If Matt Hayes is right about this, then the APR will have been good for something:
It looks as though the NCAA finally will look into the possibility of immediate eligibility after a transfer for players affected by coaching turnover. Although any legislation must clear significant hurdles, there is momentum for such an idea after the recent release of the Academic Progress Rates showed a direct correlation between declining scores and coaching changes. . . .
It’s a sensible idea, but where is this momentum coming from? The schools? Aren’t they the ones who propagate the myth that the kid commits to the institution, not the coach?
And outside of Bobby Petrino, for whom this would be like his own personal Marshall Plan, you wonder how the coaches will react to this proposal.
4 responses to “Ryan Mallett may have been ahead of his time.”
I’m so completely on the fence about this. Out of all the NCAA changes/ideas/rules, this one has the most slippery of slopes.
On one hand you don’t want to affect a kid who does the right thing, commits to the right coach and then has to transfer because he no longer “fits the system,” much like Ryan Mallet with Dick Rod.
However, much like Dick Rod would be inclined to do, you don’t want coaches negotiating their next job to include the players currently on their team that they’ll bring with them.
I guess a clause stating that no player could transfer the institution his coach is going to would work, but honestly, is that the fix for this?
I hardly think so.
And not just that, Kit — honestly, I’d have less of a problem with that situation than I would with players on their own switching schools just because they felt like it.
Lost my starting job? Good thing I’ll be at your biggest rival next year if I don’t get it back.
Suspended for fighting at a bar? Sorry, coach, I’m headed to Tennessee or SC instead.
It does seem unfair that coaches can move around at will while players can’t. Then again, it also seems unfair that coaches get paid millions and players don’t — but I’d still never support paying players. The system they had for that one year — if you graduate with eligibility left, you can go anywhere and play immediately — seemed like a good middle ground that reinforced the student part of student-athlete. Too bad they got rid of it…
Well, I think the catch in the “lost my starting job? Well I’ll just go to your rival” loses its luster when players have to burn a year of eligibility.
In today’s world of “the next Lebron James of (name any sport)” the pressure is on to get one kid on the field immediately and redshirt the rest.
However, when that happens, you have one kid that will be gone in three years anyway whereas you have other kids who are stuck with nowhere to go b/c they’ll forgo (sp?) a chance to improve their NFL draft stock if they leave.
I like the system in place as it is with kids transferring schools but giving something in return, but I do think some tweaking needs to be made in the instance of a coach leaving.
Another variable in this would be players who are recruited and given a committment by one coach only to have the new coach determine they are not needed and not renew the player’s scholorship – see Nick Saban. That just sux. Unless a player flunks out or gets kicked out of school, the committment by the coach or university should be as binding as the players’.
I think a coaching change should allow for players to be released from their scholarship, but I agree it creates as many problems as it solves.
If a coach leaves in say January and players start leaving, does the new coach have any hope of recruiting replacements? Would that increase the problem of schools poaching coaches who are still involved in a season – see Rich Rod and Houston Nutt.
What if the player decides he doesn’t like the new coach/system two weeks before the season opener?
Could other schools/coaches actively recruit players from a school in the midst of a coaching change? Urban Meyer would be in heaven.
Maybe having to sit out a year, but not losing the year of eligibility would be enough of a compromise. I agree that a player should not be allowed to follow the exiting coach though.