ccrunner609;1359536 wrote:lol at people trying to compare a coaches "job" and a players "education" being the same.
Kids should be able to come and go from any school. They are young and having to make alot of important decisions at the age of 17-18 years old. THe number of kids that choose to go somewhere based on what they know at that age might be viewed differently at the age of 20-21.
Make the penalty is that if a student wants to go to another school after 2 years or so, they are made to pay their tuition back to the school for the ammount of time they were there. Once they paid their dues, they are free to go.
Great idea. Akin to giving someone without a job a loan with high interest rate and then telling them they are good to go as long as everything is completely paid off on-time. It's a catch-22. People are caught up in the "now." Offer someone a free ride at age 18, most will take it. Even if they know that 2-3 years later it must be paid back, it won't deter things that much. Regardless of this warning, very few student-athletes will have the means to pay it off without some sort of compensation, even if they intended to transfer. All something like would do would create an extra advantage for kids who have access to money, either via family or some other form. It would also create a means to money changing hands to pay off scholarship fees which would allow a kid to transfer. What's to keep someone from "loaning" the money to a family based on future earnings, and allow that kid to transfer? It would create an even bigger problem that is ever increasing now, and a problem that the NCAA can't control currently. How on earth could they enforce it on a larger scale.
Again, giving the athletes an "out-clause", whether that be financially, academically or other reasons is only going to create more work for an already-depleted and incompetent NCAA. Then again, maybe this is a good thing and may lead to the eventual abandonment of the whole NCAA model.