout clauses. That seems fair to me (although, I detest the word "fair", because much in life isn't "fair").

To illustrate, consider how difficult it is to get coaches to move from one school to another. Brohm was reluctant to leave WKU. UT can't get a coach to listen to them. FSU is searching, and it isn't a given they'll get who they want.

Non-compete????! You want me to sign WHAT??!

 

[Bob the Boiler]

A

That's true. And a compelling argument.

IMO, it's naive to think we're going to get coaches to start signing non-compete clauses. The best we're going to get is what we have . . . buyout clauses. That seems fair to me (although, I detest the word "fair", because much in life isn't "fair").

To illustrate, consider how difficult it is to get coaches to move from one school to another. Brohm was reluctant to leave WKU. UT can't get a coach to listen to them. FSU is searching, and it isn't a given they'll get who they want.

Non-compete????! You want me to sign WHAT??!

S
Agree - it will never happen.

 

[nat100]

I agree, but people have to sign non-compete clauses every day.....

There are limitations to the enforceability of non competes. Given the limited number of comparable head coaching gigs, no way any court would enforce one.

 

[MilwaukeeBoilerFan]

Heard on the Jonathan Kincaide show this weekend the idea about "being under contract" and still interviewing for other jobs like what happens with college football coaches. How many other jobs can you be under a contract and negotiate with another entity? It is a good point on how these coaches can jump from place to place for a pay raise, but a player has to sit for a season if they don't like the situation they are in.

His idea was if a coach does that they have to #1, quit their job and sit out a year before applying for the next gig or if a school hires a coach, put a transfer rule in like a player and they have to sit out a year. Like Jimbo Fisher just signed last year through 2025? then bolts a year later?

All intentions are good, however, Jimbo Fisher resigned from his current contract to pick up the new contract. The only way around that is the non compete clause holding them where they no longer want to be. Have to have all Div I colleges onboard or some universities will not be as attractive to sign with.
I do like the idea and the NFL has the reigns on it pretty good. Poaching should have some illegal penalties to both the University poaching and the coaches should be disbarred with no payment, no coaching if purposely attempting to breach contract.
Slow down that runaway train.

 

[SKYDOG]

A
S
Agree - it will never happen.

It will never happen, so these coaches should not sign contracts that they won't honor.No one is holding them hostage to sign these long term contracts. The universities have to honor them should they fire the coach for poor performance.

 

[Bob the Boiler]

It will never happen, so these coaches should not sign contracts that they won't honor.No one is holding them hostage to sign these long term contracts. The universities have to honor them should they fire the coach for poor performance.

Agreed. It is clearly one-sided. No one should get rewarded for getting fired. Look how much we paid Hazell - it makes me sick.

 

[MilwaukeeBoilerFan]

I'd be surprised if you're under contract with your current position, but is that what you want for yourself? Don't be offended, but do you want to have to sit for a year if you find a better opportunity?

I've advanced this theme with a couple other posts/threads, and I'm astounded the hurdles/obstacles some people want to put in the way of the careers for other people.

You want to have Purdue pay Brohm to sit for a year if he finds another opportunity that better suits him? Or have him sit on his own dime? Or, just create an obstacle so other programs don't offer him a better opportunity?

Is that what people want for themselves? For the government (or some other entity) to create mandatory barriers to bettering their careers . . . and the opportunity to provide for their families???

