Former Georgia football coach Mark Richt allowed players to transfer to wherever they wanted because “life is too short”, he told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
New Georgia coach Kirby Smart wants to restrict players from transferring to Miami, where Richt is now coaching, or SEC rival Florida because it is “standard operating procedure”. He says it is to avoid an exodus of players to play for a former coach or for a rival school.
What’s okay for one coach is not okay for another. Coaching philosophies are different. Coaches have different personalities and ways to operate their program. Some are more insecure than others.
The NCAA unfortunately tries to stay out of the middle of this by allowing institutions to set transfer restrictions, such as what Smart did to sophomore running back A.J. Turman recently. Turman has never publicly announced where he wants to transfer only that he wants out. Smart made it known that Miami and Florida are out of the question when Turman ultimately decides because of the extenuating circumstances involved.
The person who is stuck in the middle is Georgia athletic director Greg McGarity (left), Smart’s boss. Or is Smart his boss in this manner? McGarity publicly supported Richt’s stance two years ago after Georgia Tech denied basketball player Robert Carter a release to speak with Georgia about a potential transfer.
“The University of Georgia doesn’t restrict a student-athlete from any school that is seeking a transfer,” McGarity told reporters at the time. “The student-athlete’s best interest is at the forefront of our program. If they’re not happy here we’re not going to dictate where they can and can’t go.”
Fast forward to now, with Smart’s insistence of putting the clamps on potential transfers, and McGarity now says in an interview with Dawn Nation, “We will take each request on its own merit to determine if any restrictions should be placed on the release due to any extenuating circumstances. Student-athletes are afforded the opportunity to appeal the decision through the institution.”
In other words, if a player wants to transfer now, he must go through a series of red tape per NCAA rules. First, he must be approved of the transfer by Smart (which seems unlikely). Second, he must request from the school a letter indicating he has the right to appeal if Smart denies his request. Finally, an independent panel at the school, not comprised of athletic personnel, will conduct a hearing to weigh the issue and ultimately decide if a transfer request will be granted.
Instead of a simple approval, wishing the student-athlete well knowing that the SEC program is far above one individual wanting to leave, Smart and McGarity have chosen this path for potential transfers. It smacks of hypocrisy on McGarity’s part and a dictatorship on Smart’s behalf.
“We need A.J. Turman on this team,” Smart was quoted as saying.
“I wanted to set the precedent for the future that kids would not be able to go to Miami right away,” Smart also said. “It’s very important that we understand that, and that’s pretty much standard operating procedure when a coach leaves one place, that a kid can’t go there with the coach. That’s important to me that people understand that.”
A lot of “We”, “I” and “Me” in that statement from a coach who is trying to impact the future of a 19-year-old athlete. On the flipside, if Smart is offered the head coaching job at, say, conference rival LSU, in a couple of years, he would likely move on without similar hurdles to overcome.
Coaches come and go, mostly as they please, if they are good enough to try to improve their situation at a different program. That is no different than a young athlete attempting to make his college experience better by trying another institution.
When asked recently if he sees the hypocrisy of coaches allowed to roam without restrictions, Smart said, ““Certainly. And we would also say that when you restrict the kid they have an appeal process. And in my experience, 90 percent of transfers are granted without restriction. The 10 percent that are restricted, they have an appeal process that they can go through, and it goes out of my hands. It goes to a committee that hears it, and they give him a result, and most of the time the kids win those.”
That statement indicates Smart would rather have the athlete go through the burden of the entire appeal process despite knowing the athlete will usually win. Smart lives up to his name as far as this process is concerned because it allows more time for the athlete to have second thoughts. He and his staff can also re-recruit the athlete leading up to the appeal.
Some coaches would view this method as practical with Smart using all the available means to keep his players and avoid them from going to rival programs. Other coaches, such as Richt, might believe Georgia is now trying to interfere with a student-athlete’s future to the fullest.
This is where the NCAA should step in and resolve the matter with uniformity among all the institutions. What’s okay for Richt should be the same for Smart and so on. Forget about the appeal process. This is about a student-athlete reaching the determination that transferring is best for him. Allow Turman to go where he and his parents want.
No one player is bigger than a program from the SEC to the MAC to Division II and beyond. The program can move on without one player, one who may be unhappy in the locker room anyway if forbidden to leave to a particular school. Why impede on his academic and athletic progress just because you don’t want to coach against him in the future in one game out of 13 or 14 games?
Let the player go unconditionally. An athlete should be granted a release without delay much like an athletic director does not stand in the way of a coach seeking another opportunity. Can you imagine if the NCAA allowed an institution to have a coach first go through an appeal process before he could leave for another job? Why is that formality laughable for a coach but acceptable for an athlete?
The kindler, gentler NCAA and Power 5 conferences have placed a greater importance on an athlete’s welfare in recent years with the approval of cost of attendance stipends, free unlimited access to food and beverages, and ability to take longer to decide to enter the NBA draft, for example, after workouts with scouts. The NCAA even now allows agents to interact with high school baseball players before the prospect decides whether he will turn pro or go to school.
What Smart and McGarity are doing in the Turman case goes against the grain of what the NCAA has tried to accomplish in recent months.
With the future of the athlete at stake, the governing body should set in stone that what’s good for one coach should be required for another without any ambiguity. A panel consisting of non-athletic department personnel is not necessary to make that determination. All it requires is common sense.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.