Jump to content

Transfer Rules


WVBilliken

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Billiken Rich said:


"transferring a little more" is such a nice way of putting it.  Watching Cuonzo Martin looting lower level conferences would really chap my azz.  

Kayak fishing is a bit move active than "sitting around waiting for a fish to get caught on a hook."

 

 

 

Mizzou's best player right now is a transfer from Evansville so sorry for your chapped azz.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It will be April or later before we know what the 'bumpers' will be on this new rule.  The NCAA has put out a basic framework, academically eligible, no disciplinary actions, yada, yada, but the nitty gritty is still to come.  The one interesting criteria they list is having to obtain a release from your existing school.  Today that is pretty common, but will it continue?  Example, Jimerson wants to transfer to Richmond......hmmm.  Does SLU release him?

The bumpers should provide a timeline for transferring.  You can't have open season up through the start of school.  Coaches are going to have to over recruit.  SLU has averaged 2 1/2 players per year leaving the program but still having eligibility, over the past decade.   Only twice in this past decade did no players leave (that still had eligibility).  That number won't go down.  Why wouldn't every player in college enter the transfer portal?  See what's out there. If there are no better offers, simply withdraw from the portal.   No harm, no foul.

If coaches over estimate transfers and have too many commitments/players, then which player gets shoved out the door? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

Mizzou's best player right now is a transfer from Evansville so sorry for your chapped azz.

 

Are you being intentionally dense?  I'd hardly call one transfer looting.  You don't think coach poach would've talked to every high level player in the MVC by now if he could get them next year with no wait?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Billiken Rich said:

Are you being intentionally dense?  I'd hardly call one transfer looting.  You don't think coach poach would've talked to every high level player in the MVC by now if he could get them next year with no wait?   

1. I couldn't care less if Mizzou gets more recruits from mid-majors. Those players would only transfer to mizzou if they want to. Good for them.

2. We have a lot of new players this year and look how quickly we've started to love Yuri/Bell/Perkins/Jimerson. If they leave, it will be to better their own career/life. Good for them. I'll wish them the best and love whoever comes in after them.

3. Students can only transfer once without having to sit out. Sure a lot of students might do that over the course of their career, but it's not like every student will be transferring every year. Rough math but, on average, annually, only 33% of basketball players could transfer without sitting out. Currently about 15% of athletes transfer every year between 4 year schools. (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/transfers-division-i). So max 18% more (on average) of college basketball players transfer each year between 4 year colleges? Maybe 20% to account for people who transfer twice, which isn't a lot. That's on average 2 more transfers per team per year if every single player transfers in their college career? (unlikely)

 

 

 

Plus, the idea that college basketball players transfer to better teams more often than to lesser teams is a myth. Please see link below if you want proof. 

https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/investigating-college-basketballs-transfer-movement/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

1. I couldn't care less if Mizzou gets more recruits from mid-majors. Those players would only transfer to mizzou if they want to. Good for them.

2. We have a lot of new players this year and look how quickly we've started to love Yuri/Bell/Perkins/Jimerson. If they leave, it will be to better their own career/life. Good for them. I'll wish them the best and love whoever comes in after them.

3. Students can only transfer once without having to sit out. Sure a lot of students might do that over the course of their career, but it's not like every student will be transferring every year. Rough math but, on average, annually, only 33% of basketball players could transfer without sitting out. Currently about 15% of athletes transfer every year between 4 year schools. (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/transfers-division-i). So max 18% more (on average) of college basketball players transfer each year between 4 year colleges? Maybe 20% to account for people who transfer twice, which isn't a lot. That's on average 2 more transfers per team per year if every single player transfers in their college career? (unlikely)

 

 

 

Plus, the idea that college basketball players transfer to better teams more often than to lesser teams is a myth. Please see link below if you want proof. 

https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/investigating-college-basketballs-transfer-movement/

Every sought after recruit could transfer once.  That is enough to decimate the A10 in the classical, literal, sense.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Billiken Rich said:

Every sought after recruit could transfer once.  That is enough to decimate the A10 in the classical, literal, sense.....

I'm assuming there will be a stipulation in the rule that the A10 could also get transfers into the conference. So in the classical, literal sense, the A10 will be able to get a lot more of guys like these listed below. A lot like the reading the word kayak, it works both ways. 