I'm not crying for coaches making millions of dollars and poor performance. What I want to know is how the NFL model works with coaches not be poached as heavily as they are with Div I colleges. Granted the NFL has 32 teams and owners have to face each other at least once a year with a President residing over it. NCAA has ~ 4 times that amount with more conferences and boosters willing to pay amounts that are now higher than NFL coaches (see Saban and Harbaugh salaries to name a few). The depths of SEC scandals has surfaced with UT & backstabbing to get AD Currie fired. UT is $13.8 million on the hook for Butch Jones & AD Currie and they are no closer to having a coach today. Fulmer gets a fatter wallet, Schiano may have a litigious case with reports of MOU signed by both AD Currie and Schiano that could put them on the hook for $33.8 million to a Public Institution for a Coaching Search! You see my point with the Train being a runaway, derailing & leaving the tracks? It is sickening and needs to be reigned in.
Yes, we are talking about contracts, yes it is an entertainment industry, yes their should be a cap for College Coaches so taxpayers and/or students are not on the hook for a dime if things go sour. If they want more money, then punch their ticket for the NFL. See how much your really worth at the pinnacle of your profession. Don't come to me crying that contracts are unfair and holding people back. Get a dose of reality. Most other professions have progression that leads to next level. Here NCAA football has attempted and in some cases hired NFL coaches for more money than when they left the NFL. That is stepping backwards and making more which only raises the bar for all other coaches. It is absurd and needs to be curbed. NCAA President Mark Emmert should shed some light on the UT, Texas A & M, Alabama, tO$U, Michigan coaches hiring practices to see what has gone awry and fix it. Compensating at Industry levels is needed now more than ever. Do not let a few colleges pull the "New York Yankee method of spending for players" in the pre-2000 era and dictate the wage salaries for all other coaches in the NCAA industry. That is my honest opinion.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

I'd be surprised if you're under contract with your current position, but is that what you want for yourself? Don't be offended, but do you want to have to sit for a year if you find a better opportunity?

I've advanced this theme with a couple other posts/threads, and I'm astounded the hurdles/obstacles some people want to put in the way of the careers for other people.

You want to have Purdue pay Brohm to sit for a year if he finds another opportunity that better suits him? Or have him sit on his own dime? Or, just create an obstacle so other programs don't offer him a better opportunity?

Is that what people want for themselves? For the government (or some other entity) to create mandatory barriers to bettering their careers . . . and the opportunity to provide for their families???

I have never been under a multiyear contract, just year to year. A multiyear deal would have pros and cons- Job security for the length of the contract would be good and I understand an another opportunity could come around that I could potentially miss out on. If I felt another job might be around the corner I do not reup for 4 years or 6 years or whatever.

If the players have to sit for a year, yes, I think the multimillionaire coach should sit for a year. Level the playing field.

 

[Bob Sienicki]

One issue I haven't seen discussed in this thread yet is how all these restrictions will affect programs who want to fire their coaches. If Purdue would have been unable to get Brohm for a year, if at all, would Brohm have chosen to avoid the risk and stay at WKU? And would we have had to stick with Hazell until his contract was up? Or hire an unproven coach from the HS ranks? Or hope there would have been a washed up nfl head coach or coordinator that would be available?

And when Hazell's contract would have been up - keep in mind that recruiting would have REALLY tanked when Hazell was not getting the prerequisite recruit confidence-building contract extensions - would we have been happy choosing from whatever limited pool of coaches who were also having their contracts expire (i.e. being fired)???

This reminds me of when I moved to Sedona, AZ - a very gifted town with incredible beauty. Seems like every retiree who moved there wanted to "shut the door" behind them and prevent anyone else from moving there and thereby ruin the small town ambiance. A lot of good that did! (not)

I understand we don't want to lose Brohm. But odds are, we eventually will. I knew that from before we ever announced him. But there is reason to be hopeful... One has to keep in mind why successful coaches move to new programs - and it is not always because of getting a big raise. Some other reasons:
1) to move up in level of competition and/or prestige,
2) to build a program up from scratch or long-time dormancy (see Brohm) and become enshrined in that program's legacy,
3) to return to their roots (their home town, their family, their school, etc.),
4) because they know their current program cannot sustain success and they want to jump while their "iron is hot",
5) because they are looking for security and/or a place to settle in until they retire,
6) to return to a P5 program after having blown their first attempt and resurrected their career at a smaller school,
7) to jump to another up and coming program by inheriting the prior coach's success in recruiting, and
8) numerous other reasons.

