I will disagree.
by Porpoiseboy (2020-02-19 15:00:01)
Edited on 2020-02-19 15:18:27

In reply to: So long as a student athlete is on track to graduate  posted by KeoughCharles05


Player tampering & the prevention thereof occurs at every level of elite sports. No current transfer penalty is overly burdensome. An athlete plays & is compensated by an institution, not a coach. Part of an athlete's decision process should include evaluating a coach's plans for the years that player will attend.

Removing the waiting period for transferring will benefit unethical recruiting.

Institutions that receive violations penalties often have their athletes receive freebies to go elsewhere. That's how I like it. If an athlete gets hosed by an institution, they get the option. Removing all the waits will be an open invitation.

No student is stopped from transferring. This is only regarding athletes. So I will not weep if an athlete faces consequences for changing his or her mind.


What does "player tampering" mean?
by KeoughCharles05  (2020-02-19 15:12:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Who is it designed to protect, and from what?

The point of NCAA athletics is to allow athletic competitions among eligible students at participating colleges and universities. Why should a student in good academic standing be prohibited from competing?

I might be talked into a rule in which a scholarship isn't permitted for a one-year waiting period. Maybe. But this should be about student athletes competing during their education. The fact that it's allowed in all but five sports already demonstrates the real reason for the rule -- to protect institutions, not to benefit students.


From the googler...
by Porpoiseboy  (2020-02-19 15:16:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In professional team sports, tapping up (British English) or tampering (American English) is an attempt to persuade a player contracted to one team to transfer to another team, without the knowledge or permission of the player's current team.


So, using that definition
by KeoughCharles05  (2020-02-19 15:27:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

a student is "contracted" to a University? If a University has made a binding, enforceable, five year commitment to the student, perhaps I'd be more sympathetic to this argument.

But, in the case of one year renewable scholarships, I don't see how the student is contracted to the University.