ADVERTISEMENT

Cam Johnson transfer blocked to UNC

It would not be terrible for everyone. The players would actually benefit a great deal. Besides the blue bloods are acting like the Yankees every year anyways. Look at the commitments lists for 5* players over the past 7 years. Kentucky, Duke, UCLA, Arizona, and Kansas are taking the bulk of those players each year.

I have no problem if the NCAA wants to have non-competes, but if they want to control players like employees, then they need to treat the them like employees.
You're missing the point. It wouldn't be the 5* guys they are poaching. It would be the lesser known guys who have blown up and are key to their schools ability to win. Where is the protection for programs in this? Are the players the only thing that matters?
 
Players with qualifying grades should be allowed to transfer at will.

Fans want protection for their school should a key player decide to transfer, but where is the protection for a guy like Sascha? He's been recruited over before his sophomore year. If you're not going to guarantee the player playing time, shots, etc (which I don't think should be done) then at least allow them the same movement that coaches enjoy.

The whole system is designed to make people money off the backs of virtually unpaid labor.
Snowflake alert.
 
You're missing the point. It wouldn't be the 5* guys they are poaching. It would be the lesser known guys who have blown up and are key to their schools ability to win. Where is the protection for programs in this? Are the players the only thing that matters?
No. I get that point. I just don't think it has any validity. If the NCAA wants to treat players like employees, then that is fine. Then they should be treated like employees in all respects.

If they are unpaid amateurs, that are barred from receiving benefits not available to the general student population, then they should be allowed free transfer just like everyone else associated with a University is allowed to switch schools without penalty.
 
No. I get that point. I just don't think it has any validity. If the NCAA wants to treat players like employees, then that is fine. Then they should be treated like employees in all respects.

If they are unpaid amateurs, that are barred from receiving benefits not available to the general student population, then they should be allowed free transfer just like everyone else associated with a University is allowed to switch schools without penalty.
It dumbfounds me how the needs of a program are totally ignored, as if the only person important is a player. Without the program, the player has no access to a free education. Most of these guys are not going pro so lets be real, their education is the important aspect. The school and program have invested a great deal in each player. Why should they be allowed to go anywhere they want without any sort of penalty? That isn't the real world, the real world has rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
It dumbfounds me how the needs of a program are totally ignored, as if the only person important is a player. Without the program, the player has no access to a free education. Most of these guys are not going pro so lets be real, their education is the important aspect. The school and program have invested a great deal in each player. Why should they be allowed to go anywhere they want without any sort of penalty? That isn't the real world, the real world has rules.
The real world also bans on monopolies and unfair business practices. A cartel should not be allowed to operate in a free market. But that is exactly what you have with the NCAA.

I get that schools needs should be protected, and I am fine with that. But the model they have chosen to operate under (forced amateurism) is not compatible with non-competes.
 
The real world also bans on monopolies and unfair business practices. A cartel should not be allowed to operate in a free market. But that is exactly what you have with the NCAA.

I get that schools needs should be protected, and I am fine with that. But the model they have chosen to operate under (forced amateurism) is not compatible with non-competes.
This is not a monopoly in the way you are using the term and these kids are not employees. They have agreed to a fair trade, play for a free education, often in schools they couldn't dream of getting accepted to otherwise. Universities are not really a free market. Neither is medical care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
This is not a monopoly in the way you are using the term and these kids are not employees. They have agreed to a fair trade, play for a free education, often in schools they couldn't dream of getting accepted to otherwise. Universities are not really a free market. Neither is medical care.
It isn't a monopoly? Really? So all of these schools just happened to set a cap on compensation at cost of attendance all on their own? I find that hard to believe since they don't even argue that.
 
It isn't a monopoly? Really? So all of these schools just happened to set a cap on compensation at cost of attendance all on their own? I find that hard to believe since they don't even argue that.
Come on man, you're just wanting to argue. Universities are quasi government. They are no more a monopoly than our government. There are countless schools that are not part of the NCAA. They can go there. Nothing is stopping them. Unless, of course, you are saying there is a reason they would want to go to an NCAA school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
Come on man, you're just wanting to argue. Universities are quasi government. They are no more a monopoly than our government. There are countless schools that are not part of the NCAA. They can go there. Nothing is stopping them. Unless, of course, you are saying there is a reason they would want to go to an NCAA school.
Not even the NCAA's own lawyers agree with you.
 