But #7 is what is relevant here. Because what I expect is that Brohm will become so successful that while he raises his own stock, he will raise the perception of the Purdue brand to where we won't be a P5 doormat, but rather an exciting, up and coming program. At that point, I have no doubt there will be excellent, promising coaches who will want to step in and continue to build the program up, like Xavier in basketball (Pete Gillen, Skip Prosser, Thad Matta, Sean Miller, Chris Mack.) Except, Purdue has advantages over Xavier in that we compete in the B1G and for a host of other reasons. Add in the fact that we already have an enduring brand - "Cradle of Quarterbacks" and "Den of Defensive Ends" - we will always be an intriguing option for another up and coming coach, whether they eventually leave or not. And eventually, with any luck in future hires, our program will join the elite and at some point, we will become a true destination job - regardless of whether Brohm stays or not.

JMHOAU

 

[hamcoboiler]

I think this makes sense and would be something the NCAA would want to see. But college football is run by the power 5 not the NCAA. No way it gets done.

The NCAA doesn’t even crown a football champion. That tells you who is in control.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

I have never been under a multiyear contract, just year to year. A multiyear deal would have pros and cons- Job security for the length of the contract would be good and I understand an another opportunity could come around that I could potentially miss out on. If I felt another job might be around the corner I do not reup for 4 years or 6 years or whatever.

If the players have to sit for a year, yes, I think the multimillionaire coach should sit for a year. Level the playing field.

I like the idea of levelling the playing field, but don't think there's any chance of going at it from the coaches' side. You have to level it the other way. I think that, if a coach leaves before his contract is up, the transfer restrictions should be waived for the players on his team. Honestly, I think having to sit out a year is a BS rule anyway. And don't even get me started on schools being able to "restrict" which schools a student can transfer to.

 

[Purdue85]

I have never been under a multiyear contract, just year to year. A multiyear deal would have pros and cons- Job security for the length of the contract would be good and I understand an another opportunity could come around that I could potentially miss out on. If I felt another job might be around the corner I do not reup for 4 years or 6 years or whatever.

If the players have to sit for a year, yes, I think the multimillionaire coach should sit for a year. Level the playing field.

there's no playing field that needs to be leveled.

For coaches, this is their profession. Student/athletes are being provided 4+ years of tuition-free education in exchange for playing a game.

Call it naive, call it what you will, but the student/athlete needs to be going to a school for an education and an opportunity to play sports, and the coaches need to be coaching for a living.

 

[Purdue85]

I'm not crying for coaches making millions of dollars and poor performance. What I want to know is how the NFL model works with coaches not be poached as heavily as they are with Div I colleges. Granted the NFL has 32 teams and owners have to face each other at least once a year with a President residing over it. NCAA has ~ 4 times that amount with more conferences and boosters willing to pay amounts that are now higher than NFL coaches (see Saban and Harbaugh salaries to name a few). The depths of SEC scandals has surfaced with UT & backstabbing to get AD Currie fired. UT is $13.8 million on the hook for Butch Jones & AD Currie and they are no closer to having a coach today. Fulmer gets a fatter wallet, Schiano may have a litigious case with reports of MOU signed by both AD Currie and Schiano that could put them on the hook for $33.8 million to a Public Institution for a Coaching Search! You see my point with the Train being a runaway, derailing & leaving the tracks? It is sickening and needs to be reigned in.
Yes, we are talking about contracts, yes it is an entertainment industry, yes their should be a cap for College Coaches so taxpayers and/or students are not on the hook for a dime if things go sour. If they want more money, then punch their ticket for the NFL. See how much your really worth at the pinnacle of your profession. Don't come to me crying that contracts are unfair and holding people back. Get a dose of reality. Most other professions have progression that leads to next level. Here NCAA football has attempted and in some cases hired NFL coaches for more money than when they left the NFL. That is stepping backwards and making more which only raises the bar for all other coaches. It is absurd and needs to be curbed. NCAA President Mark Emmert should shed some light on the UT, Texas A & M, Alabama, tO$U, Michigan coaches hiring practices to see what has gone awry and fix it. Compensating at Industry levels is needed now more than ever. Do not let a few colleges pull the "New York Yankee method of spending for players" in the pre-2000 era and dictate the wage salaries for all other coaches in the NCAA industry. That is my honest opinion.

I'm not crying for them, either, and that doesn't change my points.

