Originally Posted by xubrew
So the reason for the year in residence rule is because of the money? Is that what you're saying? That's why men's basketball, football, and other high revenue generating sports such as women's basketball, baseball, and ice hockey have these rules?
Okay, maybe it is.
But if that's the case, then I guess by changing the rules to make it more like the other sports that don't make any money at all must mean that they no longer want a rule in place that is about the money.
I really think that you're both wrong. I think it's about paperwork. Or, more specifically, wanting less of it. It may sound like I'm kidding, but I'm not. They don't want to deal with waivers, and this is a way to not have to.
|
You may be correct, but I am not buying the fact they want to change a process due to the administrative work that in entails. The NCAA has shown over the years to be hypocritical in the leveling of discipline to schools/coaches, equitable "caring" for non P-5 schools/conferences, etc. I have seen first hand the expectations that Emmert has for himself and his cronies versus that of the typical fan. They claim "student-athlete" and academics when we all know the big business behind it. So for me to assume that a pretty big change with the way athletes are handled by the NCAA makes me pause.
The main issue that it boils down to is the fact that making it easier to transfer on a whim, makes it easier for shady moves and taking the "amateurism" out of college athletics. Also, there are multiple groups here...the NCAA, P-5's, non-P-5's, coaches, and athletes. There are different incentives for each depending on which one of the two rules we talk about.
The year for the 1 year residency rule currently in place is about control. The more control the schools have over an athlete, the better for them. If it wasn't about control and stability then why do schools have to request waivers? It is the same as a "no-compete clause" in business. The athletes know the schools are in control of their future should they want to continue playing sports. The schools and the NCAA drive the ship. Changing the rule makes it easier for shady business. Changing the rule makes it easier for a school with resources to nab a player once a scholly frees up in year two and they just played a year of "JV" for a mid-major.
I typically advocate for the athlete. Having school choice definitely benefits the athletes. But given the money driven business of NCAA sports, the desire for adults that are part of this business to take advantage of athletes expands with a rule change. Currently I think it takes some thought and planning for a player to decide to leave. Are players going to pull a Crosby each year and want to pack their bags? I simply think that this will cause problems.
