PDA

View Full Version : Transfer Frustration Growing



Muskie
05-15-2020, 09:41 AM
Matt Painter was not complimentary of the Noel Eastern Transfer (Link (https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261063020505112579)).

Larry Krystkowiak sounded off after losing two players (Link (https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261142412795113472)).

Xville
05-15-2020, 09:51 AM
Cant think of what is more ridiculous, millionaire basketball coaches that can break contracts anytime they want, whining about kids leaving, or the Tampa Rays pitcher bro whining about only making a couple million while people have lost their jobs and/or their businesses.

D-West & PO-Z
05-15-2020, 10:27 AM
Matt Painter was not complimentary of the Noel Eastern Transfer (Link (http://First Matt Painter goes nuclear on Eastern's transfer yesterday. Said they got better yesterday and other things. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261063020505112579)).

Larry Krystkowiak sounded off after losing two players (Link (http://https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261142412795113472)).

For some reason neither link is working for me but I dont even have to read to know I dont care at all about these loser coaches whining about losing transfers. What sour grapes. I am sure they mentioned some BS about how players leave at first sign of adversity and the rules need to get stricter not looser on transfers or some BS. Give me a break.

These coaches make millions and can leave at the drop of a hat and they are whining about a player/student who makes nothing wanting to go to a different school. Blah Blah Blah.

I can't wait for these players to be able to transfer and not have to sit a year.

Masterofreality
05-15-2020, 10:45 AM
Let the kids go if they want. Coaches whining is BS.

If you do a good job in selling the whole institutional experience, and trust in yourself, then DON'T violate that trust after the kid gets there, then the kid should want to stay- like guys like Jimmy Farr and Sean O'Mara did.

These kids, though, I will admit, are too much a part of the "immediate gratification" and "everybody gets a trophy" culture that has been perpetrated.
That being said, they should have the freedom to transfer without shackles. Period.

GoMuskies
05-15-2020, 10:47 AM
Cant think of what is more ridiculous, millionaire basketball coaches that can break contracts anytime they want, whining about kids leaving, or the Tampa Rays pitcher bro whining about only making a couple million while people have lost their jobs and/or their businesses.

Both

Muskie
05-15-2020, 01:32 PM
I've fixed the links in the original post.

MHettel
05-15-2020, 02:18 PM
That being said, they should have the freedom to transfer without shackles. Period.

disagree

Mrs. Garrett
05-15-2020, 04:49 PM
If the situation is no longer the right situation for the kid, he should be allowed to transfer.

I also enjoy these whiny coaches who won't hesitate to run off a player who isn't working out. Somehow this has been missed in the narrative.

MHettel
05-15-2020, 06:15 PM
If the situation is no longer the right situation for the kid, he should be allowed to transfer.



What does this mean? Who's to say what is the right situation for a kid? Only the kid himself, right? If you parent is critically ill and you play halfway across the country, then maybe that's not the right situation for the kid.

But a kid that gets beat out, fair and square, for playing time. Not the right situation?

Or what if that kid is disruptive to the team and gets benched. Not the right situation?

Or a kid that doesn't like the smell in the locker room. Not the right situation?

The right situation is irrelevant. There is no such thing. If this is the criteria to transfer, then all the kids will just say "it's not the right situation." So you kind of neuter the idea of criteria at all.

I think there is a middle ground somewhere between the current state and the proposed "free for all"

Some exceptions I would make to the existing rule
- if you transfer, and the coach grants a "release", you are eligible (addresses kids that are in over their head).
- If the coach leaves (on his own) you can transfer and be eligible immediately.
- Teams may only accept ONE transfer per year that is immediately eligible due to the exceptions above.
- Establish more consistent criteria for granting a hardship waiver. the current process is a crapshoot.

- consider granting an additional year of eligibility for traditional transfers (sit a year guys). Right now you have 5 years to play 4, so it works out OFTEN for traditional transfers. But if they redshirted previously, then they burn a year during their sit out year. That should be changed.

D-West & PO-Z
05-17-2020, 09:35 AM
What does this mean? Who's to say what is the right situation for a kid? Only the kid himself, right? If you parent is critically ill and you play halfway across the country, then maybe that's not the right situation for the kid.

But a kid that gets beat out, fair and square, for playing time. Not the right situation?

Or what if that kid is disruptive to the team and gets benched. Not the right situation?

Or a kid that doesn't like the smell in the locker room. Not the right situation?

The right situation is irrelevant. There is no such thing. If this is the criteria to transfer, then all the kids will just say "it's not the right situation." So you kind of neuter the idea of criteria at all.

I think there is a middle ground somewhere between the current state and the proposed "free for all"

Some exceptions I would make to the existing rule
- if you transfer, and the coach grants a "release", you are eligible (addresses kids that are in over their head).
- If the coach leaves (on his own) you can transfer and be eligible immediately.
- Teams may only accept ONE transfer per year that is immediately eligible due to the exceptions above.
- Establish more consistent criteria for granting a hardship waiver. the current process is a crapshoot.

- consider granting an additional year of eligibility for traditional transfers (sit a year guys). Right now you have 5 years to play 4, so it works out OFTEN for traditional transfers. But if they redshirted previously, then they burn a year during their sit out year. That should be changed.

Yes all of the situations you presented would present as not the right situation. I am so confused why you dont think so?