The contracts serve a purpose in the open market. That's the way it should work.

Each contract is different, based on the value of the person under contract.

I disagree that train is runaway, derailing and leaving the tracks. It's what the people want. If they didn't, it wouldn't happen. Fans demand Nick Saban-type results. So, they try to buy those results on the open market. And fail. That's what happens in a free market.

We have people on this forum p*ssing and moaning about Burke being too miserly. It's a "d@mned if you do, d@mned if you don't" business!

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

there's no playing field that needs to be leveled.

For coaches, this is their profession. Student/athletes are being provided 4+ years of tuition-free education in exchange for playing a game.

Call it naive, call it what you will, but the student/athlete needs to be going to a school for an education and an opportunity to play sports, and the coaches need to be coaching for a living.

I am of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I agree with you that the student/athlete is there for a (free) education.

On the other hand, the fact is that the labor of these kids is being used to make billions of dollars for other people. "All" they are currently getting out of it is the education. Shouldn't they be able to capitalize on their talents and labor?

Like I said, I'm of two minds.

I wonder what the numbers would look like if you took the hours that the athletes "work" on their sport for the university, multiplied it by the minimum wage, and then subtracted the cost of their education, room, board, etc. Would there be a surplus or a deficit? It'd be interesting to see the numbers.

 

[Inspector100]

I am of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I agree with you that the student/athlete is there for a (free) education.

On the other hand, the fact is that the labor of these kids is being used to make billions of dollars for other people. "All" they are currently getting out of it is the education. Shouldn't they be able to capitalize on their talents and labor?

Like I said, I'm of two minds.

I wonder what the numbers would look like if you took the hours that the athletes "work" on their sport for the university, multiplied it by the minimum wage, and then subtracted the cost of their education, room, board, etc. Would there be a surplus or a deficit? It'd be interesting to see the numbers.

When you work for an employer, all the employee of that employer make hay on their own accomplishments. Further, these students will make their worth in this society with the results of their efforts, both academically and athletically. This is sort of like the unions that have training and apprentice programs. You don't make any money while participating. You make your money after you have completed the effort, got your certification and then worked at a job. So let's look at it another way. Maybe all the Little League baseball players should be paid for playing their games. I don't think so.

 

[Purdue85]

I am of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I agree with you that the student/athlete is there for a (free) education.

On the other hand, the fact is that the labor of these kids is being used to make billions of dollars for other people. "All" they are currently getting out of it is the education. Shouldn't they be able to capitalize on their talents and labor?

Like I said, I'm of two minds.

I wonder what the numbers would look like if you took the hours that the athletes "work" on their sport for the university, multiplied it by the minimum wage, and then subtracted the cost of their education, room, board, etc. Would there be a surplus or a deficit? It'd be interesting to see the numbers.

I've grown tired of this argument that "the kids" are being "used". They're not. They (and their parents and/or legal guardians) know full well the situation, and they willing choose to go down that path.

Oh, hell no, "the kids" are not being "used". They're receiving a tuition-free education and (in most circumstances) being treated like gods in the process. Do they work hard? Absolutely! Do they sustain injuries as a result of the games they play? Well, yes, sometimes. But, let's be clear: the Purdue football players aren't going to be boarding a broken down bus to head to California to play in a bowl game, Pastor! They won't be staying in the Motel 6 with the commoners, nor will they be dining on Ramen noodles, peanut butter and soda crackers.

And if you're looking for imputed value, you'll need to take the present value of that education which costs tens of thousands of dollars a year (plus!), along with the multiple contacts (i.e., the network these guys can develop), and find some way to put that in your equation. In other words, there's no way you can begin to put a price tag on the tremendous value they're presented with. There's no way to assign the astronomical dollar value to a Purdue (or Northwestern, or pick-your-school) education these lucky few are receiving.

Pardon me, but I'm going to be blunt and very direct . . . It's lunacy for players or fans to suggest, imply, or even word an argument that leads a reader to infer that these guys are somehow being shafted and might be due some form of compensation. (No, you didn't come out and say that.)

Minimum wage?! BALDERDASH.