Recent transfers into the conference. Some from Power 5 some from Mid-Major some from both (Isabell)

Javon Bess, Tramaine Isabell, Ibi Watson, Rodney Chatman, Blake Francis, Ryan Daly, Marcus Evans,m Issac Vann,  Michael Hughes, Tavian Dunn Martin, Marcus Weathers, Armel Potter, Josh Cunningham and many more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another potential unintended consequence... A low major or mid major has a successful program - does all the right things, hires a coach who has a lot of success - that coach gets hired away... the remaining players can now more easily leave. Some successful mid-majors could easily find themselves in late spring scrambling to fill more than half of their roster. Good mid-majors can often survive a coaching change, but also potentially losing a large chunk of your roster at the same time? A lot more difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ACE said:

Another potential unintended consequence... A low major or mid major has a successful program - does all the right things, hires a coach who has a lot of success - that coach gets hired away... the remaining players can now more easily leave. Some successful mid-majors could easily find themselves in late spring scrambling to fill more than half of their roster. Good mid-majors can often survive a coaching change, but also potentially losing a large chunk of your roster at the same time? A lot more difficult.

Furthermore, if players are allowed to follow their coaches, what's to stop a coach from putting himself out to bid with the understanding that he thinks/promises he can bring along all his top players? The threat of that alone will force existing schools to give ridiculous raises to successful coaches and the salaries will escalate even more out of control than they already are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, kshoe said:

Furthermore, if players are allowed to follow their coaches, what's to stop a coach from putting himself out to bid with the understanding that he thinks/promises he can bring along all his top players? The threat of that alone will force existing schools to give ridiculous raises to successful coaches and the salaries will escalate even more out of control than they already are. 

That already happens now. Lots of players follow coaches to a new job. Dambrot brought a couple Akron guys with him for example

 

1 hour ago, ACE said:

Another potential unintended consequence... A low major or mid major has a successful program - does all the right things, hires a coach who has a lot of success - that coach gets hired away... the remaining players can now more easily leave. Some successful mid-majors could easily find themselves in late spring scrambling to fill more than half of their roster. Good mid-majors can often survive a coaching change, but also potentially losing a large chunk of your roster at the same time? A lot more difficult.

That's a good thing. Shouldn't be on the players to pick up the pieces when a coach bolts for a better job/personal reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kshoe said:

Furthermore, if players are allowed to follow their coaches, what's to stop a coach from putting himself out to bid with the understanding that he thinks/promises he can bring along all his top players? The threat of that alone will force existing schools to give ridiculous raises to successful coaches and the salaries will escalate even more out of control than they already are. 

Yep, a school not could not only lose their coach, but more easily lose their entire top group of returning players in one fell swoop. A program that has been crappy, but has the resources can buy a coach and players at the same time. No one is stopping players from leaving now, the one year deal just pumps the breaks a bit. A player has to weigh whether or not it is worth it. Seems plenty fair to me. Life is full of all kinds of choices and players have plenty of choices currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ACE said:

Yep, a school not could not only lose their coach, but more easily lose their entire top group of returning players in one fell swoop. A program that has been crappy, but has the resources can buy a coach and players at the same time. No one is stopping players from leaving now, the one year deal just pumps the breaks a bit. A player has to weigh whether or not it is worth it. Seems plenty fair to me. Life is full of all kinds of choices and players have plenty of choices currently.

"Plenty fair" implies it's not as fair as it could be. If a coach can leave and coach the next year but a player can't. That, by definition, isn't fair. 

It's clear you just aren't looking at it from the players point of view. If you want to understand why this rule is being changed, give a different perspective a try. It may be tougher on coaches/programs, but that's what happens when you give a student (or anyone low on the totem pole) more power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the issue with coaches leaving but perhaps the solution is not with the players but with the coaches.  Could you require a coach to sit a year or limit their recruiting for the first year they leave - something that makes them pay a price and not just the athletes.  While I do understand the idea that players sign with a coach not a school in their minds.  the issue is that the school is the one who gives the schollie not the coach.  In other words the coach is not charged for the kids schollie so therefore, the school should expect some kind of protection.  Now I realize that the schollie is renewable annually but I have never thought that was right -  once the schollie is awarded and the student athlete lives up to their end of the bargain the schollie should not be subject to the renewable clause but should be considered a 4 year obligation .  The school should have to apply to the NCAA if they want to take the schollie away for whatever the reason and have the NCAA approve it or some other arbitration body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

I understand the issue with coaches leaving but perhaps the solution is not with the players but with the coaches.  Could you require a coach to sit a year or limit their recruiting for the first year they leave - something that makes them pay a price and not just the athletes.  While I do understand the idea that players sign with a coach not a school in their minds.  the issue is that the school is the one who gives the schollie not the coach.  In other words the coach is not charged for the kids schollie so therefore, the school should expect some kind of protection.  Now I realize that the schollie is renewable annually but I have never thought that was right -  once the schollie is awarded and the student athlete lives up to their end of the bargain the schollie should not be subject to the renewable clause but should be considered a 4 year obligation .  The school should have to apply to the NCAA if they want to take the schollie away for whatever the reason and have the NCAA approve it or some other arbitration body.

