Former Deac John Currie acts like a douchebag

[RacerDeac]

The NCAA could fix this in about ten minutes by allowing athletes the same ail to move as coaches get.

Buyouts?

 

[HCF3]

Who was it that quite vocally kept calling for Currie to be Wellmans replacement?

I am in that boat. I actually like Currie's tough stance, you pick a school not a coach, even if it is perceived to be wrong. Wellman will let a transfer go anywhere, even to top rivals - that is weak imho. Which is the perfect definition of Wellman's tenure the last 10 years or so.

 

[94Deac]

Has a women's basketball story ever generated so much rage and anger?

 

[RJKarl]

A coach tells the world, "I'm here for the long haul". He signs a contract and then maybe an extension. Then he gets a better offer and bolts.

But you want to hold an 18-20 yo kid hostage. That's ridiculous.

Should your employer be allowed to tell you when and if you can take another job? You want a school to have that power over a student. You should be OK with giving your boss the same power. After all you told the boss, that's where you wanted to be.

 

[awaken]

I don't have the same rights as my boss either. My boss can get away with a lot more, because well, he's my boss. His boss can get away with even more, and she likely has a contract with far more benefits than mine. Student athletes don't have to pay large chunks of money to a school when they ask out of their scholarship contracts like coaches do when they decide they want to change jobs. We complain about the salaries coaches earn, but where the hell else is an 18 year old kid, many times without an outstanding academic record, going to find compensation that totals in the 6 figures (tax free) once tuition, room, board, training, travel, medical, clothing, etc are factored in? I really don't get the uproar from student athletes. There are people in every field, even more highly trained and experienced, working their asses off for less total compensation while their bosses and the company they work for earn big profits off their work...that's the way things work. Life outside of college athletics, after some of these kids finish up playing college sports and get their first $30K a year job out of school (if they're lucky right now) outside of athletics, is going to be a hell of a slap in the face.

I'm a compassionate person, but this whole "we're college athletes and we're not being treated fairly" argument is really confusing to me when I look at the facts. As far as I can tell, college athletes are compensated very well for the work they do, as they should be since they are tops in their field. We have some major issues in the workplace with unfair salaries and opportunities based on your ethnicity, gender, etc. The plight of the college athlete just doesn't rank up there IMO. Sure, there are abuses (such as the drug deal in the NFL that likely happens in colleges too), but those should be dealt with and are separate from the general scholarship contract of "you play sports, we provide you with XXX".

All of that to say, LOL at the great tags.

Your same arguments could be said for limiting a coach's right to leave w/o penalty. Also, scholarships run year to year - a school can term an athlete without penalty, but athletes cannot do the same. Regular students can transfer without issue - so much for student athletes, huh? And the real world employees you cite can quit and work for another company as well.

This is an example of NCAA schools acting like a cartel.

 

[RacerDeac]

Should your employer be allowed to tell you when and if you can take another job? You want a school to have that power over a student. You should be OK with giving your boss the same power. After all you told the boss, that's where you wanted to be.

Do you want a school to have the power to force a kid into a buyout contract? You're looking for equality here, right?

 

[Stan Gable]

Should your employer be allowed to tell you when and if you can take another job? You want a school to have that power over a student. You should be OK with giving your boss the same power. After all you told the boss, that's where you wanted to be.

Its called a non-compete, non-solicit clause in a contract. Its pretty common.

 

[94Deac]

A coach tells the world, "I'm here for the long haul". He signs a contract and then maybe an extension. Then he gets a better offer and bolts.

But you want to hold an 18-20 yo kid hostage. That's ridiculous.

Should your employer be allowed to tell you when and if you can take another job? You want a school to have that power over a student. You should be OK with giving your boss the same power. After all you told the boss, that's where you wanted to be.

The coach is an employee. The player is a student. There's really no comparison since they're two entirely different circumstances. I actually recognize the pros to both sides and am closer to ambivalence on it but you have to realize that an employment arrangement isn't the same as accepting a scholarship and education.

 

[SC DEAC]

of all the things to be pissed off at Wellman about, this is not one of them.

 

[RacerDeac]

Also, scholarships run year to year - a school can term an athlete without penalty, but athletes cannot do the same.

This is known when an athlete signs the scholarship offer. It's not hidden. It's not a new development. Seems like one of the tradeoffs for accepting a lucrative offer that very few have access to at the age of 18. Seems like an acceptable tradeoff to me, and one that thousands of scholarship athletes have made for years.

Regular students can transfer without issue - so much for student athletes, huh?

They are student athletes...two roles. The others are just students. The same rules don't, and shouldn't, apply. There are plenty of ROTC kids who sign a contract as well ...they don't just have the option of walking away from their contract without any penalty. A regular student can quit and decide they are done with college without any penalty or restrictions, a ROTC student can't.