Anyway it is here, the new transfer rule will will be happening if not this year then next. No need for you to continue to present other ridiculous proposals. The on being talked about will happen and college basketball will continue on just fine. Coaches will continue to whine (they do already with current rules) and there will be fans like you that will predict doom and gloom for the state of the sport but none of the doom will come to fruition.

In 10 years people will look back and remember that crazy nonsensical rule that used to make players sit a year for no reason when they wanted to switch schools.

MHettel
05-17-2020, 02:14 PM
Yes all of the situations you presented would present as not the right situation. I am so confused why you dont think so?

Anyway it is here, the new transfer rule will will be happening if not this year then next. No need for you to continue to present other ridiculous proposals. The on being talked about will happen and college basketball will continue on just fine. Coaches will continue to whine (they do already with current rules) and there will be fans like you that will predict doom and gloom for the state of the sport but none of the doom will come to fruition.

In 10 years people will look back and remember that crazy nonsensical rule that used to make players sit a year for no reason when they wanted to switch schools.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29118140/ncaa-board-does-not-recommend-changes-transfer-waiver-process

And, yet the NCAA Board somehow isn't quite as convinced....

"The NCAA Division I Board of Directors said Thursday that it does not recommend potential changes to the transfer waiver process."

xubrew
05-18-2020, 11:03 AM
The Board of Directors doesn't vote. The Council does. And I don't think the BOD is against it so much as they are against doing it now considering how much of a mess everything else is with COVID 19.

Seriously, though. Why would any fan be against this? Why would they even care? Can't we as fans just watch the games and be happy? Why is it that heightened restrictions somehow enhances some peoples' enjoyment of just sitting on their asses and watching the games? The great thing about being a fan is that that's all we gotta do! Watch the games, and be happy! Changing the transfer rules so they're the same as all other sports has NOTHING to do with the fans.

D-West & PO-Z
05-18-2020, 11:06 AM
The Board of Directors doesn't vote. The Council does. And I don't think the BOD is against it so much as they are against doing it now considering how much of a mess everything else is with COVID 19.

Seriously, though. Why would any fan be against this? Why would they even care? Can't they just watch the games and be happy? Why is it that heightened restrictions somehow enhances their enjoyment of just sitting on their asses and watching the games? The great thing about being a fan is that that's all you gotta do! Watch the games, and be happy! Changing the transfer rules so they're the same as all other sports has NOTHING to do with the fans.

Didn't you get the memo? It is going to ruin college basketball.

EvErYoNe iS a FrEe AgEnT!

STL_XUfan
05-18-2020, 11:24 AM
Didn't you get the memo? It is going to ruin college basketball.

EvErYoNe iS a FrEe AgEnT!

I thought the G league was going to ruin college basketball? It is so hard to keep up with these memos.

D-West & PO-Z
05-18-2020, 11:27 AM
I thought the G league was going to ruin college basketball? It is so hard to keep up with these memos.

Ha good point. I forgot about that memo. Hard to keep up indeed.

paulxu
05-18-2020, 12:15 PM
Didn't you get the memo? It is going to ruin college basketball.

EvErYoNe iS a FrEe AgEnT!


https://youtu.be/MrTsuvykUZk

MHettel
05-18-2020, 12:28 PM
So, can coaches actively recruit players from other teams?

If not, why? They should be able to do that. It would provide the most opportunity for the Player, right?

Mrs. Garrett
05-18-2020, 02:02 PM
I'm not for a transferring free-for-all. I just think a lot of coaches are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. Painter is whiny because he lost a player he didn't want to lose. But nothing stopped him from taking Evan Boudreaux after he left Dartmouth and backed out on Xavier after Mack left. Same goes for Izzo, he's against it, except for when he wants Hauser to be immediately eligible.

The coaches I feel for are at the smaller schools when the high-majors poach their top players. Because they most likely took a chance on a lightly recruited player, developed them and then the kid leaves. The coaches are probably making a fairly regular salary and their hopes can hinge on one extremely talented kid staying. Can't blame the kid, but he was probably taken by some high major coach whining about transfers.

I think some conferences have gone to 4 year scholarships, but most are annual renewals. So commit to a kid for 4 years, but most coaches don't want to do that. They want to be able to run a kid off. I think coaches running players off is an aspect that everyone is glossing over.

XUGRAD80
05-18-2020, 02:31 PM
I think that something else that is glossed over is that participation in intercollegiate athletics is a privilege and not a right. At the same time, so is the job as a coach. BOTH parties need to be respectful of the other party. The coaches have a responsibility to look out for the best interests of the players, and I think that the best coaches do. At the same time, the players need to understand that they are just a PART of the team and that they owe something to the coaches and schools that give them the opportunity to be a member.

I don’t think that it’s too much to ask that the kids be given some freedom to transfer, nor is it to much to ask the players to not take advantage of that freedom. But coaches need to be kept from running players off too. However, since we aren’t dealing with perfect situations or perfect people most of the time, there needs to be some rules and regulations in place so that it doesn’t get out of control. It’s a balancing act and everyone needs to compromise.

In the end though....the NCAA and coaches are going to do what they do and no amount of message board discussion is going to change that.

MHettel
05-18-2020, 03:43 PM
I don’t think that it’s too much to ask that the kids be given some freedom to transfer, nor is it to much to ask the players to not take advantage of that freedom. But coaches need to be kept from running players off too.

