|
Brew...
I don't recall stating that the current 1 year rule was about money...I said it was about control and schools maintaining control over a player. I also said that the current rule prevents the big schools from pilfering the small schools. It prevents a free for all.
I stated that the elimination of the 1 year rule is about money for the NCAA and the ability to make more of it by permitting teams to use the non-P5 as the minors and opening up more avenues for shifty deals. It also allows the big schools to benefit financially while the smaller schools potentially suffer.
There are many groups that are impacted by rule changes. You can't look at it from just the NCAA's view...the school's view...the player's view...everyone has a different reason or need for the rule being one way or another. Not all of their interests are the same and I think that is where you are misunderstanding me.
In the end I see a circular discussion by all of us on here and no one brings up the question of "What is best for the student-athlete"? The reason it hasn't been brought up is that everyone knows it is about money, power, and control. We are focused on the corruption that may go on and the athletes are the pawns in the game. Face it, very few, if any, DI athletes are going to transfer because of academics. They are transferring for athletics...it isn't "student athlete" it is "athlete student" and nowhere in this discussion is anyone bringing up academic arguments that make any sense other than a minimum to transfer.
|
