Major Potential Shift In NCAA Transfer Rules

[UKnCincy]

Are all deterrents oppressive?

And I may just be slow (beg pardon), but what do you mean that I "argue for the need to have a residence requirement?"

But no, I don't find it oppressive.

1. Choice 1: stay put

2. Choice 2: transfer and sit for a year, all the while enjoying free room and board, education, coaching and training. (I still don't find this oppressive).

3. Choice 3: Transfer to some other level that allows immediate play.

4. Choice 4: Do something different with your life.

I'm just not buying it. I am persuadable. But I've yet to be persuaded.

If the deterrent is based on one party overstepping their bounds to prohibit an individual from an action that the individual would otherwise be free to execute, then it is oppressive.

The residence requirement is the one year that the athlete sits out of competition. That is known as a an "academic year in residence."

In light of an earlier post, I'd also add that any attempt to portray the current transfer rule as analogous to employment non-compete clauses is completely inaccurate.

The current rule is about discouraging players from leaving. A non-compete that attempts to prevent an employee from leaving or broadly restricts them from utilizing their skills will be unenforceable in court.

Non-competes have to be far more targeted and can only be used to prevent an employee / competitor from gaining a competitive advantage by gaining access to the former employer's trade secrets, intellectual property or, in the case of legal / professional services firms, customer relationships.

For example, my current non-compete cannot restrict me from going to another firm. It can only prevent me from approaching my current clients for 12 months. I'm still free to go to a competitor and perform the same type of work immediately.

It would be illegal, however, for an employer to try to use a non-compete to try to prevent the hassle and cost associated with employee turnover. That's simply the cost of doing business that must be managed through other vehicles (e.g., emplioyee engagement efforts, retirement account vesting, timing of bonus payouts).

The transfer rule attempts to prevent exactly the types of costs that courts say business are prohibited from addressing through a non-compete. And schools suffer no competitive harm due to loss of IP or trade secrets when a player transfers, they merely lose access to that player's abilities. And those abilities are intrinsic to the individual and not something to which schools or businesses can claim to have exclusive rights.

 

[Aike]

If the deterrent is based on one party overstepping their bounds to prohibit an individual from an action that the individual would otherwise be free to execute, then it is oppressive.

The residence requirement is the one year that the athlete sits out of competition. That is known as a an "academic year in residence."

In light of an earlier post, I'd also add that any attempt to portray the current transfer rule as analogous to employment non-compete clauses is completely inaccurate.

The current rule is about discouraging players from leaving. A non-compete that attempts to prevent an employee from leaving or broadly restricts them from utilizing their skills will be unenforceable in court.

Non-competes have to be far more targeted and can only be used to prevent an employee / competitor from gaining a competitive advantage by gaining access to the former employer's trade secrets, intellectual property or, in the case of legal / professional services firms, customer relationships.

For example, my current non-compete cannot restrict me from going to another firm. It can only prevent me from approaching my current clients for 12 months. I'm still free to go to a competitor and perform the same type of work immediately.

It would be illegal, however, for an employer to try to use a non-compete to try to prevent the hassle and cost associated with employee turnover. That's simply the cost of doing business that must be managed through other vehicles (e.g., emplioyee engagement efforts, retirement account vesting, timing of bonus payouts).

The transfer rule attempts to prevent exactly the types of costs that courts say business are prohibited from addressing through a non-compete. And schools suffer no competitive harm due to loss of IP or trade secrets when a player transfers, they merely lose access to that player's abilities. And those abilities are intrinsic to the individual and not something to which schools or businesses can claim to have exclusive rights.

The situations aren't identical of course, but the essence of a non-compete is that they prevent you from competing directly with your employer for a reasonable period of time.

So there is a parallel when you consider that a school invests considerable resources into the development of an athlete, and a transferring athlete may in fact compete directly against their previous school.

You could argue intrinsic value, or you could argue that athletes possess proprietary information pertaining to plays, game plans, etc. Maybe you can site a court case that contradicts this premise.

A notable difference is that transferring athletes who must serve that year in residence (thanks for the clarification) are not deprived monetarily, since they would not be compensated for playing in games.

In fact, they get the same financial benefits as any other player (more if you consider that transferring puts them in much better position to graduate, if not pursue Graduate studies).

There is potential of lost future revenue. I won't dispute the possibility that some player might miss out on an opportunity due to lack of exposure. But I don't think it's easily quantifiable.

For the record, do you support midseason transfers being immediately eligible? For instance, would you be OK with Quade Green starting for us on January 6th against UT, then wearing orange when we played on February 6th (after the start of the Spring semester). I would really appreciate an answer to this question.

I know I said I wouldn't discuss it further, but oh well. It's an interesting topic.

 

[UKnCincy]

The situations aren't identical of course, but the essence of a non-compete is that they prevent you from competing directly with your employer for a reasonable period of time.

So there is a parallel when you consider that a school invests considerable resources into the development of an athlete, and a transferring athlete may in fact compete directly against their previous school.

You could argue intrinsic value, or you could argue that athletes possess proprietary information pertaining to plays, game plans, etc. Maybe you can site a court case that contradicts this premise.

A notable difference is that transferring athletes who must serve that year in residence (thanks for the clarification) are not deprived monetarily, since they would not be compensated for playing in games.

In fact, they get the same financial benefits as any other player (more if you consider that transferring puts them in much better position to graduate, if not pursue Graduate studies).

There is potential of lost future revenue. I won't dispute the possibility that some player might miss out on an opportunity due to lack of exposure. But I don't think it's easily quantifiable.