Sounds great. Would never work.

The thing that gets me is when someone says they are in favor of the transfer rule change because "I support whatever is in the best interest of the player."

That's such a freaking bleeding heart take, it makes me laugh. Lets see how far we can take it...

These items are in the best interest of the player:

-Midyear transfer, immediate eligibility.
-No restrictive recruiting windows. Coaches can contact players whenever and however they choose.
-Players can get paid, without limit, and there is no disclosure requirement. Players can accept with money with no expectation that they will play at the school.
-No cumbersome LOIs or any type of binding paperwork. We get to find out who is on the roster at the first practice.

All solid ideas that are in the best interest of the players.

xubrew
05-18-2020, 04:11 PM
Sounds great. Would never work.

The thing that gets me is when someone says they are in favor of the transfer rule change because "I support whatever is in the best interest of the player."

That's such a freaking bleeding heart take, it makes me laugh. Lets see how far we can take it...

These items are in the best interest of the player:

-Midyear transfer, immediate eligibility.
-No restrictive recruiting windows. Coaches can contact players whenever and however they choose.
-Players can get paid, without limit, and there is no disclosure requirement. Players can accept with money with no expectation that they will play at the school.
-No cumbersome LOIs or any type of binding paperwork. We get to find out who is on the roster at the first practice.

All solid ideas that are in the best interest of the players.


Supporting what is in the best interest of the player is something the NCAA says all the time. It's not so much a bleeding hear take as it is demonstrating that what the NCAA says and what the NCAA does do not always match up.

The stated reason for the Year in Residency rule is nonsense. Even the NCAA knows it's nonsense. It's that high risk academic sports need their transfers to not play for a year so they can become academically acclimated and increase their chances of graduating. Data (and rather extensive data) has shown that sitting a year doesn't help, and not sitting a year doesn't hurt. So, seeing that data year after year after year prompted the question Why does this rule still exist?"

It has actually moved more quickly than I thought it would. Even if it's voted down this year, it will be proposed again next year, and the year after that, and it will eventually pass. There are just too many people in college sports who think it's dumb.

I think every current indication is that sometime within the next ten years this rule will be gone, and that making money off of name, image, and likeness will be allowed. And, BTW, midyear transfers will be eligible right away if it's their first time transferring (as they are in all other sports), and NLI's are not requirements. So even though you're trying to use hyperbole, you're probably not that far off.

AviatorX
05-18-2020, 04:12 PM
Sounds great. Would never work.

The thing that gets me is when someone says they are in favor of the transfer rule change because "I support whatever is in the best interest of the player."

That's such a freaking bleeding heart take, it makes me laugh. Lets see how far we can take it...

These items are in the best interest of the player:

-Midyear transfer, immediate eligibility.
-No restrictive recruiting windows. Coaches can contact players whenever and however they choose.
-Players can get paid, without limit, and there is no disclosure requirement. Players can accept with money with no expectation that they will play at the school.
-No cumbersome LOIs or any type of binding paperwork. We get to find out who is on the roster at the first practice.

All solid ideas that are in the best interest of the players.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is pursuing this argument, but you are right that would be the extreme place to take the "in the interest of the player" line of thinking.

XUGRAD80
05-18-2020, 04:35 PM
However, since we aren’t dealing with perfect situations or perfect people most of the time, there needs to be some rules and regulations in place so that it doesn’t get out of control.

Ya kinda left that part of my statement when ya quoted me, didn’t ya?

SM#24
05-18-2020, 05:30 PM
The current grad transfer rule I'm in favor of for many reasons; I actually can't see anything negative about it. The free transfer rule for all I believe there are pros and cons with the pros outweighing the cons. I'm not too worried about it. However, at the end of the day, there is finite number of teams and thus a set number of starters and minutes each year. So, as someone transfers up, there will be a transfer down in all likelihood. It will balance out. Over the course of time, I think teams will gain as much as they lose. I see Xavier as we'll win some, lose some but it will average out over time.
The only thing I worry about really is Duke & Kentucky currently. They seem to have almost a monopoly on every freshman class each year. They basically get whoever they want. I could see them now using all available players to stack a team. Basically takes it up a notch. Hell, maybe they tell certain high profile but not one-and-done freshman recruits, go park yourself somewhere for a year and I'll bring you in the following season after these guys leave. Maybe they make an alliance with a higher level non-Power 6 school/coach (A10, AAC, MtWest) to act like a AAA team to feed freshman to them with the understanding they will call them up to the majors as sophomores or juniors.

Mrs. Garrett
05-18-2020, 05:45 PM
Sounds great. Would never work.

The thing that gets me is when someone says they are in favor of the transfer rule change because "I support whatever is in the best interest of the player."

That's such a freaking bleeding heart take, it makes me laugh. Lets see how far we can take it...

These items are in the best interest of the player:

-Midyear transfer, immediate eligibility.
-No restrictive recruiting windows. Coaches can contact players whenever and however they choose.
-Players can get paid, without limit, and there is no disclosure requirement. Players can accept with money with no expectation that they will play at the school.
-No cumbersome LOIs or any type of binding paperwork. We get to find out who is on the roster at the first practice.

All solid ideas that are in the best interest of the players.

Have you ever changed jobs?