I've got a great idea.

Since these players are so abused with free education they couldn't otherwise get, free instruction from the best coaches in the land, free promotion and free ability to showcase nationally, just don't play. Nothing is forcing them. Go to Europe and then you don't have to deal with it.

This is still college at the end of the day.

THe free labor comments are exactly what's wrong with this country. There is nothing close to free labor about it.

There's plenty of players who will take the spot and be grateful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhattyJ4UK
Having studied business at UK and being a bit familiar with the terms used, I don't share your conclusion and neither does that article. You are having an emotional response to the word "cartel". In and of itself it isn't a bad thing, though it certainly can be bad. Again, these universities are quasi government organizations. Some government organizations function as cartels, others as monopolies in your definition. I'm still lost on the significance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
I've got a great idea.

Since these players are so abused with free education they couldn't otherwise get, free instruction from the best coaches in the land, free promotion and free ability to showcase nationally, just don't play. Nothing is forcing them. Go to Europe and then you don't have to deal with it.

This is still college at the end of the day.

THe free labor comments are exactly what's wrong with this country. There is nothing close to free labor about it.

There's plenty of players who will take the spot and be grateful.
I wonder how many of these players really appreciate the value of greatly relaxed entrance requirements for athletes...you know, since they don't receive anything of real value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
Having studied business at UK and being a bit familiar with the terms used, I don't share your conclusion and neither does that article. You are having an emotional response to the word "cartel". In and of itself it isn't a bad thing, though it certainly can be bad. Again, these universities are quasi government organizations. Some government organizations function as cartels, others as monopolies in your definition. I'm still lost on the significance.
Cartels engage in price fixing. That is not an emotional reaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
I wonder how many of these players really appreciate the value of greatly relaxed entrance requirements for athletes...you know, since they don't receive anything of real value.

How many players have excellent jobs in life and a diploma they couldn't have received otherwise?

How many guys gained connections from boosters after they're gone for an easy 6 figure job they didn't earn?

How many Duke players have it made today that didn't turn into NBA guys and now have a Duke diploma and connections in Durham? Wonder if they could have gotten that degree the REAL way?

Just sayin, as someone who had to grind in life for my degrees the real way, I can't feel sorry for born millionaires and tbeir silver spoon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigBlueFanGA
I've got a great idea.

Since these players are so abused with free education they couldn't otherwise get, free instruction from the best coaches in the land, free promotion and free ability to showcase nationally, just don't play. Nothing is forcing them. Go to Europe and then you don't have to deal with it.

This is still college at the end of the day.

THe free labor comments are exactly what's wrong with this country. There is nothing close to free labor about it.

There's plenty of players who will take the spot and be grateful.
You just defined a Monopsony. The fact is, there is no reasonable alternative to college athletics. Especially when talking about college football. The NCAA collectively engages in price fixing and artificially deflates the market for athletes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kb22stang
It dumbfounds me how the needs of a program are totally ignored, as if the only person important is a player. Without the program, the player has no access to a free education. Most of these guys are not going pro so lets be real, their education is the important aspect. The school and program have invested a great deal in each player. Why should they be allowed to go anywhere they want without any sort of penalty? That isn't the real world, the real world has rules.

Obviously your main concern is the team you root for, not fairness. That's fine, there are lots of selfish people. But if you think the "trade" is anywhere near fair then you're not paying attention.

Players can't go pro before college, because the NCAA and its media partners lobbied the NBA to create a rule against it. No way does the NBA do that on their own. They can't even enter the draft, without compensation, and decide to come back to college.

Coaches can leave without sitting out, but if a player transfers they have to sit out a year and then they can transfer to a list of schools that their original school has authorized. Coaches get paid millions and players get a scholarship.

For football and basketball players, the school receives much more in return than they invest. That isn't debatable. The classes don't cost the school a thing, it's not like they are creating a class for each scholarship player, those are sunk costs. The only cost is room and board and coaching salaries, of which most schools only pay a fraction of the actual compensation.

This "trade" is completely rigged in favor of the school and their is no viable alternative. They block entry to the professional ranks and there is no minor league in basketball worth anything. On top of that the NCAA restricts the compensation they can receive while in college.

So go ahead and say the athletes should be happy with the system because otherwise your team might not be as good. Just realize that you're being incredibly selfish when you do so.
 
It really sounds like Johnson wants to go to UNC. Will commit and play there if/when Pitt allows it.
 
