One problem that most would agree is that the current system doesn’t really promote any loyalty to the team, program or university…players are pretty much free to come and go at any point and time. Not sure exactly how this would work but I would like to see players receive a base salary for each year they play…that base pay would increase each year and more so if they stayed at the same school each year, plus a bonus incentive for stay at the same school for your entire playing career. Schools could offer incentives to individual players for team and individual player achievement. Team wins 20+ games, wins conference, makes ncaa tourney, makes elite 8, etc etc…player makes first all B10 team, leads league in steals, rebounds, named all-American, etc etc..players would have some motivation to play for team results as well as individual results as well…just some thoughts on maybe how to add some sanity to pretty much a wide open insane system we seem to currently have
Coaching Carousel (Basketball)
All of that could be accounted for in the construct of a contract. . . The contract has be the second priority after a CBA
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The loser mentality that anything other than Ron Guenther ever held us back from acquiring talent in an equivalent manner to our peer schools poisoned this fanbase for 25 years and nothing Josh Whitman has done has been more important or more personally gratifying than burying that factually false delusion with a string of garlic around its neck and a golden stake through the heart.
We've paid well for a gifted and exciting team and that has Lou Henson smiling down from heaven.
Well, this isn't a healthy spot in my opinion. It's the least regulated sport on the planet right now.
Schools have no ability to offer contracts. The idea that they would offer contracts and then players would turn them down is pretty crazy. But sure, it could happen. Or they could turn down the second year offer. Schools could then decide if they wanted that. It can happen now, but how often do you hear of free agents in the pros turning down multiyear deals so they can be free agents after the next season.
I'm not sure why you think lower tiered conferences wouldn't do this. But I don't have a clue what they might be offering players right now. None of us really do.
And this is not all roses for the players right now. Look at Booth. He comes here, probably thinks with a chance for good minutes, and then a bunch of other guys come in afterwards who look to take some of those minutes. So a highly regarded transfer ends up getting less of a deal than he thought. But his NIL is at least taken care of. All is good. But what if we decide we don't want the next year and he's a free agent again. He goes back on the market, with perhaps lesser numbers. With a multiyear contract he's got some protection.
The problem is that the top players either are going to take a contract bid from a problem that gives them their money up front or they're going to get bids in the subsequent years from other programs that'll make whatever loyalty provision there is in a contract irrelevant. Just do what Brad and Co have done recently that's led to our success, man. Embrace the chaos.
Contracts are legally binding. Presumably multi-year deals will have termination clauses. with penalties, etc.
We can and should embrace the current situation. I doubt it lasts.
Yes of course, just like all the NBA and NFL players that unilaterally terminate their multi-year deals every year
.Let's please stop acting like there is no possible way to ensure roster stability. There are plenty of real world examples. Free agency exists in other leagues, and they've managed to find ways to make it far less chaotic than the current NCAA status quo.
Thing is those leagues are meant to be careers, they're the final destination in the athletic journey. College sports are essentially job interviews. Student athletes have got four years to impress or they'll have to find something else to do for the rest of their lives.Yes of course, just like all the NBA and NFL players that unilaterally terminate their multi-year deals every year
Let's please stop acting like there is no possible way to ensure roster stability. There are plenty of real world examples. Free agency exists in other leagues, and they've managed to find ways to make it far less chaotic than the current NCAA status quo.
To a pro athlete, a bad contract means getting underpaid until they reach free agency. Pro athletes are increasingly sitting out until they get trades/new contracts, even when they have multiple years left.
To a student athlete, a bad contract means wasting limited eligibility years. "Hope you enjoyed your four-year contract, sorry you got recruited over after you sat on the bench in year 1 but at least you got your guaranteed $100k a year, have fun selling insurance." There have gotta be hundreds of athletes at this point who would've gone pro had they been able to easily transfer and show off at their new destination.
The average NFL career is 3 years. Many, many NBA players never make it past their rookie deals. This is not unique. As with other leagues, players would be able to afford agents and attorneys, and would unionize, so as to put contract provisions and a CBA in place that provide at least some protection.