Mrs. Garrett
05-18-2020, 05:51 PM
The current grad transfer rule I'm in favor of for many reasons; I actually can't see anything negative about it. The free transfer rule for all I believe there are pros and cons with the pros outweighing the cons. I'm not too worried about it. However, at the end of the day, there is finite number of teams and thus a set number of starters and minutes each year. So, as someone transfers up, there will be a transfer down in all likelihood. It will balance out. Over the course of time, I think teams will gain as much as they lose. I see Xavier as we'll win some, lose some but it will average out over time.
The only thing I worry about really is Duke & Kentucky currently. They seem to have almost a monopoly on every freshman class each year. They basically get whoever they want. I could see them now using all available players to stack a team. Basically takes it up a notch. Hell, maybe they tell certain high profile but not one-and-done freshman recruits, go park yourself somewhere for a year and I'll bring you in the following season after these guys leave. Maybe they make an alliance with a higher level non-Power 6 school/coach (A10, AAC, MtWest) to act like a AAA team to feed freshman to them with the understanding they will call them up to the majors as sophomores or juniors.

Maybe there needs to be different categories of transfer:

1. Grad transfer - immediate eligibilty (Seriously, what % of grad transfer actually complete their MBA?)
2. Coach's decision - Immediate
3. Player's decision - sit

But my guess is that a lot of coaches don't want the world to know how many players they run off because it will hurt recruiting.

My gut tells me the majority of transfers are either coach run-off or a minor contributor who may not have been run off, but the coach doesn't actually mind having that scholarship back for a better fit.

AviatorX
05-18-2020, 05:58 PM
Maybe there needs to be different categories of transfer:

1. Grad transfer - immediate eligibilty (Seriously, what % of grad transfer actually complete their MBA?)
2. Coach's decision - Immediate
3. Player's decision - sit

But my guess is that a lot of coaches don't want the world to know how many players they run off because it will hurt recruiting.

My gut tells me the majority of transfers are either coach run-off or a minor contributor who may not have been run off, but the coach doesn't actually mind having that scholarship back for a better fit.

The less judgment calls the NCAA makes the better. Not sure how it's taken them this long to realize that, especially when they are so bad at it and handling the optics. That's why bright line rules like the grad transfer and one time free transfer rule make sense.

MHettel
05-18-2020, 07:10 PM
The less judgment calls the NCAA makes the better. Not sure how it's taken them this long to realize that, especially when they are so bad at it and handling the optics. That's why bright line rules like the grad transfer and one time free transfer rule make sense.

It can be a black and white situation if they coach can grant a waiver. If the coach cuts a kid, then for SURE he would grant a waiver every time. If a kid just bails on a mid-major to jump up to a top team, then they coach may NOT grant the waiver.

I also think there needs to be a limit on how many of these waiver transfers you can have at any one time. Grade trans and sit out transfers don't count.

MHettel
05-18-2020, 07:12 PM
Have you ever changed jobs?

Funny. Yes I have. And I had an employment agreement that forbid me to recruit anyone. But I did. And I received a cease and desist order. Real life. why not let a college kid get ready for the real world?

XUGRAD80
05-18-2020, 07:18 PM
The NCAA needs to:

Get rid of the rule that basically says that you have 4 years of eligibility to be used within a 5 year period. That takes away them having to make a decision about granting a waiver in cases where someone wants/needs a 6th year because of injury or other problems. In “Olympic” sports the best kids have been known to take an “Olympic year” off of school to train with the national team and they don’t lose any eligibility. The old 4 years of college and then graduate is becoming less and less normal for the general population. More and more kids are taking longer than 4 years to get a degree. The NCAA rule makes no sense any more.

Get rid of the rule in BB where a year of eligibility is used up as soon as they play in one NCAA game. Football now allows them to play 3-4 games (I forget which) before having to redshirt for the year with no loss of eligibility. Hasn’t hurt football, won’t hurt basketball. Let the kids play some (5 games? Six? Figure it out) and see if they need to sit and develop or can compete right now.

Allow players to transfer 1X without having to sit out...but only 1 time. After that they can still transfer, but have to sit out a year. If the NCAA gets rid of the 4 in 5 year rule, then nobody is getting hurt. Kids can transfer without losing a year of playing time and everyone is happy.

As someone else said....the less decisions the NCAA has to make judgment calls on, the better for everyone.

AviatorX
05-18-2020, 10:01 PM
It can be a black and white situation if they coach can grant a waiver. If the coach cuts a kid, then for SURE he would grant a waiver every time. If a kid just bails on a mid-major to jump up to a top team, then they coach may NOT grant the waiver.

I also think there needs to be a limit on how many of these waiver transfers you can have at any one time. Grade trans and sit out transfers don't count.

What does it mean for a coach to cut a kid? What about the “yeah just don’t see any time in the rotation for you at Xavier” line? Should that transfer have to sit?

xubrew
05-19-2020, 10:57 AM
The rule now for all sports without they YIR rule is that coaches (well, technically ADs) need to approve the one time transfer exception. That would still be the case if they take the YIR rule away for football, basketball, hockey, and baseball.

So....what is it again that so many people don't like about this? Like I said before, can't we all just be happy watching the games?

D-West & PO-Z
05-19-2020, 11:18 AM
The rule now for all sports without they YIR rule is that coaches (well, technically ADs) need to approve the one time transfer exception. That would still be the case if they take the YIR rule away for football, basketball, hockey, and baseball.