Tying a coach's contract to a student/athlete's free ride is completely irrelevant, and lacking in common sense. IMHO, of course.

Apologies up front to those that are hurt or offended by this. There wasn't anything wrong with the same system 40-50 years ago that generated profits for public and private schools, and the same is true today. The only difference is the numbers .

 

[stout1]

I've grown tired of this argument that "the kids" are being "used". They're not. They (and their parents and/or legal guardians) know full well the situation, and they willing choose to go down that path.

My brother has worked on the staff of 2 P5 FB teams.

He will tell you NEVER feel sorry Div I FB and BB players. Other scholarship athletes o get the short end much of the time, but FB and BB players have it pretty good.

 

[boiler_89_]

Heard on the Jonathan Kincaide show this weekend the idea about "being under contract" and still interviewing for other jobs like what happens with college football coaches. How many other jobs can you be under a contract and negotiate with another entity? It is a good point on how these coaches can jump from place to place for a pay raise, but a player has to sit for a season if they don't like the situation they are in.

His idea was if a coach does that they have to #1, quit their job and sit out a year before applying for the next gig or if a school hires a coach, put a transfer rule in like a player and they have to sit out a year. Like Jimbo Fisher just signed last year through 2025? then bolts a year later?

Buyout. Most don’t have them in their contract.

 

[Frankie611]

Why not just let the kids transfer restriction free as well? The coaches can do it, why not the players?

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

I've grown tired of this argument that "the kids" are being "used". They're not. They (and their parents and/or legal guardians) know full well the situation, and they willing choose to go down that path.

Oh, hell no, "the kids" are not being "used". They're receiving a tuition-free education and (in most circumstances) being treated like gods in the process. Do they work hard? Absolutely! Do they sustain injuries as a result of the games they play? Well, yes, sometimes. But, let's be clear: the Purdue football players aren't going to be boarding a broken down bus to head to California to play in a bowl game, Pastor! They won't be staying in the Motel 6 with the commoners, nor will they be dining on Ramen noodles, peanut butter and soda crackers.

And if you're looking for imputed value, you'll need to take the present value of that education which costs tens of thousands of dollars a year (plus!), along with the multiple contacts (i.e., the network these guys can develop), and find some way to put that in your equation. In other words, there's no way you can begin to put a price tag on the tremendous value they're presented with. There's no way to assign the astronomical dollar value to a Purdue (or Northwestern, or pick-your-school) education these lucky few are receiving.

Pardon me, but I'm going to be blunt and very direct . . . It's lunacy for players or fans to suggest, imply, or even word an argument that leads a reader to infer that these guys are somehow being shafted and might be due some form of compensation. (No, you didn't come out and say that.)

Minimum wage?! BALDERDASH.

Tying a coach's contract to a student/athlete's free ride is completely irrelevant, and lacking in common sense. IMHO, of course.

Apologies up front to those that are hurt or offended by this. There wasn't anything wrong with the same system 40-50 years ago that generated profits for public and private schools, and the same is true today. The only difference is the numbers .

The difference in number is *huge,* though. And that can change things. If, in your career, you did something that made your bosses tens of millions of dollars, but never saw any increase in your benefits from it, would you be happy? What if, as is the case with the NCAA, you couldn't even leave your employer for a situation in which you can see increased benefits, because all of the employers are colluding to restrict what benefits you can get? Again, I'm divided, but there seems to be something patently un-American about telling young adults (which, legally, they are), that they are not permitted to be paid for their skills and talents.

Even if I grant that the schools shouldn't have to pay the athletes, there is no rational argument for the NCAA rules that will not let them capitalize on their name and image. If Bob Rohrman wants to pay Gelen Robinson, for example, to appear in one of his idiotic commercials, Robinson should be able to make that choice.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

Why not just let the kids transfer restriction free as well? The coaches can do it, why not the players?

That magical year Willie Taggart had in Eugene. And all the kids he looked in the eye and told him he would be there for 4 years and Rose Bowl and all that... Old Willie can take his $30 million and go to Tallahassee with no consequences. That kid he just lied to 10 months ago? He can leave too... AFTER he pays a penalty and sits out a year. And he can transfer anywhere he wants, PROVIDED it is on an approved list of schools. What a crock.

