Players should be allowed to move when coaches cha

[bulls96go]

why do players get penalized to sit out a year if they transfer, when coaches can move on for the big$$$$ or get fired whenever?

Players should not sign LOI until the late periode, which is after the coaching musical chairs in march. that only guaratees you one year (maybe) with the coach.

[Bull Dozer]

Yet another way the NCAA puts it to student athletes.  Everyone can profit off a success of a school in athletics but those who are the main reason for that success.  

[Matt]

its tough but at the same time, nothing in life is a sure bet.

[Bulls 8_va]

...it is what it is.  Rules are rules. >

[USFan]

Some of these kids are pressured to sign early.

"Sign now or we'll move on."

[USFPDiddy]

I don't think so.  This would screw over smaller schools BIG TIME.  Lots of good players would think about leaving non BCS schools, and if they were having success I'm sure there would be BCS schools that could find a scholly for a sure bet...

On top of that, while the scholarships for college are what everyone goes on about (and for some it's genuinely useful in that respect), the main thing that college football is for the top guys is free NFL training.

I have no idea how to balance this.  Paying players seems a bit much, but a lot of the other rules seem stupid to me.  However, the one this post is contending with needs to be left as is.  I don't want to see a school like boise state picked clean just because some crap bcs school stole the coach away.  Hell, it would be possible then for schools with money to steal the coach AND players off of a good team.  Does that sound good to anyone?

[Velcro]

great point... kentucky and their money could just go and grab a coach, with the sole intention of stealing a star player for free.  

The rule isn't perfect, but if the player truly wants to leave, he can leave, and sit out a year, and call it his redshirt year, and then nothing was really lost.  still have all their eligibility.  Unless something else is presented, it should remain as is.

[BullBlood]

I agree with Velcro.  I'll add that these kids have a choice in which school they attend and which coach they will play for.  They are the ones that have the responsibility of looking at the stability of the coaching position at that particular school.  They should be making the decision to play for "University X" not "Coach X."  

Same thing happens in football, but it doesn't seem to be as much of a problem for the athletes.

[Herman_Momart]

 They should be making the decision to play for "University X" not "Coach X."  

Kids should choose for both university and coach (equally important).  But yes, if the coach leaves, they should prepare for that and have made their decision on the university as well as the coach.  This is expected adn kids should know this.  Look at bill Walker, future NBAer,  sitting at kansas state with no more hall of fame coach.  I hope he really liked manhatten, kansas and KSU.  

[Joe]

Kids who have signed a letter of intent can asked to be released and in most cases they are. Rarely do you not see a recruit released from his LOI because in most cases the recruit will just sit out the year to transfer to another school and the school that wouldn't release him fro his LOI will be stuck with 1 less schoalrship for a year because of it.

The reason you don't have kids freely transferring after a coach leaves is because you are just opening up a WHOLE can of worms.

Not every coaching move is done by firing, lots of guys go from good programs to great ones (see Billy Gillispie) Could you imagine if Gillispie was just allowed to take his guys from Texas A&M or if Roy Williams were allowed to take his guys from Kansas to UK?

In those cases your not only destroying the school he's leaving but helping the one he's going to.

As for Bill Walker, he can declare for the NBA draft, he played his year of college ball and is 20 years old. So I don't think his life will be hell now.