I've got a great idea.

Since these players are so abused with free education they couldn't otherwise get, free instruction from the best coaches in the land, free promotion and free ability to showcase nationally, just don't play. Nothing is forcing them. Go to Europe and then you don't have to deal with it.

This is still college at the end of the day.

THe free labor comments are exactly what's wrong with this country. There is nothing close to free labor about it.

There's plenty of players who will take the spot and be grateful.

How about you take a class in economics, would it make you feel better if we used the term "relatively free" labor? Why not open college recruiting to true market forces and let the market decide what a fair trade is?

If not for the artificial constraints on compensating athletes then you would see players being paid for more than just a scholarship. Why does that scare you? I know why because it would hurt the cash cow that is college athletics.
 
Yeah, we need to move on past the Cam Johnson deal...sounds like this what he has wanted the whole time..
 
You just defined a Monopsony. The fact is, there is no reasonable alternative to college athletics. Especially when talking about college football. The NCAA collectively engages in price fixing and artificially deflates the market for athletes.
Deflates what market and exactly what price is fixed? This is getting more interesting.
 
How about you take a class in economics, would it make you feel better if we used the term "relatively free" labor? Why not open college recruiting to true market forces and let the market decide what a fair trade is?

If not for the artificial constraints on compensating athletes then you would see players being paid for more than just a scholarship. Why does that scare you? I know why because it would hurt the cash cow that is college athletics.
I'll hate myself in the morning but what "true market forces" are you babbling about?
 
I've got a great idea.

Since these players are so abused with free education they couldn't otherwise get, free instruction from the best coaches in the land, free promotion and free ability to showcase nationally, just don't play. Nothing is forcing them. Go to Europe and then you don't have to deal with it.

This is still college at the end of the day.

THe free labor comments are exactly what's wrong with this country. There is nothing close to free labor about it.

There's plenty of players who will take the spot and be grateful.

Not sure what being able to freely move from one institution to another after you've graduated has to do with the "free" labor argument but okay. There is no defense of transfer restrictions. None.
 
Obviously your main concern is the team you root for, not fairness. That's fine, there are lots of selfish people. But if you think the "trade" is anywhere near fair then you're not paying attention.

Players can't go pro before college, because the NCAA and its media partners lobbied the NBA to create a rule against it. No way does the NBA do that on their own. They can't even enter the draft, without compensation, and decide to come back to college.

Coaches can leave without sitting out, but if a player transfers they have to sit out a year and then they can transfer to a list of schools that their original school has authorized. Coaches get paid millions and players get a scholarship.

For football and basketball players, the school receives much more in return than they invest. That isn't debatable. The classes don't cost the school a thing, it's not like they are creating a class for each scholarship player, those are sunk costs. The only cost is room and board and coaching salaries, of which most schools only pay a fraction of the actual compensation.

This "trade" is completely rigged in favor of the school and their is no viable alternative. They block entry to the professional ranks and there is no minor league in basketball worth anything. On top of that the NCAA restricts the compensation they can receive while in college.

So go ahead and say the athletes should be happy with the system because otherwise your team might not be as good. Just realize that you're being incredibly selfish when you do so.

Players can enter the d-league or play overseas straight out of high school.. Hell, if they want, they can just sit out and train for a year and wait for the draft. I think the NCAA is racket, but this is borderline tin foil hat stuff here.
 
It dumbfounds me how the needs of a program are totally ignored, as if the only person important is a player. Without the program, the player has no access to a free education. Most of these guys are not going pro so lets be real, their education is the important aspect. The school and program have invested a great deal in each player. Why should they be allowed to go anywhere they want without any sort of penalty? That isn't the real world, the real world has rules.
1038253cfffcb26e9843ba2109e4cf8e52c0e7fa3ade70c9faf6ca9008e34b5e.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigBlueFanGA
Obviously your main concern is the team you root for, not fairness. That's fine, there are lots of selfish people. But if you think the "trade" is anywhere near fair then you're not paying attention.

Players can't go pro before college, because the NCAA and its media partners lobbied the NBA to create a rule against it. No way does the NBA do that on their own. They can't even enter the draft, without compensation, and decide to come back to college.

Coaches can leave without sitting out, but if a player transfers they have to sit out a year and then they can transfer to a list of schools that their original school has authorized. Coaches get paid millions and players get a scholarship.