 

[Hausta01]

That magical year Willie Taggart had in Eugene. And all the kids he looked in the eye and told him he would be there for 4 years and Rose Bowl and all that... Old Willie can take his $30 million and go to Tallahassee with no consequences. That kid he just lied to 10 months ago? He can leave too... AFTER he pays a penalty and sits out a year. And he can transfer anywhere he wants, PROVIDED it is on an approved list of schools. What a crock.

But like Frankie said, instead of restricting coaches because players are restricted, just give players the freedom to move without penalty.

 

[Frankie611]

That magical year Willie Taggart had in Eugene. And all the kids he looked in the eye and told him he would be there for 4 years and Rose Bowl and all that... Old Willie can take his $30 million and go to Tallahassee with no consequences. That kid he just lied to 10 months ago? He can leave too... AFTER he pays a penalty and sits out a year. And he can transfer anywhere he wants, PROVIDED it is on an approved list of schools. What a crock.

Exactly. The kids catch so much flack for not "sucking it up and being a man" when they want to transfer. But a coach can get pissed at the AD for any reason and leave on a dime. It's an awful double standard that speaks to a lot of issues in our society today. No one wants to look at it from someone else's perspective. Lot easier to point a finger and call the kid a coward.

 

[boilershrimpfarmer]

So then a coach could take the best players from his previous school to his new school? Unlikely, I know but still a possibility if you completely lift the transfer restrictions.

 

[Frankie611]

So then a coach could take the best players from his previous school to his new school? Unlikely, I know but still a possibility if you completely lift the transfer restrictions.

So what? They committed to the coach as much as the school. Some players don't take kindly to a coach walking out on them before a bowl game. Remember when Brian Kelly left Cincinnati? And that douche had the audacity to meet with the players and thank them for putting him in the position to take a better job? Doubt a lot of those kids would follow him.
Also, TJ McCollum came with Brohm as a grad transfer and started for us. It already happens.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

So what? They committed to the coach as much as the school. Some players don't take kindly to a coach walking out on them before a bowl game. Remember when Brian Kelly left Cincinnati? And that douche had the audacity to meet with the players and thank them for putting him in the position to take a better job? Doubt a lot of those kids would follow him.
Also, TJ McCollum came with Brohm as a grad transfer and started for us. It already happens.

My favorite was Petrino and his letter he left for the players in their locker in Atlanta.

 

[boilershrimpfarmer]

Grad transfers are a little different. They've already put four years in at one University and have received their degree. They've fulfilled their commitment. If as you say the kids won't follow the coach, doesn't that defeat your argument? In Oregon's case it seems like most kids are mad at Taggert for leaving, not Oregon for not keeping him. My point is it seems most of those players won't ask for a transfer anyway, regardless of the rules.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

Grad transfers are a little different. They've already put four years in at one University and have received their degree. They've fulfilled their commitment. If as you say the kids won't follow the coach, doesn't that defeat your argument? In Oregon's case it seems like most kids are mad at Taggert for leaving, not Oregon for not keeping him. My point is it seems most of those players won't ask for a transfer anyway, regardless of the rules.

Let's be hypothetical and say Willie ran a pro style, drop back pass, offense. He recruited a QB to play for him. The QB chose to play there in large part for how he saw Coach Taggart utilizing his talents. Now with Slick Willie to FSU, they bring in a guy who wants to utilize the QB as a runner in an offense that does not fit this particular player's skill set. The QB decides to find another school that is a better fit; had this been the offense when being recruited he would have never been interested. Why should the kid be penalized for finding a better situation for himself?

 

[Purdue85]

The difference in number is *huge,* though. And that can change things. If, in your career, you did something that made your bosses tens of millions of dollars, but never saw any increase in your benefits from it, would you be happy? What if, as is the case with the NCAA, you couldn't even leave your employer for a situation in which you can see increased benefits, because all of the employers are colluding to restrict what benefits you can get? Again, I'm divided, but there seems to be something patently un-American about telling young adults (which, legally, they are), that they are not permitted to be paid for their skills and talents.