So....what is it again that so many people don't like about this? Like I said before, can't we all just be happy watching the games?

I'm only happy watching when I know the players have to learn hard lessons and be responsible for their choices! Want to leave because the school you picked turned out to not be a good fit? Tough shit, sit out a year or suck it up and stay!

You worked hard and turned out to be a heck of a lot better than predicted and want to compete at a higher level and play in the NCAA tourney? Not on my watch! Well not at least without some consequences! Take a year off.

Mrs. Garrett
05-19-2020, 11:19 AM
Funny. Yes I have. And I had an employment agreement that forbid me to recruit anyone. But I did. And I received a cease and desist order. Real life. why not let a college kid get ready for the real world?

I don't understand what you going against an employment agreement and getting caught has to do with college athletes being able to transfer.

The real world is finding the opportunity that is best for you and your future. Why sit around miserable? Most scholarships are a one year renewable contract. If a player lives up to the one year, why should they be penalized. Maybe it's on the coaches to provide more certainty to the players on day one.

I also feel that if a player doesn't want to be there, then the program is probably better off moving on instead of having a player who isn't fully committed,

MHettel
05-19-2020, 11:28 AM
What does it mean for a coach to cut a kid? What about the “yeah just don’t see any time in the rotation for you at Xavier” line? Should that transfer have to sit?

If a kid hasn't played, and after the season he sits down with the coach and is told that it doesn't appear that PT will be available to him (barring injury or something) in the foreseeable future and the kid decides it makes sense to transfer, then I think nearly ALL coaches would grant the waiver so he could become eligible immediately. The kid gets an opportunity to contribute somewhere, and the program isn't set back by his departure.

But if a kid is a starter and is projected to be a key part of the team the following year and tells the coach he wants to transfer, then I could see where a coach would NOT provide the waiver and the kid would have to sit out a year. Because in this situation the kid ALREADY had an opportunity, and transferring wouldn't be the action that created the opportunity. And arguably, the program is set back due to his departure.

The ONLY thing I would like to guard against is if very good players from mid-major schools started getting poached by the bigger schools. People say this wont be a problem, but I disagree. How many coaches are out there? 350? You don't think a handful of them 3-4 wouldn't adopt this tactic in the interest of pursuing the all-mighty "W"? All it takes is ONE guy to get it started and showing that this approach works.

I would honestly just abandon traditional recruiting altogether and just make it openly known that I was recruiting transfers only. Recruiting is a grind, and with this approach you could focus on hiring assistants that are more geared toward teaching skills and game planning as opposed to having recruiting contacts.

MHettel
05-19-2020, 11:31 AM
I don't understand what you going against an employment agreement and getting caught has to do with college athletes being able to transfer.

The real world is finding the opportunity that is best for you and your future. Why sit around miserable? Most scholarships are a one year renewable contract. If a player lives up to the one year, why should they be penalized. Maybe it's on the coaches to provide more certainty to the players on day one.

A also feel that if a player doesn't want to be there, then the program is probably better off moving on instead of having a player who isn't fully committed,

I don't understand why you asked me if I ever changed jobs. What's the connection between the topic at hand (rules pertaining to NCAA scholarships and eligibility) and my career choices?

I simply pointed our that sometimes there are strings attached.

Mrs. Garrett
05-19-2020, 11:33 AM
I don't understand why you asked me if I ever changed jobs. What's the connection between the topic at hand (rules pertaining to NCAA scholarships and eligibility) and my career choices?

I simply pointed our that sometimes there are strings attached.

My point is we all seek better opportunities for ourselves. Why should it be different for college athletes to move into a better situation?

xubrew
05-19-2020, 12:22 PM
If a kid hasn't played, and after the season he sits down with the coach and is told that it doesn't appear that PT will be available to him (barring injury or something) in the foreseeable future and the kid decides it makes sense to transfer, then I think nearly ALL coaches would grant the waiver so he could become eligible immediately. The kid gets an opportunity to contribute somewhere, and the program isn't set back by his departure.

But if a kid is a starter and is projected to be a key part of the team the following year and tells the coach he wants to transfer, then I could see where a coach would NOT provide the waiver and the kid would have to sit out a year. Because in this situation the kid ALREADY had an opportunity, and transferring wouldn't be the action that created the opportunity. And arguably, the program is set back due to his departure.

The ONLY thing I would like to guard against is if very good players from mid-major schools started getting poached by the bigger schools. People say this wont be a problem, but I disagree. How many coaches are out there? 350? You don't think a handful of them 3-4 wouldn't adopt this tactic in the interest of pursuing the all-mighty "W"? All it takes is ONE guy to get it started and showing that this approach works.

I would honestly just abandon traditional recruiting altogether and just make it openly known that I was recruiting transfers only. Recruiting is a grind, and with this approach you could focus on hiring assistants that are more geared toward teaching skills and game planning as opposed to having recruiting contacts.

A coach, or more specifically the athletic director, would have the option of denying the one time transfer exception. That's how it is in the other sports, and it happens all the time, particularly if they feel they are being sabotaged or if other schools have been tampering.

MHettel
05-19-2020, 03:23 PM
My point is we all seek better opportunities for ourselves. Why should it be different for college athletes to move into a better situation?

