[Mick]

The assumption that college athletes would command large salaries on an open market, I think, misunderstands the nature of college sports. If, say, Kevin Hogan transferred to become a 59er, I would not suddenly start buying 59er tickets or watching their games on TV. I like -- love -- Hogan because he's one of us, but if he played for another school, I would have only casual interest in him, if that. Most of these guys would not command star salaries if NCAA rules on payment were suddenly eliminated.

As for transfer eligibility rules, lots of professions -- radio deejays and TV news, just to name a couple I know well -- routinely write non-compete clauses into contracts limiting what the employees can do for some period after they leave. And courts have repeatedly ruled that those are legal and enforceable. Whether colleges should enforce them is a very different question. Personally I think if an athlete wants to leave, you should let them leave. But I also recall some commentary on this board that the Plumlee brother who backed out of his Stanford LOI when Trent Johnson left should not be given a release. That's essentially the same thing.

Doesn't have to be large salaries.  Right now they make no salary.  $5k or $10k, or let's say minimum wage for their 40 hour work weeks would be most welcome.  Doesn't have to be $500k or $1mms. 

Those employment contracts are not enforceable in California for non-principals in a business.  And that argument re: Plumlee most certainly would not have come from me.  A player makes a commitment to a University.  In return, the coaches make a series of commitments.  A new coach is not beholden to those commitments, and frankly, most coaches making promises do not keep them in part.  I just don't think "Too dxxxed bad, you have to stay at this school" is an appropriate response to a 17 year old who makes a commitment based upon mutual promises that are not kept.

[Mick]

The assumption that college athletes would command large salaries on an open market, I think, misunderstands the nature of college sports. If, say, Kevin Hogan transferred to become a 59er, I would not suddenly start buying 59er tickets or watching their games on TV. I like -- love -- Hogan because he's one of us, but if he played for another school, I would have only casual interest in him, if that. Most of these guys would not command star salaries if NCAA rules on payment were suddenly eliminated.

As for transfer eligibility rules, lots of professions -- radio deejays and TV news, just to name a couple I know well -- routinely write non-compete clauses into contracts limiting what the employees can do for some period after they leave. And courts have repeatedly ruled that those are legal and enforceable. Whether colleges should enforce them is a very different question. Personally I think if an athlete wants to leave, you should let them leave. But I also recall some commentary on this board that the Plumlee brother who backed out of his Stanford LOI when Trent Johnson left should not be given a release. That's essentially the same thing.

Doesn't have to be large salaries.  Right now they make no salary.  $5k or $10k, or let's say minimum wage for their 40 hour work weeks would be most welcome.  Doesn't have to be $500k or $1mms. 

Those employment contracts are not enforceable in California for non-principals in a business.  And that argument re: Plumlee most certainly would not have come from me.  A player makes a commitment to a University.  In return, the coaches make a series of commitments.  A new coach is not beholden to those commitments, and frankly, most coaches making promises do not keep them in part.  I just don't think "Too dxxxed bad, you have to stay at this school" is an appropriate response to a 17 year old who makes a commitment based upon mutual promises that are not kept.