YOU TALKIN’ TO ME – JUNE 26
By ISM Staff

SHOULD COLLEGE ATHLETES BE ABLE TO TRANSFER AND NOT HAVE TO SIT A YEAR BUT BE ELIGIBLE IMMEDIATELY?

Brooklyn & South Beach, I think that will be the next shoe to drop so to speak.  I believe that athletes, in the very near future, will be allowed free movement from one institution of higher learning to another without having to sit out a year and I believe the nine justices that sit on the bench in Washington, DC makes that a lock.

SB & BKLY, let me give you a quick synopsis of what has transpired before the High Court.  This week, the Supreme Court just slapped the NCAA around with it’s latest decision that an institution cannot restrict the amount of money an athlete can make. In fact, Justice Kavanaugh threw an uppercut when he blasted the business model that the NCAA has incorporated as one “that would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.”  He followed that up with a body shot when he stated that “price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor” that “extinguishes the free market in which an individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work” and, as Howard Cosell so aptly stated, down goes the NCAA.  Yeah, I know it was Joe Frazier that went down but you two catch my drift.

Big Apple Guy & Magic City Fella, those last statements by the Justice Kavanaugh is the reason why the NCAA will have to do one of two things.  The powers that be in Indianapolis will either have to go back to the policy of awarding four-year scholarships that will guarantee an athlete is compensated for his entire collegiate career.  Honestly, don’t know if the schools want to do that.  They’ve got greedy and don’t want to earmark money for scholarships that could possibly go to a player who has become a third team backup.

Boys, if the NCAA decides to stay with one year scholarships, then look for Plan B to go into effect.  That would allow unrestricted movement of athletes from school to school.  If they don’t go down that road, look for the Supreme Court to jump back in and “take the NCAA behind the woodshed” for being arrogant and not following their directives because those fols don’t play.

Well, Brooklyn & South Beach, look for players to have unrestricted movement or the “Highest Court in the Land” jumps back into the picture.  So, I’m not only talkin’ to you two but I’m talking to NCAA President Mark Emmert as well.

To say Emmert better listen is an understatement.  What say you two?

South Beach & Low Ball, after last week, this may sound strange but I’m with South Beach on this one. Mostly, the idea of one or two-year contracts levels the playing field, potentially, between small and large universities. I hate the idea of a pseudo “free agency” for these college’s athletes, but it makes sense based on the arguments that both of you present.

Even so, I would wager that we will see very limited movement of players, no? Of course there is the occasional disillusioned, angry or benched player that moves on, but college athletes are mostly dedicated to the institutions that they elect to play for, and I don’t see this changing.

So, Low Ball and South Beach, I think we might even have a consensus on this one. Four-year deals will be scary for many colleges but smaller scholarships may become the norm, but help smaller schools and their ability to procure better players.

Adam Sznapstajler

Low Ball & Brooklyn, now that we can all acknowledge that “amateur sports” were illegal in college, here comes the hard part. Finding a proper way that will allow smaller schools to compete with the big boys (for their fans at least, I’m a gator so let the big schools win I always say).

I agree with Low Ball on this point.  A four year contract would scare schools away from many players, especially those with injury histories. I do however, have an issue with schools being able to release a player because of an injury. I think there should be guarantees for a full four year scholarship if the player gets hurt.

My proposal is a two year contract with a player opt out after the first year. However the opt out clause comes with a 30 day return option. This would allow players to be able to explore the transfer market in case there are better opportunities but keep the bird in the bush.

Now, I know a player entering the transfer portal and returning might irk coaches.  Too bad because they do the same thing by have their agents looking for the next better job.  

The 30 day return rule can also double for declaring for the draft.  Novel though there, LB & BKLN, right?

Two year contracts give players a sense of security and offer a lower risk to the schools if it doesn’t work out. The one year opt out also gives players a true sense of free agency every year which I guess eventually answers your question Low Ball. Yes, let them transfer every year.