And my point is that there are sometimes rules and conditions in life. Nobody said it was an absolute RIGHT to play college basketball. And nobody can MAKE you play college basketball. But if you DO play college basketball, then there are terms of the arrangement including a requirement to sit out a season in the event you transfer.

They don't have to play.

MHettel
05-19-2020, 03:25 PM
A coach, or more specifically the athletic director, would have the option of denying the one time transfer exception. That's how it is in the other sports, and it happens all the time, particularly if they feel they are being sabotaged or if other schools have been tampering.

Ok.....ummmm.

So the player DOESNT have the unilateral freedom to transfer? Why are people supporting this? Why aren't they up-in-arms about how restrictive this is for the players?

Now I'm fucking lost.

Mrs. Garrett
05-19-2020, 04:48 PM
And my point is that there are sometimes rules and conditions in life. Nobody said it was an absolute RIGHT to play college basketball. And nobody can MAKE you play college basketball. But if you DO play college basketball, then there are terms of the arrangement including a requirement to sit out a season in the event you transfer.

They don't have to play.

I never said transfers shouldn't have to sit. You seem to think it's a great travesty if every player doesn't stick around for 4 years. Most scholarships are one-year renewals. So why penalize someone who fulfilled that one year? You want tough transfer guidelines, commit to the full playing career.

xubrew
05-19-2020, 05:06 PM
Ok.....ummmm.

So the player DOESNT have the unilateral freedom to transfer? Why are people supporting this? Why aren't they up-in-arms about how restrictive this is for the players?

Now I'm fucking lost.

What is it that you don't understand?

In all sports, if a player is transferring for the first time they can play right away IF the school they're leaving grants it. If they don't then they must sit a year. In baseball, men's and women's basketball, football, and hockey, players have to sit a year no matter what. That's the only thing would change. Those sports will be like all of the other ones.

Some other tidbits...

Over 60 percent of men's basketball players who transfer, transfer to a lower division or to the NAIA. Doing that means they don't have to sit out anyway, and don't even need the permission of their previous school.

The vast majority (certainly not all, but I'd say around 70%) of players who transfer are generally being recruited over, and the coach wants them to leave.

The stated reason for the year in residency is an academic one. Since data shows that it has no impact on academics, then there is no reason to have that rule anymore.

XUGRAD80
05-19-2020, 05:19 PM
That may have been the “stated” reason, but we all know that it was more about the coaches controlling the players than it was about any academic concerns.

AviatorX
05-19-2020, 05:41 PM
If a kid hasn't played, and after the season he sits down with the coach and is told that it doesn't appear that PT will be available to him (barring injury or something) in the foreseeable future and the kid decides it makes sense to transfer, then I think nearly ALL coaches would grant the waiver so he could become eligible immediately. The kid gets an opportunity to contribute somewhere, and the program isn't set back by his departure.

But if a kid is a starter and is projected to be a key part of the team the following year and tells the coach he wants to transfer, then I could see where a coach would NOT provide the waiver and the kid would have to sit out a year. Because in this situation the kid ALREADY had an opportunity, and transferring wouldn't be the action that created the opportunity. And arguably, the program is set back due to his departure.

The ONLY thing I would like to guard against is if very good players from mid-major schools started getting poached by the bigger schools. People say this wont be a problem, but I disagree. How many coaches are out there? 350? You don't think a handful of them 3-4 wouldn't adopt this tactic in the interest of pursuing the all-mighty "W"? All it takes is ONE guy to get it started and showing that this approach works.

I would honestly just abandon traditional recruiting altogether and just make it openly known that I was recruiting transfers only. Recruiting is a grind, and with this approach you could focus on hiring assistants that are more geared toward teaching skills and game planning as opposed to having recruiting contacts.

You keep raising this point about recruiting only transfers as if it is some game changer. It would be a fun hypothetical exercise. What level of program would this scheme fit? Let's pretend you're the head coach of that program - what's your roster look like next season if we imagine you can hand pick your mid-major transfers?

XUGRAD80
05-19-2020, 06:45 PM
You keep raising this point about recruiting only transfers as if it is some game changer. It would be a fun hypothetical exercise. What level of program would this scheme fit? Let's pretend you're the head coach of that program - what's your roster look like next season if we imagine you can hand pick your mid-major transfers?

The way to look at that would be to look at the top 20-30 transfers that must sit out and then compare those players to a programs current roster plus incoming freshman.

My personal feeling is that you would get just as many players transferring FROM the blue bloods as you would transferring TO them, if it was opened up. BUT I do think that iF there was no limits on transfers, the POTENTIAL for abuse by coaches would be there. The POTENTIAL for abuse by outside forces (agents, shoe companies, foreign professionals, etc) would be there. True, it’s there now, but I think that there would be even greater potential then.

MHettel
05-19-2020, 09:06 PM
What is it that you don't understand?

Over 60 percent of men's basketball players who transfer, transfer to a lower division or to the NAIA. Doing that means they don't have to sit out anyway, and don't even need the permission of their previous school.




Simply put, the 60% that transfer down don't matter. Those players and those teams are responsible for essentially ZERO of the popularity of the sport. It doesn't matter. Let those guys transfer. Find a way (rule) to allow that. no problem.

"The vast majority (certainly not all, but I'd say around 70%) of players who transfer are generally being recruited over, and the coach wants them to leave."

