bobby thinks players should be indentured servants

[SACCAT66]

If a coach leaves for a different job, should every player HE recruited be allowed to transfer with no penalty?

Coaches are not players...except cat, milf-chasing coaches. They are players.

So only players are required to honor their commitments. Coaches can "Transfer" all over the place all they want. I am just asking.

The commitment is in the form of a contract. Read and understand them, before you post stupid things.

So what is it that a coach signed to become a head coach? Again, I am not saying anyone here is wrong, it is just my opinion that if a coach can break a contract, then so can a player.

 

[Dillon]

So only players are required to honor their commitments. Coaches can "Transfer" all over the place all they want. I am just asking.

Name an industry where those in charge or a position of earned authority are NOT treated differently than the employees.

I'm not suggesting it is correct, but coaches and players are not the same.

So a Football player is the employee of the head coach? Look, I dont know the correct answer to this problem, but there are obviously some issues that need fixed.

What needs to be fixed?

:thumb:

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

If a coach leaves for a different job, should every player HE recruited be allowed to transfer with no penalty?

Coaches are not players...except cat, milf-chasing coaches. They are players.

So only players are required to honor their commitments. Coaches can "Transfer" all over the place all they want. I am just asking.

The commitment is in the form of a contract. Read and understand them, before you post stupid things.

Would you consider the scholarship signed by the student a contract? Looking at it through that lens the student is just signing a 1 year contract (scholarships I believe are renewed yearly - but of course I could be wrong). What's the big deal if the student leaves after 1 year of fulfilling his contract? Also - please don't see this as picking / nit-picking at something. I'm just genuinely curious. There's been some good back and forth discussion.

 

[PlayerRep]

Coaches are not players...except cat, milf-chasing coaches. They are players.

So only players are required to honor their commitments. Coaches can "Transfer" all over the place all they want. I am just asking.

The commitment is in the form of a contract. Read and understand them, before you post stupid things.

Would you consider the scholarship signed by the student a contract? Looking at it through that lens the student is just signing a 1 year contract (scholarships I believe are renewed yearly - but of course I could be wrong). What's the big deal if the student leaves after 1 year of fulfilling his contract? Also - please don't see this as picking / nit-picking at something. I'm just genuinely curious. There's been some good back and forth discussion.

A scholarship document, including perhaps other related documents, would obligate an athlete to adhere to the policies of the school, the conference, and the ncaa. This would include the applicable transfer rules. The documents would surely require the athlete to adhere to any ongoing obligations, i.e. transfer rules, after the end of the scholarship.

The contracts of head coaches usually have buyout provisions, particularly for major sports. These contracts are longer term. Thus, a head coach can't just go to another school without the buyout clause and other requirements being adhered.

To my knowledge, asst coaches usually don't have buyout clauses. At the FCS level, I believe most assistant contracts are for one year. It seems that head coaches and schools let assistants out of contracts in mid-year if that arises, but that never seems to occur in mid-season.

Contracts can't make a coach work, or a player play, but contracts do come with other restrictions, including things like buyout clauses and transfer rules.

I didn't view your question as nit picky. It seemed to just be part of furthering the discussion and understanding the situation and the contract structure. The term commitment is too vague and not helpful in understanding the situation, in my view.

 

[Cuervohola]

Regardless of whether people are Pro-Bobby or Anti-Bobby, I don't think anybody would be happy 6 months from now if Akem, Lewis and Toure were playing for the Huskies.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

So only players are required to honor their commitments. Coaches can "Transfer" all over the place all they want. I am just asking.

The commitment is in the form of a contract. Read and understand them, before you post stupid things.

Would you consider the scholarship signed by the student a contract? Looking at it through that lens the student is just signing a 1 year contract (scholarships I believe are renewed yearly - but of course I could be wrong). What's the big deal if the student leaves after 1 year of fulfilling his contract? Also - please don't see this as picking / nit-picking at something. I'm just genuinely curious. There's been some good back and forth discussion.

A scholarship document, including perhaps other related documents, would obligate an athlete to adhere to the policies of the school, the conference, and the ncaa. This would include the applicable transfer rules. The documents would surely require the athlete to adhere to any ongoing obligations, i.e. transfer rules, after the end of the scholarship.

The contracts of head coaches usually have buyout provisions, particularly for major sports. These contracts are longer term. Thus, a head coach can't just go to another school without the buyout clause and other requirements being adhered.

To my knowledge, asst coaches usually don't have buyout clauses. At the FCS level, I believe most assistant contracts are for one year. It seems that head coaches and schools let assistants out of contracts in mid-year if that arises, but that never seems to occur in mid-season.

Contracts can't make a coach work, or a player play, but contracts do come with other restrictions, including things like buyout clauses and transfer rules.

I didn't view your question as nit picky. It seemed to just be part of furthering the discussion and understanding the situation and the contract structure. The term commitment is too vague and not helpful in understanding the situation, in my view.

Interesting. Thank you - great discussion.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

Regardless of whether people are Pro-Bobby or Anti-Bobby, I don't think anybody would be happy 6 months from now if Akem, Lewis and Toure were playing for the Huskies.

Agreed - but if they're able to do it - good for them. Who wouldn't want to compete with (and against) the best?

 

[ilovethecats]

Regardless of whether people are Pro-Bobby or Anti-Bobby, I don't think anybody would be happy 6 months from now if Akem, Lewis and Toure were playing for the Huskies.