For football and basketball players, the school receives much more in return than they invest. That isn't debatable. The classes don't cost the school a thing, it's not like they are creating a class for each scholarship player, those are sunk costs. The only cost is room and board and coaching salaries, of which most schools only pay a fraction of the actual compensation.

This "trade" is completely rigged in favor of the school and their is no viable alternative. They block entry to the professional ranks and there is no minor league in basketball worth anything. On top of that the NCAA restricts the compensation they can receive while in college.

So go ahead and say the athletes should be happy with the system because otherwise your team might not be as good. Just realize that you're being incredibly selfish when you do so.
You're utterly daft. For the record, here is an ESPN article regarding the one and done rule:
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/16237629/ten-years-nba-one-done-rule-no-less-controversial

NBA: A rule designed to protect owners from themselves
By Pablo S. Torre

Two years into retirement, behind the closed doors of a hotel ballroom in Washington, D.C., the greatest player of all time warned his competitors about teenagers.

It was All-Star weekend, a time when then-NBA commissioner David Stern liked to assemble owners, team executives and union leaders under the guise of labor-management diplomacy. Michael Jordan, who was both part-owner of the Wizards and its president of basketball operations, spoke up in support of the issue Stern would call "a personal project of mine."

Yes, a 19-year-old Kevin Garnett had skipped college, warranting a lottery pick in 1995, opening the gates for Kobe Bryant the next year and Tracy McGrady the year after that. But with a growing gallery of perceived busts -- from Korleone Young (1998) to Jonathan Bender (1999) to Darius Miles (2000) -- Stern and the owners, Jordan included, advocated for a rule change to stem the tide.

Never mind that the pipeline from high school to the NBA would soon deliver LeBron James. In the ballroom, Jordan lamented what he saw as the league's sinking standard of professionalism. Fellow attendees recall him explaining that these high schoolers were too unpredictable to scout, badly needed to learn fundamentals, even that they threatened disaster, both on and off the court.

Of course, less than five months later, Washington found itself in possession of the No. 1 pick in the 2001 NBA draft. And Jordan could not help but select ... out of Glynn Academy in Brunswick, Georgia ... Kwame Brown.

"Poor Michael," Stern would say years later of the Brown pick in the book "Boys Among Men." "That's the system we had."

No longer. In June 2005, as one of the final alterations to the NBA and NBPA's renegotiated collective bargaining agreement, Stern's personal project became systemic change. The revised text of Article X, Section I of the CBA mandated that draft prospects be at least 19 years old and a year removed from high school, thus producing the one-and-done feeder system. Welcome to the University of Texas, Kevin Durant.

But most of all? The new rule sought to protect owners and talent evaluators like Poor Michael from their biggest fear.

Themselves.

LOOK BACK AT the league's campaign for one-and-done, and you'll find rhetoric that has been conspicuously phased out over the last decade. In May 2005, months before instituting a mandatory dress code, and months after the seismic "Malice in the Palace" brawl in Detroit, the eternally image-conscious Stern told the Boston Globe that "it is time to tell the communities that we serve that the sixth-grader, as Arthur Ashe used to say, is far more likely to be a rocket scientist, biology professor, etc., than a pro athlete."

Stern and his successor, Adam Silver, have since stopped arguing that letting John Calipari borrow Karl-Anthony Towns for 39 games will inspire the next Neil deGrasse Tyson. The real argument for an age limit is instead rooted in economic self-preservation.

It's basic math. Unlike football, baseball and soccer, basketball is a five-on-five game wherein one star player can singlehandedly elevate a billion-dollar franchise or one costly underachiever can entomb it. "Nothing in sports is more valuable than an NBA first-round pick," one league source points out. And the bigger a prospect's résumé, and the better his competition, the easier it should be for teams to avoid investing millions into a bust.

"It has been our sense for a long time that our draft would be more competitive if our teams had an opportunity to see these players play an additional year," Silver told USA Today. "We believe the additional year of maturity would be meaningful." And if that maturity just so happens to coincide with the brand-building exposure of a nationally televised college tournament, even better.

Many players object to this logic on principle, naturally. Union leaders have long observed how absurd it is that 18-year-olds can die in Afghanistan or fly a helicopter or buy a gun but not draw an NBA paycheck. "I started working when I was 13 in New York," NBPA executive director Michele Roberts told ESPN in 2014. "I've never not worked. I understand that you want to work to support yourself and your family. It offends me that there should be some artificial limits set on someone's ability to make a living."

