Pardon my rant ...
... I love college athletics, more than professional sports .... so, let me preface this to say, I don't care much for the transfer portal and NIL ... I don't think the NCAA has handled it well and consequently it is completely chaotic and arguably unmanageable ...
... but it is what it is. So, since we have to deal with the mess, what do you do if you are the program?
I get that the player wants to leverage their position to try and get the most playing time, along with the most money to play, and along with the best situation to better themselves long-term ... I don't like that it's essentially professional sports without a salary cap or obligation on the player to do anything ... I get that.
And, I understand that a big part of what the program does is to look out for what is best for the player. I get that as well. But, it seems to me, that the program also needs to think about what is best for it as well ... and it's fans.
In light of that, I think programs need to rethink the position that they find themselves in ... which is effectively that a player isn't committed or obligated to the program year to year, and in some cases not committed at all while they are there ... and yet still getting paid to play (or not play), something about that isn't right .... that's the player as employee debate.
I am curious whether student-athletes ultimately become employees subject to a playing contract, like coaches have coaching contracts ... with performance clauses, buyouts … absent all of that the players suddenly find themselves with most of the leverage in this play for pay NIL/transfer mess. But, that's a whole other discussion ...
Back to the point, perhaps the coaches and programs need to flip this on its head a bit. Rather than waiting (held hostage some say) for a player to make a decision whether they are going to stay or go, perhaps a coach needs to be more assertive with the player(s) on what their decision is to get a commitment by a date certain or you're going to the portal to find somebody else. If a player and their handlers don't know what they want to do and are waffling or waiting for the best offer as to whether they want to stay or go, then the program needs to go find somebody who does want to be there before those dudes end up somewhere else why you are waiting for decisions.
If players want to be paid to play, then they need to accept the risk and responsibility that comes with it, it seems to me that programs are subjecting themselves to a lot of roster risk and cost by allowing players to have one foot inside the door and another outside the door ... holding hostage a spot on the roster while looking for a better deal ... why not make them make a decision or go find someone else who will.
Since programs are essentially buying a team year to year ... why should the program jeopardize itself by giving up all of the leverage while waiting for a decision from a player/handler. Programs shouldn't waste time waiting on some 18-23 year old or their handler to make a decision whether they want to stay in your program that you've been paying them to be in ... whether they played or not ... make decisions and move on one way or the other.
.... rant end.
... I love college athletics, more than professional sports .... so, let me preface this to say, I don't care much for the transfer portal and NIL ... I don't think the NCAA has handled it well and consequently it is completely chaotic and arguably unmanageable ...
... but it is what it is. So, since we have to deal with the mess, what do you do if you are the program?
I get that the player wants to leverage their position to try and get the most playing time, along with the most money to play, and along with the best situation to better themselves long-term ... I don't like that it's essentially professional sports without a salary cap or obligation on the player to do anything ... I get that.
And, I understand that a big part of what the program does is to look out for what is best for the player. I get that as well. But, it seems to me, that the program also needs to think about what is best for it as well ... and it's fans.
In light of that, I think programs need to rethink the position that they find themselves in ... which is effectively that a player isn't committed or obligated to the program year to year, and in some cases not committed at all while they are there ... and yet still getting paid to play (or not play), something about that isn't right .... that's the player as employee debate.
I am curious whether student-athletes ultimately become employees subject to a playing contract, like coaches have coaching contracts ... with performance clauses, buyouts … absent all of that the players suddenly find themselves with most of the leverage in this play for pay NIL/transfer mess. But, that's a whole other discussion ...
Back to the point, perhaps the coaches and programs need to flip this on its head a bit. Rather than waiting (held hostage some say) for a player to make a decision whether they are going to stay or go, perhaps a coach needs to be more assertive with the player(s) on what their decision is to get a commitment by a date certain or you're going to the portal to find somebody else. If a player and their handlers don't know what they want to do and are waffling or waiting for the best offer as to whether they want to stay or go, then the program needs to go find somebody who does want to be there before those dudes end up somewhere else why you are waiting for decisions.
If players want to be paid to play, then they need to accept the risk and responsibility that comes with it, it seems to me that programs are subjecting themselves to a lot of roster risk and cost by allowing players to have one foot inside the door and another outside the door ... holding hostage a spot on the roster while looking for a better deal ... why not make them make a decision or go find someone else who will.
Since programs are essentially buying a team year to year ... why should the program jeopardize itself by giving up all of the leverage while waiting for a decision from a player/handler. Programs shouldn't waste time waiting on some 18-23 year old or their handler to make a decision whether they want to stay in your program that you've been paying them to be in ... whether they played or not ... make decisions and move on one way or the other.
.... rant end.
Last edited:
