At first glance I like this idea. What say you?
Last edited:
OMG an actual good idea
- Thread starter University-6
- Start date
I mean… they could just go back to having limitations on transfers.
I like it.
Reward the loyal student athlete without restraining student athletes that might have to transfer.
The system is being abused, no doubt, but it is fair, IMHO.
This just creates incentive for some to stick with the school they chose and does nothing to hurt those that don’t.
Good idea, IMHO.
Reward the loyal student athlete without restraining student athletes that might have to transfer.
The system is being abused, no doubt, but it is fair, IMHO.
This just creates incentive for some to stick with the school they chose and does nothing to hurt those that don’t.
Good idea, IMHO.
Am extra year of NIL would be enticing for a lot of players that won't be pros. However, it will limit coaches roster turnover needs.
How would that work"
One year, you have 4 players that get no playing time. Just not good enough. So they get an extra year. The next season, you have 4 players that get no playing time. They get an extra year.
The following season, you have a team full of players that aren't good enough.
One year, you have 4 players that get no playing time. Just not good enough. So they get an extra year. The next season, you have 4 players that get no playing time. They get an extra year.
The following season, you have a team full of players that aren't good enough.
Yeah...seems like a mess. It would not benefit the major programs and could add a logjam with the mid majors in a sport like basketball.
Football would be a nightmare. We have 37 freshman on scholarship this year between true freshman and redshirt freshman. Now, we know some of them will be redshirted and some will transfer, but you could have a handful of players or so that play sparingly and decide to stay because of the ability for a 5th year that take up scholarships with no impact on the field of play.
They need to do away with this new landscape that seems to 1000% cater to every want or desire of the *ahem* “student athletes,” and restore some level of limitations and restrictions that protect the interests of the universities. These “students” CHOOSE to sign up for this gig, of their own volition. I don’t know why there can’t be some restrictions in place.
So a player in a bad situation has an incentive to stay in that bad situation for 4 years…so he will be rewarded with a 5th year…in that bad situation?
Why limit the kids when it’s the adults who are usually the problem?
NIL inducements exist because boosters with money have their priorities so far out of whack that they are willing to throw large sums of money around in the hope that it will help their team will win more. If boosters are out there offering it, then I 100% support student athletes trying to maximize what they can get.
Same with the transfer portal. If you were to go speak to a lot of the athletes who transfer, you might be surprised by how many of them were encouraged to transfer by coaches. They’re either constantly being approached by other schools in an effort to entice them to enter the portal, or their current coach is encouraging them to leave to make room on the roster.
So again, the real problem in most cases is the adults, not the student athletes.
A player in a bad situation has the option of leaving that bad situation, no questions asked. That wouldn’t change.
What this would do is to offer an incentive to a kid who is maybe not getting the PT he wants or is homesick or whatever, to stick it out and give it some time. It rewards those who can withstand the impulsive urge of “when the going gets tough, the tough get going” and stay the course.
No thanks... you should get 4 years max and 1 redshirt if needed.
College game already has been trash due to these 6-7-8 year Covid players.
College game already has been trash due to these 6-7-8 year Covid players.
if in four years a guy isn’t NBA ready, why would you want to keep them another year? At that point you need them to transfer out to get somebody else in.
Without reading the whole thread up to the point of my post, it wouldn't work because as much as (( I )) [no, that's not a naughty ascii drawing] want college sports to be about the college EDUCATION first (and play in exchange for the free education), the NBA has no regard for the college game. Has the NCAA ever approached the NBA about some sort of agreement like "2 years of college before being drafted, unless you come straight out of highschool"? If so, what was the NBA's response?
That was too strict. But they didn’t just loosen the not, they completely untied it.
You mean like baseball had for years. No ides why basketball didn’t also do that, they should have.
There has to be some irony in Cal being the advocate for this, right? Like, I can't possibly be the only person that thinks it?
How is it trash? If anything, the college game has been better the last few years in my eyes. When players stay around longer, you've got more better players. It's a better product.
If he supports it, then it only provides more proof that he was concerned about one thing only at UK, how many draft picks he had, that's why he was here. Anywhere else, and he suddenly gives a **** about the college game.
Because schools, coaches, ADs, conferences, and media destroyed the amateur system in favor of chasing dollars, and created a billion dollar industry out of it while refusing to budge an inch on giving student athletes anything. The NCAA tried to pass the responsibility off on congress, who also didn't act. So it ended up in the courts, where the NCAA's position was indefensible under existing law, and the restrictions started being blasted away wholesale. The pursuit of ever increasing money and the NCAA's refusal to modernize and set reasonable rules and procedures led inevitably to what we have now.
Or rather, guys like Derek Willis and Dom Hawkins will be rewarded for staying around. If they're 7th or 8th men in the roster rotation, it makes sense. If they're perpetually the 10th or 11th man, not so much.
Because college basketball shouldn't be the NBA. Yes we want Juniors and Seniors but in my opinion these Super 2nd and 3rd year seniors are overkill and not what CBB should be. (Also the reason Coach Cal wasn't as successful the last several years)
I mean hell we already killed the school portion and now everyone gets paid beyond their standard scholarship.
Just quit killing the game we grew up with.
How about this radical idea that if you stay and play--you have 4 yrs to play unless you are talented enough to go to the NBA or get injured you would get a 5th yr due to missing a season and once those 4 yrs are up-your athletic eligibility comes to an end. I'm so sick and tired of hearing the word "loyalty" used in a generation that is all about themselves and their branding.
When your school is paid for, the coach plays you on the court, and you get a degree in addition to NIL $.....they've been loyal. Now go get a ****ing job and grow up.
When your school is paid for, the coach plays you on the court, and you get a degree in addition to NIL $.....they've been loyal. Now go get a ****ing job and grow up.
No, they legally cannot. The courts have said that, that's exactly why we're where we are today. The courts said limitations on transfers are illegal.
Players that are good enough to play want to leave college as soon as possible. NIL is nice but NBA is the goal. This rule would benefit those that help with practice but never see a game outside of a blowout or two.
With that said I am all for it lol
With that said I am all for it lol
Very interesting idea, I'm not sure how great it could be because most would go pro if good enough. I could see a lot of scenario where we got a guy like Liggins back a 5th year thay would really help. This year I could see Carr being very nice to have back, a guy like that.
Yeah, I get that it could be beneficial to some. My point was that players who end up in bad situations, and there are lots, would essentially be punished for seeking a way out.
Because in effect, you would be changing eligibility from 4 to 5 years. Players who leave early, for whatever reason, would lose that final year.
And the power of coaches would only grow. They could and would hold that extra year over unhappy players. I’m sure they would still be able to cut players, as scholarships are technically only 1 year deals. And the coaches could still walk away at any time, leaving the players to fend for themselves.
An extra free year of school + NIL money could be a pretty big bonus for lots of guys.
Last edited:
Just depends on how you frame it. In practicality, this would change eligibility from 4 to 5 years, and penalize anyone who doesn’t “play ball” with their original school…for whatever reason.
As a Kentucky fan, I’m just hopeful that Pope does a great job of identifying kids who are inclined to grow with the program and stay long term. That every year isn’t about roster turnover and bidding wars.
I think we’re on the right track, but it’s early yet.
Let me add that I am 99.99% sure that this would end in a lawsuit, when some unhappy player who felt mistreated by a coach and was denied a 5th year at a transfer destination sues the NCAA, their former coach, the former school, the popcorn vender, the local sheriff, and the town drunk.
Then it’s 5 years for everybody.
And why stop there? I’m still hoping to see John Wall and Demarcus Cousins retain eligibility. They’re all pros now. What’s the difference,
Then it’s 5 years for everybody.
And why stop there? I’m still hoping to see John Wall and Demarcus Cousins retain eligibility. They’re all pros now. What’s the difference,
I dont know the nitty gritty of it, but transfer restrictions as they previously existed are illegal now.
I don’t know either. I just look at it objectively and think there should be room for some restrictions to protect the interests of all parties. Clearly SOME restrictions are considered acceptable. What rules are the NCAA allowed to make, or not make? I’m not sure I understand at what point the government gets to dictate what rules are allowed.
When I step back at look at it as a whole, the athletes know what the rules are for the landscape they are opting to join of their own volition. If they don’t like the rules involved, they don’t have to participate.
I’ve thought about that as well, I guess since it would be a new rule they wouldn’t have much standing but I can see the lawsuit.