Except for Akem, Lewis and Toure if they felt that was the best move for them athletically and academically....

 

[Paytonlives]

1- I've always thought that coaches that leave befor thier contract was up should have to sit in a penalty box. Something like not coaching for 2 years.
Because sometimes a coach agrees to a contract and then before even one game is coached he moves on to a higher level. THATS CRAP...
or
2- Get bought out by the other school, even without it in the contract.

IE if you want a FCS coach you should have to re-emburse the contract plus a penalty in damages to what "could have been" (can of worms). But what is a possible national championship or leauge chamionship worth to a University?

Always seemed like crap that they are never penalized and players usually have to sit out a year.

But then again replacing one coach would be a hell of alot easier that replacing your top 10 players each year.

I guess maybe the way I'd like to see it is that contracts are more binding and Scholorships are 4 years in length.

 

[PlayerRep]

Regardless of whether people are Pro-Bobby or Anti-Bobby, I don't think anybody would be happy 6 months from now if Akem, Lewis and Toure were playing for the Huskies.

Except for Akem, Lewis and Toure if they felt that was the best move for them athletically and academically....

Academically? Ha, real funny.

 

[kemajic]

Regardless of whether people are Pro-Bobby or Anti-Bobby, I don't think anybody would be happy 6 months from now if Akem, Lewis and Toure were playing for the Huskies.

Agreed - but if they're able to do it - good for them. Who wouldn't want to compete with (and against) the best?

Then why didn't they do that coming out of high school? Oh, yeah, they were too raw to be of interest to "the best" until Montana made the development investment in their skills.

 

[PlayerRep]

1- I've always thought that coaches that leave befor thier contract was up should have to sit in a penalty box. Something like not coaching for 2 years.
Because sometimes a coach agrees to a contract and then before even one game is coached he moves on to a higher level. THATS CRAP...
or
2- Get bought out by the other school, even without it in the contract.

IE if you want a FCS coach you should have to re-emburse the contract plus a penalty in damages to what "could have been" (can of worms). But what is a possible national championship or leauge chamionship worth to a University?

Always seemed like crap that they are never penalized and players usually have to sit out a year.

But then again replacing one coach would be a hell of alot easier that replacing your top 10 players each year.

I guess maybe the way I'd like to see it is that contracts are more binding and Scholorships are 4 years in length.

What's the big deal about having to sit out a year? I don't find that to be a huge penalty or problem.

Some of you bitch about the quality of FCS. Well, making FCS the farm system for FBS would definitely hurt the quality of FCS.

Making FCS scholarships 4 years would decrease the opportunity for younger and more deserving players, including walk-ons. Why would you favor keeping a scholarship with a low performer, instead of giving it to a more deserving player?

 

[ilovethecats]

Regardless of whether people are Pro-Bobby or Anti-Bobby, I don't think anybody would be happy 6 months from now if Akem, Lewis and Toure were playing for the Huskies.

Except for Akem, Lewis and Toure if they felt that was the best move for them athletically and academically....

Academically? Ha, real funny.

I'm speaking in generalities PR. Griz players may not base decisions on academics but I know many student athletes do in fact make decisions on academics.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

Regardless of whether people are Pro-Bobby or Anti-Bobby, I don't think anybody would be happy 6 months from now if Akem, Lewis and Toure were playing for the Huskies.

Agreed - but if they're able to do it - good for them. Who wouldn't want to compete with (and against) the best?

Then why didn't they do that coming out of high school? Oh, yeah, they were too raw to be of interest to "the best" until Montana made the development investment in their skills.

So what? Why wouldn't you want to test yourself against the best? Yeah, Montana invested in developing them, but it also takes them putting in the work to make themselves better. If they put in their time and transfer up or whatever, yeah it sucks, but good for them. They'll have to deal with the consequences of their actions if it works out or not.

I'm not a fan of the proposed change and I don't think it'll be a good idea and I'm not disagreeing it'd be crappy for the lower tiers if it passes. I think it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[grizindabox]

Just spitballin', but what if the one-time transfer is limited to the first 3 years of eligibility.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Just spitballin', but what if the one-time transfer is limited to the first 3 years of eligibility.

Been hoping for these "new rule" threads to be combined. I mentioned this issue over there: According to the articles referenced there, a lot of transfers occur early-on when the recruits decide they mis-read a school situation during their interviews and visits. So make that first or second-year transfer easier.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Just spitballin', but what if the one-time transfer is limited to the first 3 years of eligibility.

Interesting thought, for sure. Could transfer in the first three years of eligibility, or for the fifth if grad transfer rules applied, or in between if a coach left or another waiver applied, without sitting out. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea at all. It just seems like exceptions would be swallowing the rule.

 

[argh!]

Regardless of whether people are Pro-Bobby or Anti-Bobby, I don't think anybody would be happy 6 months from now if Akem, Lewis and Toure were playing for the Huskies.

lots of huskies fans would be happy.

 

[PlayerRep]

The big team taking the transfer should compensate the little team.

 

[sdk.catfish]

by PlayerRep » Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:14 pm

The big team taking the transfer should compensate the little team.

Since your such a big believer in capitalism can you explain why companies with 10,000 employees, who hire someone working for a company with a hundred employees, don't compensate the little company? Or is that too tough a question for you?