And the real world employees you cite can quit and work for another company as well.

Sure they can, if they didn't sign a contract. You walk into the situation with your eyes open. If I go to work for a company and my contract specs that I will have a buyout if I leave before 3 years, I don't get upset that my coworkers can move jobs while I can't. I made sure that my contract was worth it for me when I signed it.

 

[avalon]

I am in that boat. I actually like Currie's tough stance, you pick a school not a coach, even if it is perceived to be wrong. Wellman will let a transfer go anywhere, even to top rivals - that is weak imho. Which is the perfect definition of Wellman's tenure the last 10 years or so.

While we're at it, let's make everyone stick to all decisions they made when they were 16/17 years old.

 

[avalon]

We complain about the salaries coaches earn, but where the hell else is an 18 year old kid, many times without an outstanding academic record, going to find compensation that totals in the 6 figures (tax free) once tuition, room, board, training, travel, medical, clothing, etc are factored in?

A lot of what you listed here are costs of running the athletic program. Do you consider training provided by your employer compensation? What about the computer you use at work? The travel provided to business meetings? And it’s all tax-free!

(I don’t think I’m going to change your mind on the overall issue, this is just a personal pet peeve.)

 

[P4nthers11]

I am in that boat. I actually like Currie's tough stance, you pick a school not a coach, even if it is perceived to be wrong. Wellman will let a transfer go anywhere, even to top rivals - that is weak imho. Which is the perfect definition of Wellman's tenure the last 10 years or so.

Don't agree. I would have had second thought about Wake if one day all of the faculty suddenly packed up and left town and I was told that they would be replaced by a whole new faculty. I think it is analogous to when a student-athlete commits to a school AND a staff.

 

[HCF3]

of all the things to be pissed off at Wellman about, this is not one of them.

Its one thing to let a player out of his LOI - great, nice, real friendly, and probably the right thing to do. But, to allow the player to go and play for your top rival - who you get to play at minimum 2 times a year?? I am speaking of Mitchell here. That is ridiculous.

 

[dcon69]

I am in that boat. I actually like Currie's tough stance, you pick a school not a coach, even if it is perceived to be wrong. Wellman will let a transfer go anywhere, even to top rivals - that is weak imho. Which is the perfect definition of Wellman's tenure the last 10 years or so.

You pick a school not a coach is the biggest bunch of bullshit perpetrated by those in powe to protect their narrow interess unless you are a cross country runner and even then it is suspect. The average athlete picks both and should have the right to move more freely. Where is Curt Flood when you need him?

 

[RJKarl]

At the heart of this is a scholarship is a one year contract, the schools can cancel it after the year. There's no reason the student-athlete shouldn't be able to walk away just as easily.

If it was a four year contract, then those who oppose giving students their right of movement would have a point, but it isn't.

It's staggering that anyone supports the university being able to unilaterally and without any penalty being able toss a student-athlete to the curb, but opposes giving the student-athlete the same rights.

 

[PhDeac]

Its called a non-compete, non-solicit clause in a contract. Its pretty common.

Common among employees, not among students.

 

[Biff Tannen]

At the heart of this is a scholarship is a one year contract, the schools can cancel it after the year. There's no reason the student-athlete shouldn't be able to walk away just as easily.

If it was a four year contract, then those who oppose giving students their right of movement would have a point, but it isn't.

It's staggering that anyone supports the university being able to unilaterally and without any penalty being able toss a student-athlete to the curb, but opposes giving the student-athlete the same rights.

She can quit anytime she wants. Quit basketball, quit school, kill herself, whatever.

 

[Stan Gable]

Common among employees, not among students.

My response was made directly to RJ's comparison to employers. I'm quite aware of the difference.

 

[awaken]

This is known when an athlete signs the scholarship offer. It's not hidden. It's not a new development. Seems like one of the tradeoffs for accepting a lucrative offer that very few have access to at the age of 18. Seems like an acceptable tradeoff to me, and one that thousands of scholarship athletes have made for years.



They are student athletes...two roles. The others are just students. The same rules don't, and shouldn't, apply. There are plenty of ROTC kids who sign a contract as well ...they don't just have the option of walking away from their contract without any penalty. A regular student can quit and decide they are done with college without any penalty or restrictions, a ROTC student can't.



Sure they can, if they didn't sign a contract. You walk into the situation with your eyes open. If I go to work for a company and my contract specs that I will have a buyout if I leave before 3 years, I don't get upset that my coworkers can move jobs while I can't. I made sure that my contract was worth it for me when I signed it.

Did the student athlete negotiate these terms? No.
Could another school give them a better deal? No.
This is an NCAA cartel, and your "Company Store" arguments didn't hold then, and they don't hold now.