Originally written on College Spun  |  Last updated 3/30/13
Today, Steve Alford announced that he will be leaving the University of New Mexico to become the head coach of the UCLA Bruins. The move seems like a no-brainer, until you remember that just last week he signed a letter of agreement (not the official document) for a 10-year extension as head coach of the Lobos. Now, nobody can fault a guy for jumping at a golden opportunity that he has rightfully earned — there’s no question that the UCLA job is one of the best in college basketball. But certainly there’s something cold about pledging a long-term commitment only to rescind it just days later. It’s the same reason why so many fans and coaches hate the system of verbal commitments in college athletics. However, it’s not even the University of New Mexico that people are sympathizing with — it’s the players who Alford will be leaving behind. If all were fair, the NCAA would either let all Alford’s players transfer w/o penalty or would make Alford sit out a year. — darren rovell (@darrenrovell) March 30, 2013 I love how college coaches can switch teams whenever they want, but transferring players have to sit out a year. The NCAA is idiotic. — Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) March 30, 2013 Also – I love how coaches can switch schools on a whim, but any incoming recruits are stuck on their abandoned teams. The NCAA is idiotic. — Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) March 30, 2013 The immediate reaction from the media centered upon the idea that the players are the real victims in these situations — that young men are forced to fulfill an obligation that has changed from what they originally signed up for. Sure, they have an out and can leave if they want, but if they opt to play for another program, they have to sit out idly for a year as “punishment”. This surely isn’t fair, right? Wrong. Last time I checked, the NCAA website states: “founded more than one hundred years ago as a way to protect student-athletes, the NCAA continues to implement that principle with increased emphasis on both athletics and academic excellence.” — Note: athletics AND academic excellence. More from the NCAA website: “Student-athletes who transfer are less likely to earn a degree than those who remain at their original institution [...] data show that transferring has a negative impact on a student-athlete’s academic success and eventual graduation.” So the NCAA is actually looking out for the best interests of its players by placing stipulations on transfers — it benefits them academically. As we know, most college athletes are going pro in something other than sports, and these high-school kids are supposed to be committing to schools, not coaches or even athletic programs. Admittedly, many recruits don’t place as much emphasis upon academics as they should, and coaches often play a bigger role in athletes choosing particular schools than do educational offerings. But that does not mean that the NCAA should suddenly throw out academic ideals just because some student-athletes don’t have their priorities straight. The NCAA has made it very clear to them that school is important. From the NCAA Transfer Guide There’s also the fact that not allowing stipulation-free transfers after coaching changes protects the NCAA as well, mainly from a lot of bad press. For example, pretend that all of the current New Mexico players could transfer anywhere they want right now and play next year without sitting out — where would they prefer to play? Most of the players who would leave New Mexico would likely wish to follow Alford to UCLA — but the reality is that he may no longer want them. UCLA is a step up from New Mexico in terms of facilities, exposure, budget, and yes, talent. So rather than Alford being forced to cruelly turn down his old players (because he now has way more talent at his disposal), causing controversy about how “he doesn’t care about the young men in his program” or heartbreak for those players, he can simply leave knowing they won’t try to follow him due to the one year waiting period. Is it pretty or honorable? No, but it’s an easier out for everyone involved. Photo by @GeoffGrammer via Twitter Certainly it would be exciting if college players could transfer without repercussions after coaching changes — we would have a college version of free agency after every season that the media and fans could go crazy about — it’s wonderful sports drama. However, that would further commodify student-athletes for just their physical abilities, and we all should be very skeptical about heading down that path. Now the NCAA is far from perfect, but transfer restrictions are something that it has right. Keeping academics and graduation success a priority is of utmost important, and the transfer rules also save us from further descending down the slippery slope between college athletics and professional leagues. While many people get upset when a coach moves on, allowing more people to abandon ship without repercussions won’t solve anything. I hope the NCAA stands pat with the transfer restrictions moving forward, and I expect it will. After all, they were put there for a reason.
GET THE YARDBARKER APP:
Ios_download En_app_rgb_wo_45
MORE FROM YARDBARKER

Urban Meyer hints JT Barrett leads Ohio State starting QB competition

Boras: Marlins players are angry Marcell Ozuna is in minors

Report: Chancellor officially holding out of training camp

Cardinals' Jen Welter is 'tired of hearing about Tom Brady's balls'

Sandoval downplays talk about weight, conditioning, defense

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE?
GET THE DAILY NEWSLETTER:

Astros acquire Carlos Gomez from Brewers

Richardson charged for resisting arrest after high-speed chase

Yankees finally get Dustin Ackley

Five most overrated teams in the CFB preseason coaches’ poll

Murphy pulled players to give media ‘something to think about’

Robert Kraft signs fan’s ‘Free Brady’ poster

Giants acquire Mike Leake from Reds for two prospects

Twins closer's wife pens essay about Twitter hate he's enduring

Kings set to make Lieberman NBA’s second female coach

Is Julius Randle a star?

Projecting the prospects in the David Price trade

'Miracle on Ice' goalie selling Olympic gear for $5.7 million

Josh Smith addresses ‘harder on me’ comment in essay

Examining the state of the NFL

Steelers players: Who is Jimmy Garoppolo?

Tigers’ reboot continues, Joakim Soria traded to Pirates

Matthews ‘felt disrespected’ Blazers didn’t try to re-sign him

Cardinals ink billion dollar TV deal from Fox Sports Midwest

All Sports News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!

By clicking "Sign Me Up", you have read and agreed to the Fox Sports Digital Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You can opt out at any time. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.
the YARDBARKER app
Get it now!
Ios_download En_app_rgb_wo_45

Examining the state of the NFL

Puig: Broke out of slump by playing baseball video games

Braves dump risk, exchange it for risk

David Price traded to Blue Jays

The indefensible Hulk Hogan

Cole Hamels chose Rangers over Astros

Can Preller fix the mess in San Diego?

Next summer's top 10 NBA free agents

Who is the NL's new top shortstop?

Cardinals HC Bruce Arians calls Jen Welter a 'trailblazer'

Mets still act like a small-market team

Tom Brady: I did nothing wrong

Today's Best Stuff
For Publishers
Company Info
Help
Follow Yardbarker