For the record, do you support midseason transfers being immediately eligible? For instance, would you be OK with Quade Green starting for us on January 6th against UT, then wearing orange when we played on February 6th (after the start of the Spring semester). I would really appreciate an answer to this question.

I know I said I wouldn't discuss it further, but oh well. It's an interesting topic.

No, the essence of a non-compete is not that it simply prevents you from competing with a previous employer. Those are exactly the types of non-competes that a court would shred as being too broad.

The essence is that it prevents you from competing only when there is a realistic and specific risk of negatively impacting a legimate business interest, and is reasonable in its restrictions. Outside of that, non-competes are pretty much unenforceable.

Merely competing against you is not enough to justify the restriction and can't be considered a risk to a legislate business interest. Further, lost investment with respect to training does not constitute negative impact to a legimate business interest.

The simple fact about those types of costs is this: if you don't want your employees to leave, then it's on you to do a better job of providing them incentives to stay. Schools and coaches should be held to that same standard.

There simply is no rational, ethical or legal justification that would support the current rule.

As far as a mid-year transfer would be concerned, as long as schools are adhering to their own policies with respect to the admissions process and timelines, I have no issue with an athlete pursuing any opportunity they desire. If schools and coaches are that worried about those types of things occurring frequently, then they should do a better job of giving the kids a reason to stay rather than using an idiotic rule to handcuff them into staying.

EDIT: regarding mid-season transfers, I'd also add that if all they did was restrict the ability to play on two different teams within the same season, then I also wouldn't have an issue with that. That is the only type of restriction that is limited enough in scope to be consistent with how effective non-competes work.

 

[Aike]

No, the essence of a non-compete is not that it simply prevents you from competing with a previous employer. Those are exactly the types of non-competes that a court would shred as being too broad.

The essence is that it prevents you from competing only when there is a realistic and specific risk of negatively impacting a legimate business interest, and is reasonable in its restrictions. Outside of that, non-competes are pretty much unenforceable.

Merely competing against you is not enough to justify the restriction and can't be considered a risk to a legislate business interest. Further, lost investment with respect to training does not constitute negative impact to a legimate business interest.

The simple fact about those types of costs is this: if you don't want your employees to leave, then it's on you to do a better job of providing them incentives to stay. Schools and coaches should be held to that same standard.

There simply is no rational, ethical or legal justification that would support the current rule.

As far as a mid-year transfer would be concerned, as long as schools are adhering to their own policies with respect to the admissions process and timelines, I have no issue with an athlete pursuing any opportunity they desire. If schools and coaches are that worried about those types of things occurring frequently, then they should do a better job of giving the kids a reason to stay rather than using an idiotic rule to handcuff them into staying.

Yeah, we will just never agree on this. But thanks for making your opinion clear.

I would think your starting point guard switching teams midseason to compete directly against you would be the essence of doing irreparable harm. Just that one shift could knock you out of the tournament, costing you millions of dollars.

Would also cause harm to teammates (fellow student athletes). But they could just all leave at midseason, right?

I also don't think the legalities are as cut and dry as you make them out. Has anyone ever tested any of this in court? What was the outcome?

The parallels I've attempted to draw with the business world aren't intended to be all-encompassing. Hopefully everyone here realizes that the college world and the business world aren't intended to work exactly the same way.

For one, competitors in sports aren't attempting to end their competion (theoretically). In business, you may well want to crush your competition until they go completely out of business.

The NCAA is an association of members. Conferences subsets of this larger association. Members have an obligation to work not only in their own best interest, but also to not act in a manner detrimental to fellow members.

I get where you are coming from. Really, I do. But I've never seen an organization without rules. And I don't think this one is unreasonable.

I've seen companies (and I bet you have too) that won't allow internal transfers until you've been on a particular job for 6 months (or longer). Why do this? I'm guessing it's primarily for the stability of their internal departments.

So this is similar, in that the association sets rules that aid in the stability of their membership.

It isn't about just being better than the other guy so that your team remains attractive. Schools should not be put in position to constantly fend off recruiting pitches from other member institutions.

It seems that with you it is about the freedom of the athlete to do as they please. I'm all for freedom. I think the NCAA restricts athletes in other ways (not being able to profit from their likeness, for instance) that I would like to see altered. I just can't see this scenario playing out well, not with the baricudas that we have in power positions within college athletics.

 

[Aike]

Some may find this interesting...according to the NCAA, "about 40% of all MBB players who enter Division I directly out of high school depart their initial school by the end of their sophomore year."

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball

This article shows that 37% of all students transfer colleges:

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/07/15/one-third-of-undergrads-transfer-colleges/

So riddle me this...if the current system is so oppressive and restrictive, why are basketball players already transferring at a rate comparable to, if not above that of other students?

I mean, if the intention of the one year wait rule is really to "keep them from leaving," it's failing miserably, right?

Is it possible that there's more to the rule than just keeping players from leaving?

Last question...if 40% are already leaving within two years (under these oppressive policies), what happens if you remove all (or most) restrictions to transferring?

 

[kentucky_wildcat_#1]

I don't like the sound of this, but if it happens, good luck to fans from the smaller basketball schools. If any kid on your roster looks too talented to be at your school, no worries! That kid will be poached at the first sign of looking like a player. It seems now the blueblood programs will have scouts watching every school's roster trying to find the missing piece to add to their roster. If a kid doesn't have to sit a full year before transfering, many kids will be gone the first time their coach raises their voice at them. Maybe not. I guess we will just have to wait and see how the rule change helps or hurts college basketball. If the NCAA starts losing money, it won't last. If not, watch the madness in HD.

 

[crestcat]

Why does the NCAA waste time trying to solve a problem that is not a problem instead of addressing issues that really are a problem?