With transfers in college basketball already at an all-time high, a lawsuit making its way through the U.S. District Courts is threatening to send that total soaring even higher.
Lead attorney on the case, Steve Berman, argues that the NCAA’s restrictions on college athlete mobility is “patently unlawful.” This led him to file a lawsuit last spring in the District Court of Indiana, representing NCAA Division I football players who have sought to transfer but were unable to due to the NCAA’s rules, which require most players to sit out a season after changing schools. Such a restriction is anticompetitive and contradictory to the goal of a fair working environment, according to Berman.
In spite of the “restricted” environment, there were 750 transfers in Division I basketball last year, approximately three times the transfer rate in 2008. A portion of the boom in transfers is explained by the installation of a graduate-transfer exception by the NCAA, which allows players with a bachelor’s degree to pursue a graduate degree at another school without sitting out a season. Undergraduate athletes don’t have access to a similar exception and in almost all cases have to take a season off when transferring, a penalty designed to incentivize players to stick with their program and limit roster turnover that is already a major challenge to college basketball coaches.
Without more context, the rule seems fair; a player has freedom to attend the college of their choice, so a repercussion for reneging on that agreement is reasonable. However, the flexibility of the coach-player agreement does not go both ways. Scholarships for athletes are not guaranteed for four years and may be rescinded after the season.
Such was the case for former Northern Illinois punter Peter Deppe, one of the players represented by Berman. Following a coaching change, Deppe’s scholarship offer was rescinded, and he pursued a transfer. Upon transferring to the University of Iowa, he was restricted from competing by the NCAA and his spot on the team was lost to another punter who was immediately eligible. Berman argues that such rules inhibit the future earnings of athletes with professional aspirations.
“The NCAA’s rule needs to change, and that Peter and the thousands of other college-athletes that fall victim to the NCAA’s rigged system of rules should be compensated for the losses they have suffered,” Berman told hbsslaw.com.
On the other side, college coaches fear that eliminating the one-year sit-out would result in an explosion of transfers.
“If kids are allowed to transfer without sitting out, college basketball will never be the same,” Arizona head coach Sean Miller told ESPN. “Whatever the number is of kids transferring this year, 700 or so, I think you can double that.”
That may be a dramatization, but there’s little doubt that such a rules change would only add to the already proliferating number of transfers.
The other fear is that the problem of tampering, a violation where coaches from outside schools contact players under scholarship considering a transfer, will only be exacerbated and have to be more closely monitored by the NCAA — there’s little confidence in the governing body’s ability to effectively do so even under existing conditions. Ultimately a compromise will have to be found to keep both sides happy.
“The thing that should happen is if a coach leaves, a kid should be allowed to transfer and play right away,” Duke head coach Mike Krzyzewski told ESPN.
This compromise was also endorsed by Kentucky coach John Calipari and is the most sensible solution that is currently feasible. Under this rule, Deppe would have been eligible to play immediately at Iowa after his scholarship was revoked and other athletes wouldn’t be constantly subjected to the fear of missing out on a better opportunity elsewhere. If there was no restriction on transfers, all 4,500 Division I players would be liable to change schools at a moment’s notice to compete for a better team or increase their court time. To this possibility, Calipari raises a smart question, “What are you going to do if a kid chooses to leave in December and join another program?” Such a dramatic change would create more headaches for programs and choice-anxiety for athletes.
The current system certainly isn’t fair in all cases to athletes and the game’s top coaches are suggesting a logical solution to the most prominent issue. With so many competing incentives between schools, coaches, players, parents and fans, a perfect remedy will not be found, but opening the floodgates of free transfer will soon mean free agency and another blow to the already withering state of amateurity in college sports.