Salary caps also exist in other leagues. If a hard cap were to be implemented, then you'd be able to compare apples to apples.
The only league that doesn't manage a cap and look what you have.
The only league that doesn't manage a cap and look what you have.
So pretty much the exact opposite of how we have operated and succeeded in the new hoops world? We have been 'the one who knocks', the last thing we want is agreements incentivizing staying put. We've got a top-5 recruiter in OA, let's please not hamstring him.
When was the last time a contract stopped a coach from moving on to bigger and better things?
Tony Bennett was under contract at WSU when he interviewed for IU, LSU and eventually took the Virginia job (leaving future HOFer Klay Thompson behind).
sacraig
- The desert
Sure but those moves have buyouts involved. Essentially penalties for either contact backing out early.
Depending on the value of a coach compared to when the contract was signed, sometimes it's economical to pay the buyout. Sometimes not.
So you're saying that the contract and penalties don't materially change a motivated coach's ability to move?
I don't see how that wouldn't apply to players, they would be dealing with the same school leadership that are happily breaking contracts and paying exorbitant sums for coaches.
sacraig
- The desert
It raises the bar for how much motivation it requires to move. It reduces the rate of transfers but doesn't eliminate them.
This just sounds like it'll transfer some of the wealth athletes would receive to the schools they're leaving. Instead of demanding $1M straight a kid would get $800k and the school gets a $200k buyout.
That might be the intent as it is essentially providing compensation for losing transfers.
I imagine buyouts are stopping a very large number of coaching moves. Both firings and coaches moving on.
But there were provisions in his contract governing the exit. In the current world governing player movement, there is very, very little, and it is getting smaller every day. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a player being able to make a change, but there have to be guardrails in place to prevent this sh!tsh0W we have today.
sacraig
- The desert
It would be whoever funded the contract that recoups that $200k. Either way, the point is there would be incentives for a player to stay, i.e., not having to eat a buyout. That's more of a barrier than literally nothing.
A kid gets $1M and a contract that says they get, say, $250k a year ($1M total) and they have to forfeit the remainder and pay a penalty if they transfer with the penalty maybe decreasing every year. Plus bonuses for if they leave early for the draft. That's far different from what you just described (and similar to how pro players operate). And please don't call me out on exact dollar amounts. I just pulled numbers out of a hat for convenience.
I just think you all are romanticizing contracts here.
68 head coaches changed jobs this offseason, so with 5 person staffs at least 340 ACs moved. So conservatively you had ~400 coaches move across 355 D1 programs.
Men's college basketball coaching changes for 2024-25
An up-to-date list of every coaching hiring and firing in men's college basketball ahead of the 2024-25 season.
Sure you might stop some movement by adding beuracracy but any high major will treat it like a transfer fee and pony up.
The player will just get what the school was willing to offer before minus the fee.
Honestly it sounds a lot like the old, illegal system.
A hard cap isn't going to do much. It will just go back to kids getting paid under the table.
A couple differences.I just think you all are romanticizing contracts here.
68 head coaches changed jobs this offseason, so with 5 person staffs at least 340 ACs moved. So conservatively you had ~400 coaches move across 355 D1 programs.
Men's college basketball coaching changes for 2024-25
An up-to-date list of every coaching hiring and firing in men's college basketball ahead of the 2024-25 season.www.espn.com
First, each team has only one head coach, and a handful of assistants. Therefore a program is often willing to pay an exorbitant buyout to get the coach the head coach they want, and is sometimes willing to pay a lesser buyout for an assistant. Particularly since the pool of high level football coaches is very small. They will be less willing to pay an exorbitant (or even any) buyout for one of 85 scholarship football players on their roster, particularly when the talent pool is much bigger and is constantly being replenished.
Second, coaches have buyouts because they negotiate for them. You don't really see buyouts in professional sports in the US, but in European soccer they are pretty common. At the end of the day, they are negotiated by the players. If players want them in the contract that is fine - but like with anything they'd likely have to make concessions on some other point. And schools would have to agree to them. I don't see a problem with that.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
There's no way this can be true.
He's out-Petrino'ed Bobby Petrino if true, but I don't believe it.