Even if I grant that the schools shouldn't have to pay the athletes, there is no rational argument for the NCAA rules that will not let them capitalize on their name and image. If Bob Rohrman wants to pay Gelen Robinson, for example, to appear in one of his idiotic commercials, Robinson should be able to make that choice.

The number is completely irrelevant. You act as if $1M is okay, but $2M isn't. Either you're arguing on principle, or you're arguing on dollar amount.

Besides, the kids ARE NOT EMPLOYEES. The coaches are. The kids come to play and get an education. There IS no comparison. None.

What's more, I bring value to my organization (and my boss) every day of every year, and I do not expect my compensation to be tied to my performance unless I'm willing to take the losses, as well.

Being "American" has nothing to do with it, and wrapping your argument in the stars and stripes doesn't earn you brownie points. The are permitted to be paid for their skills and talents, but not if they're amateurs in an amateur sport/organization. If you're that good, go pro. Until then, enjoy the incredible perks you have.

By the way, in 3 weeks Gelen can enjoy that Rohrman gig . . . he'll no long be an amateur.

 

[Purdue85]

Let's be hypothetical and say Willie ran a pro style, drop back pass, offense. He recruited a QB to play for him. The QB chose to play there in large part for how he saw Coach Taggart utilizing his talents. Now with Slick Willie to FSU, they bring in a guy who wants to utilize the QB as a runner in an offense that does not fit this particular player's skill set. The QB decides to find another school that is a better fit; had this been the offense when being recruited he would have never been interested. Why should the kid be penalized for finding a better situation for himself?

He's not "penalized". Sit out a year and go play somewhere else. Life's not fair, but you play by the rules to which you agree.

 

[Purdue85]

So what? They committed to the coach as much as the school. Some players don't take kindly to a coach walking out on them before a bowl game. Remember when Brian Kelly left Cincinnati? And that douche had the audacity to meet with the players and thank them for putting him in the position to take a better job? Doubt a lot of those kids would follow him.
Also, TJ McCollum came with Brohm as a grad transfer and started for us. It already happens.

Then that's the kid (more accurately, the kid's parents/guardian) making a decision for the wrong reason(s).

 

[Frankie611]

He's not "penalized". Sit out a year and go play somewhere else. Life's not fair, but you play by the rules to which you agree.

How is that not being penalized? He has to sit out but the coach doesn't? I get it, you don't think players should be paid so you don't want them to have any respect or bargaining rights at all because in your mind it creates a slippery slope towards paying players. Don't let that cloud your judgement on this topic.

 

[Purdue85]

How is that not being penalized? He has to sit out but the coach doesn't? I get it, you don't think players should be paid so you don't want them to have any respect or bargaining rights at all because in your mind it creates a slippery slope towards paying players. Don't let that cloud your judgement on this topic.

The coach is an EMPLOYEE . . . with a coach's . . . "CONTRACT".

The kid is a . . . "kid". Playing a sport in exchange for an education.

It's really not that hard.

I busted my @ss for an education. I paid for that education. Numerous kids graduate with incredible student loan debt, while those poor souls you're describing come out debt free, with experiences of a lifetime, and a financial "jump start" on life. In school, they travel in style, playing in front of adoring fans.

Respect? RESPECT? Are you out of your flipping mind? They get no respect, while playing in front of tens of thousands, with millions more watching on TV?

Your argument is foolish.

 

[FirstDownB]

One point I never see made is all the audition tape that college ball provides to players who want to pursue a pro career. If you have a great college career, that can set you up to make millions of dollars in the future. It’s like getting an internship at Google and then some.

 

[Purdue85]

One point I never see made is all the audition tape that college ball provides to players who want to pursue a pro career. If you have a great college career, that can set you up to make millions of dollars in the future. It’s like getting an internship at Google and then some.

This is a good point.

Some just want to have a reasonable way to pay for college. College athletics does exactly that. (It did that for my wife!)

Some want to launch their career in professional sports. College can do that.