UNDER THE CURRENT RULES. if you were to change the rule to allow essentially unfettered transfers, then the number of transfers overall would at least double, and then that ratio would drop from well under 70 to probably closer to 35%.

MHettel
05-19-2020, 09:12 PM
The way to look at that would be to look at the top 20-30 transfers that must sit out and then compare those players to a programs current roster plus incoming freshman.


You are near the target but still have missed. You have to consider all the additional players who WOULD HAVE transferred if they knew they would be immediately eligible.

Transfer rates have been increasing steadily over the last several years. and that includes KNOWING that they have to sit. The numbers will skyrocket.

XUGRAD80
05-20-2020, 07:22 AM
You are near the target but still have missed. You have to consider all the additional players who WOULD HAVE transferred if they knew they would be immediately eligible.

Transfer rates have been increasing steadily over the last several years. and that includes KNOWING that they have to sit. The numbers will skyrocket.

There probably would be a few more that transfer, knowing that they will be immediately eligible, but I don’t think it would be a huge increase or cause Armageddon. As you’ve stated, we already see a lot of transfers happening, AND there seems to also be a lot of kids that are leaving college ball entirely and taking jobs in the professional ranks. It’s quite possible that a few of those kids might decide another year of college at a different school, where they can play right away, might be a good thing.

But I’d still contend that the major difference would be how the top 20 current SIT-OUT transfers would effect the competition. Would players bind together to form “super teams”? Would sneaker companies assign kids to certain schools? Would kids transfer because of the money they can make from selling their images or because of the money they can make doing commercials? These kind of things are only going to be available for the top players in the country. Right now there is the sit-out rule that somewhat will prevent that from happening. If kids can’t get on the floor and play in front of the crowds and on TV, their commercial attractiveness is not as great as it is when they are tearing things up on the court.

iMO......THAT kind of thing would be bad for the competitive balance of college basketball, could further isolate the majority of schools from being able to compete with the few, and might just hurt the popularity of the college BB nationally. Let’s face it, it’s the Cinderella story teams that make the NCAA tourney so popular with the non hardcore fans. Having dominate super teams would not be a good thing overall, especially if those teams have been built by taking players from other schools. I know hundreds of people that never watch any college BB until the NCAA tourney starts. When it does, bars are full and TV ratings are great. A lower level school making the tourney and actually advancing can have a huge impact on the overall success of the school...X is a prime example of that. I’d hate to see that kind of thing being eliminated from the future.

xubrew
05-20-2020, 09:35 AM
Simply put, the 60% that transfer down don't matter. Those players and those teams are responsible for essentially ZERO of the popularity of the sport. It doesn't matter. Let those guys transfer. Find a way (rule) to allow that. no problem.

"The vast majority (certainly not all, but I'd say around 70%) of players who transfer are generally being recruited over, and the coach wants them to leave."

UNDER THE CURRENT RULES. if you were to change the rule to allow essentially unfettered transfers, then the number of transfers overall would at least double, and then that ratio would drop from well under 70 to probably closer to 35%.

No it won't. There is no basis at all for that. Once the rule changes, I bet within a year barely anyone even notices. Jesus, not even the people who are adamantly against it think that the transfer rate is going to double. If they did then they'd be laughed at.

As it stands now, div1 basketball teams have 13 players. Generally speaking no matter where you go, 7-8 of those guys play and are happy, 5-6 of them don't and are not. Of the ones that don't the coach either wants to get rid of them and recruit someone who may actually be good enough to play, or the player wants to go somewhere where they will play, or both. I seriously doubt that is going to change if they allow the one-time transfer exception for these five sports. If you look at the players in the transfer portal the one thing that nearly all of them have in common is that they don't play. There are a few exceptions, but schools can still block the one-time transfer exception if they choose to. No one is arguing that schools shouldn't be able to do that, so your biggest concern with this isn't even going to be a part of the rule.

All it is really doing is making the rules the same as it is for all the other sports. That's it. Nothing more.

XUGRAD80
05-20-2020, 10:38 AM
Actually....if they instituted a rule by which a player could transfer 1X without having to sit out, I would certainly hope that a part of that rule would be that there are no strings attached....such as the requirement that the current coach “allow”it.

xubrew
05-20-2020, 10:48 AM
Actually....if they instituted a rule by which a player could transfer 1X without having to sit out, I would certainly hope that a part of that rule would be that there are no strings attached....such as the requirement that the current coach “allow”it.

That's not going to happen. At least not in this phase of it. It's simply going to be like all of the other sports.

D-West & PO-Z
05-20-2020, 10:54 AM
It's kind of a pointless rule though. We have seen this play out before and it is a terrible look for the coaches when they try that. I wouldn't be too worried about anyone not being allowed not to transfer.

xubrew
05-20-2020, 10:56 AM
It's kind of a pointless rule though. We have seen this play out before and it is a terrible look for the coaches when they try that. I wouldn't be too worried about anyone not being allowed not to transfer.

Whether they are or aren't it won't matter much. They don't lose a season. They still get to play four. They just have to wait before they can play. If they want to go, they're gonna go whether they're granted the exception or not. Right now no one can play right away, and guys are still transferring, so...

