An athlete's commitment to a school doesn't create a contractual relationship. Neither does signing a NLI. That is very much the way that the NCAA and its member schools want it. If it were a contract, then the athletes would indisputably be employees, and that's a development that the NCAA has fought very hard to prevent for its entire existence. Talking about the relationship between a player and her team as if there is a contract, or even a "contract," is to have headed off down the wrong trail.
My guess is that you've seen a loosening of transfer rules, even for football and basketball players, because the NCAA doesn't want to fight this in court. The Seventh Circuit ruled in 2017 that the NCAA requirement of a year off before eligibility after a transfer is legal, but its reasoning was transparently ludicrous, including a claim that such a requirement was necessary to prevent schools from trading players like professional teams do.
After reading and contributing to this thread, I finally decided to ask my daughter who plays hockey in the WCHA what she thinks about having to sit out when transferring (not trying to brag; just establishing her credibility). She actually surprised me by saying she thinks all transfers should have to sit for a year. She said, "You shouldn't just be able to leave because you don't like the coach or the team sucks. Unless the coach leaves; then you shouldn't have to sit out." I followed up by asking her what if she didn't get along with her coach or teammates, or wasn't getting the playing time she thought she deserved and she said, "Then I should have done more research before choosing my school.
I honestly thought she would not want to be restricted if she didn't like where she is playing. Obviously, she does not represent any other players' opinions, but I found it interesting nonetheless.
Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
"Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"
Bigger picture: Whenever a person changes schools, jobs or locations, there will be hurdles to overcome. The individual making the change doesn't have an entitlement to the exact same situation immediately, with no costs attached.
Change schools? Some of the first school's credits may not transfer. Change jobs? You may have to survive a probationary period before vacation time and other benefits kick in. Move to a different state? Perhaps you'll have to take another driver's license test or professional exam before things get back to normal.
The question is whether such restrictions are fair and reasonable.
For those wondering if these transfers will bring about a coaching change, FWIW, about a decade ago about 5 or 6 hoops players at the U of MN demanded their coach be replaced (previous school of the coach was BC, not that it matters) , there were a couple top notch players who would had a good possibility of completed their college career being name All-Big 10. They ended up quitting and the school suffered through numerous bad years before they finally gave the coach the hook.
An interesting side note the coach is now a consultant for women who apparently want to learn how to be incompetent. Sort of a glorified “life” coach, telling others how to be successful. OK, I guess she was, she somehow kept her job many years longer than she should have, and many would argue she shouldn’t have been hired in the first place. So I guess her expertise is teaching incompetent women how to make it anyway.
I wouldn’t hold you breathe waiting for the coach to get fired.
Those players that quit should have had the opportunity to go elsewhere if they wanted. A crappy coach should not have absolute power over their players, it is bad enough high school coaches do.
I certainly do not know the situation in BC at all, but one would have to speculate that any player that loses their spot at an ivy as a senior in hs may not have a full ride at the school they scramble to find a spot on. Since schools that bring you in on a partial tend to keep you at a partial. And if you are on a partial, and then say a transfer ends up on a full ride and is also made Captain. That could drive players to leave. The alternative explanation is the players came to BC to compete for a title and realized that wasn't happening. Or something else?
I am okay with the transfer system that currently exists
Last edited by Reddington; 06-13-2019 at 01:53 PM.
Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
Senior Writer, BC Interruption
BC Interruption's 2019 NCAA Women's Hockey Pairwise Predictor
BC Interruption's 2018-2019 Men's & Women's GRaNT Computer Rankings
BC Interruption's 2018-2019 Women's Hockey KRACH Calculator
In fairness, it has got to be frustrating to see this situation play out.
Minnesota lost the Lamergoons (turned out ok for UM) to a transfer to North Dakota and you could easily explain the why of it. bc losing two of their best players is a lot harder to explain...
"The decline of western civilization can be traced directly to bands no longer having horn sections. I'm pretty sure that's science."
At least the posters that say that her teams need to focus more on d, and they overemphasize offense are saying something specific with some evidence. But she has earned some respect for how good her team has been for so long.
This past season, with a record that seemed to be underachieving and great players leaving is problematic. But it is not definitive evidence that Crowley is a pile of s*** and the program is done. Her record deserves some benefit of the doubt and maybe it was just a bad year.
IMO, the only curious aspect of women's hockey not having a requirement for transfers to sit a year is that it was initially exempted because it was an emerging sport. At what point will it be fully emerged? We're closing in on two decades of having a championship sponsored by the NCAA, so the players who are now entering school likely weren't even born when the NCAA took over.
The absence of a "sit" rule doesn't seem to have much impact, if any, on the top teams. In 1998-99, Minnesota had a very talented roster for that era, but no league in which to play, and finished third. After the season, Jenny Potter and one of the team's top D bolted for new D-I program UMD (having to sit a year wouldn't have applied anyway in this case, because they transferred to a new varsity program). Minnesota won the national championship the next year. After their freshmen season, the Lamoureux sisters transferred from Minnesota to UND, and the program that they left won NCAA crowns in their junior and senior seasons.
BC might feel some impact this year, but with the losses on the blue line, some struggles were likely at first even had everyone stayed. By next season, it's only one player missing. After that, there isn't any direct impact. As long as the Eagles continue to be able to recruit, they'll be just fine. They are only in trouble if the recruiting pipeline quits flowing like it did at UNH a decade ago.
"... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling
The NCAA is closer to an organized crime syndicate than it is to the image they try to portray (one of caring about what's best for student athletes.....blah, blah, blah). The reality is, the only time a student athlete has any control over their own destiny is before they sign the NLI (ie, while they're being recruited). Just because someone is a scholarship student-athlete does not mean their rights and options should be more limited than any other student. The genesis of the "sit a year" transfer rule was supposedly to allow the student athlete to acclimate to the new school without the pressure of the sport as well. However, this quickly morphed into another way that coaches and schools (and the NCAA) exert control over young adults who also happen to be student-athletes.
It happens every year, every where, many graduated high schoolers leave home and head off to their dream University/College and for one reason or another after a semester or 2 many of them realize that their 'dream school' isn't what they thought/hoped it would be so they are free to transfer anywhere they want (and can get in). What is the basis for limiting student athletes ability to transfer? It's simple, it is control for the University's and coaches that put their time in recruiting and developing said player. Fans of teams don't like the transfer thing because it makes it harder to have continuity with the players on your favorite team, but ask yourself, is that really a good enough reason to limit a young persons options? Personally, I think not!
The loosened transfer rules are about the only thing the NCAA has done in recent years (along with cost of attendance scholarships) to actually help student athletes. Coaches come and go, Administrators come and go, why shouldn't the student athletes be able to too? Best wishes to Lonergan and Watts and to BC and their remaining players as well!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)