But this ethical concern is far from a legitimate threat to Article X, Section I. It is, in fact, the opposite.

WITH BOTH SIDES able to opt out of the current CBA this December, one-and-done's biggest political problem is simple. In the minds of its boosters, a yearlong delay isn't nearly lengthy enough.

College administrators -- who compete every year to live at the mercy of a transitory teenager -- complain to Silver that the current rule is "a disaster," upending the continuity of a coach-driven sport. NBA owners, meanwhile, want prospects with even more comprehensive résumés, further reducing the risk that they, like Jordan, will find themselves unable to pass on Kwame Brown.




Funny, I can't find anything about the NCAA wanting this but I see lots of reasons the NBA wanted it. If you'd like, we can talk about the economics of college sports, the need for money making sports to help support the other sports and the relative few universities that actually are in the black from sports. Since you're so big on talking about economics.
 
Obviously your main concern is the team you root for, not fairness. That's fine, there are lots of selfish people. But if you think the "trade" is anywhere near fair then you're not paying attention.

Players can't go pro before college, because the NCAA and its media partners lobbied the NBA to create a rule against it. No way does the NBA do that on their own. They can't even enter the draft, without compensation, and decide to come back to college.

Coaches can leave without sitting out, but if a player transfers they have to sit out a year and then they can transfer to a list of schools that their original school has authorized. Coaches get paid millions and players get a scholarship.

For football and basketball players, the school receives much more in return than they invest. That isn't debatable. The classes don't cost the school a thing, it's not like they are creating a class for each scholarship player, those are sunk costs. The only cost is room and board and coaching salaries, of which most schools only pay a fraction of the actual compensation.

This "trade" is completely rigged in favor of the school and their is no viable alternative. They block entry to the professional ranks and there is no minor league in basketball worth anything. On top of that the NCAA restricts the compensation they can receive while in college.

So go ahead and say the athletes should be happy with the system because otherwise your team might not be as good. Just realize that you're being incredibly selfish when you do so.

I don't agree with your premise.

But you win the courage award for bravery today for sure.
 
How about you take a class in economics, would it make you feel better if we used the term "relatively free" labor? Why not open college recruiting to true market forces and let the market decide what a fair trade is?

If not for the artificial constraints on compensating athletes then you would see players being paid for more than just a scholarship. Why does that scare you? I know why because it would hurt the cash cow that is college athletics.
You're gonna hate this one.

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx
 
Not sure what being able to freely move from one institution to another after you've graduated has to do with the "free" labor argument but okay. There is no defense of transfer restrictions. None.
Could it cause a competitive disadvantage to the program?
 
Well, now this makes me more invested in Diallo's decision. I had thought if he bolted, we'd get CJ for sure. Very real possibility now we miss on both. After the Bamba decision losing on both these guys would really suck.
 
Players can enter the d-league or play overseas straight out of high school.. Hell, if they want, they can just sit out and train for a year and wait for the draft. I think the NCAA is racket, but this is borderline tin foil hat stuff here.

Why? Why should coaches, administration and the NCAA make millions while the players are virtually forced (your options aren't really options- D League is a joke and Europe isn't an option for most HS players) to play a year in the NCAA? Why must players retain their amateur status while others make millions? Why can't they come back in they are not drafted where they want? The NBA has nothing to do with the NCAA right? Why is player movement restricted?

The answer to all those questions is money. That's why the system is grossly unfair to the players.

But there is really only one question to ask. If a scholarship and and the related exposure constitute a fair and equitable trade for a college scholarship then why do we have all of these restrictions, why not simply let each individual school offer the players what the school feels they are worth?

The only conclusion is that the restrictions are in place because without them the players would receive more compensation. Doesn't that in itself prove the trade is one sided?
 

That doesn't even come close to disproving my point. My point is that coaches, AD's and the NCAA are making millions, which they are. My answer is to let the colleges decide how much each athlete is worth to their institution, just like they do with professors, coaches and other employees and remove the restrictions for players leaving.

This article says that only the big time programs make money which is mainly due to football. That's fine, those that don't make money would obviously compensate their athletes less than those that do. I'm in favor of a free market. That doesn't guarantee all programs make money, just like not all companies make money. That's the exact reason you leave it up to the schools.

OR, put a cap on coaches and AD's salaries and restrict their movement.
 
ADVERTISEMENT