D-West & PO-Z
05-20-2020, 11:19 AM
Whether they are or aren't it won't matter much. They don't lose a season. They still get to play four. They just have to wait before they can play. If they want to go, they're gonna go whether they're granted the exception or not. Right now no one can play right away, and guys are still transferring, so...

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

xubrew
05-20-2020, 11:26 AM
Not sure I understand what you are saying.

I don't think this will have all that big of an impact on a player's decision to transfer. They have to sit a year now, and it's not stopping them from transferring. So, even if a school doesn't grant the one time exception, they'll still leave just like they do now.

D-West & PO-Z
05-20-2020, 11:30 AM
I don't think this will have all that big of an impact on a player's decision to transfer. They have to sit a year now, and it's not stopping them from transferring. So, even if a school doesn't grant the one time exception, they'll still leave just like they do now.

Ah ok.

MHettel
05-20-2020, 12:15 PM
Whether they are or aren't it won't matter much. They don't lose a season. They still get to play four. They just have to wait before they can play. If they want to go, they're gonna go whether they're granted the exception or not. Right now no one can play right away, and guys are still transferring, so...

Just not a well thought out comment. I think there are ALOT of players right now that "want to go" and the requirement to sit out a year is a sufficient deterrent to keep them where they are. The fact that we see so many transfers already, in light of that requirement, tells me that there will be many more (I say it will double) if the only deterrent is removed.

XUGRAD80
05-20-2020, 01:39 PM
That's not going to happen. At least not in this phase of it. It's simply going to be like all of the other sports.

Actually I think it will happen that they will allow it, without needing a coaches permission. The whole reason for doing it is to give the players more control over their short careers. Seems senseless for the NCAA to say “go ahead and transfer and play right away at your leisure”, only to add “ but only if your current coach says it’s OK.”

xubrew
05-20-2020, 02:14 PM
Just not a well thought out comment. I think there are ALOT of players right now that "want to go" and the requirement to sit out a year is a sufficient deterrent to keep them where they are. The fact that we see so many transfers already, in light of that requirement, tells me that there will be many more (I say it will double) if the only deterrent is removed.

So you think that there are roughly 1400 college players out there that are unhappy and would immediately transfer somewhere else if given the chance?

If that's the case, then there are A LOT of things wrong with college basketball that need to be fixed by some other method than trying to force players to stay at a program where they aren't happy.

When the transfer portal was created, we heard this same sort of craziness about how all these players would suddenly transfer. The number of overall transfers actually went down (albeit slightly). I felt everyone was overreacting then. I once again feel that everyone is overreacting now. I think the number of transfers will end up being about the same, and that in a year or two no one will really notice that anything has even changed.

MHettel
05-20-2020, 03:12 PM
So you think that there are roughly 1400 college players out there that are unhappy and would immediately transfer somewhere else if given the chance?

Being unhappy isn't the only reason to transfer. Plenty of guys will be happy in their current role and will transfer anyway due to the perception of moving into a better situation (league or team). But yes. Whatever the transfer rate is today, it will double. And right now, MOST of the transfers involve kids that aren't playing and as a result have little to lose by sitting out since they would likely be a bit player if they stayed. What we will see is the GOOD players transferring.

If that's the case, then there are A LOT of things wrong with college basketball that need to be fixed by some other method than trying to force players to stay at a program where they aren't happy.

Ever hear of Immediate gratification?

When the transfer portal was created, we heard this same sort of craziness about how all these players would suddenly transfer. The number of overall transfers actually went down (albeit slightly). I felt everyone was overreacting then. I once again feel that everyone is overreacting now. I think the number of transfers will end up being about the same, and that in a year or two no one will really notice that anything has even changed.

So you don't think it's going to be any different from today, and yet you are adamantly supportive of it. OK


I spent some time this morning just browsing the rosters of crappy teams in average conferences. I'm seeing freshmen and sophs that are putting up big, robust stats. Wondering to myself if I were in their shoes would I come back to East Carolina as a junior, or transfer to Tennessee, or Missouri, or Syracuse, or even Xavier. With no restrictions, it's an easy choice.

AviatorX
05-20-2020, 03:21 PM
I spent some time this morning just browsing the rosters of crappy teams in average conferences. I'm seeing freshmen and sophs that are putting up big, robust stats. Wondering to myself if I were in their shoes would I come back to East Carolina as a junior, or transfer to Tennessee, or Missouri, or Syracuse, or even Xavier. With no restrictions, it's an easy choice.

Yep, I'm sure those schools would rather have those guys than 4 star freshman 100% of the time. I'm still curious to see what your mid-major transfers up only roster would look like for this coming season. Sounds like you're putting in the research!

XUGRAD80
05-21-2020, 07:53 AM
Moot discussion for now. It has been tabled by the NCAA until they can come up with a “Comprehensive package that addresses the needs and concerns of all parties involved”.

Mark Painter is an idiot......just an observation.

D-West & PO-Z
05-21-2020, 07:55 AM
Moot discussion for now. It has been tabled by the NCAA until they can come up with a “Comprehensive package that addresses the needs and concerns of all parties involved”.

Mark Painter is an idiot......just an observation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_P._Painter

What you got against Judge Mark P. Painter?

XUGRAD80
05-21-2020, 08:18 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_P._Painter

What you got against Judge Mark P. Painter?

Excuse me....MATT Painter. Fat fingers on an iPad in the early morning. :)