Do not like the new transfer rule proposal but believe if a coach leaves a team the school's roster (his signees) should be granted a transfer waiver to go where they want and play immediately, except to the new team of the exiting coach.  Period.  Sure the school losing the coach will lose some players, but many will stay as history proves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WVBilliken said:

Do not like the new transfer rule proposal but believe if a coach leaves a team the school's roster (his signees) should be granted a transfer waiver to go where they want and play immediately, except to the new team of the exiting coach.  Period.  Sure the school losing the coach will lose some players, but many will stay as history proves.

Exactly WV that is how it should be however this is the NCAA and money and has nothing to do with making it better for the kids and the lower 300 hundred schools it’s about the top 50 having the best players imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford is talking about this right now with Frank...

Frank asks him what he thinks about this rule, at first Ford says he "has mixed feelings" about it, but Frank continued to push it and Ford went on for a long time very strongly against it. Frank seemed to be pushing in favor of it. Here are a few of the highlights, paraphrasing...

Ford talked about when he transferred. He thought the year he sat out was extremely valuable mentally and physically. He didn't look at sitting out as a punishment "those were the rules"

"Nobody said a young man can not transfer" "Opening up a can of worms" "free agency" "It's going to be bad for college basketball"

"There are rules" "Soldiers can't do the same thing as generals" "There are pecking orders" "The problem is not the kids, it's adults changing the rules"

"Coaches will be spending more time looking at other college roster, and less time evaluating high school kids which is bad"

Ford tried to indicate that he didn't think it would hurt SLU (which I think is a smart stance to take, if you have to go out there and hit the free agency market), BUT it came through loud and clear that he thought this was bad for the game.

I assume the interview will be up online soon and I encourage anybody interested in the topic to give it a listen. It went on for quite a while and you could tell how passionate Ford was about it.  I've tried to keep an open mind about the counter arguments, but hearing Ford so strongly come out against it, reinforced my opinion. Ford believes there is a "99% chance it is going to happen" but if they really think through the "ramifications" perhaps it won't come to fruition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ACE said:

Ford is talking about this right now with Frank...

Frank asks him what he thinks about this rule, at first Ford says he "has mixed feelings" about it, but Frank continued to push it and Ford went on for a long time very strongly against it. Frank seemed to be pushing in favor of it. Here are a few of the highlights, paraphrasing...

Ford talked about when he transferred. He thought the year he sat out was extremely valuable mentally and physically. He didn't look at sitting out as a punishment "those were the rules"

"Nobody said a young man can not transfer" "Opening up a can of worms" "free agency" "It's going to be bad for college basketball"

"There are rules" "Soldiers can't do the same thing as generals" "There are pecking orders" "The problem is not the kids, it's adults changing the rules"

"Coaches will be spending more time looking at other college roster, and less time evaluating high school kids which is bad"

Ford tried to indicate that he didn't think it would hurt SLU (which I think is a smart stance to take, if you have to go out there and hit the free agency market), BUT it came through loud and clear that he thought this was bad for the game.

I assume the interview will be up online soon and I encourage anybody interested in the topic to give it a listen. It went on for quite a while and you could tell how passionate Ford was about it.  I've tried to keep an open mind about the counter arguments, but hearing Ford so strongly come out against it, reinforced my opinion. Ford believes there is a "99% chance it is going to happen" but if they really think through the "ramifications" perhaps it won't come to fruition. 

The rule change isn't about making college basketball better as a whole. It's about giving players full freedoms to move around (without restriction). You have to look at it through that lens if you want to understand it. Of course coaches are against it, it makes their job harder and gives more power to the players.

RUBillsFan likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

The rule change isn't about making college basketball better as a whole. It's about giving players full freedoms to move around (without restriction). You have to look at it through that lens if you want to understand it. Of course coaches are against it, it makes their job harder and gives more power to the players.

We get it, nobody is going to change your mind and you won't bother to listen to what Ford had to say. These poor players need more "freedoms" - which, btw, people who have freedoms usually still have rules that need to be followed (a point Ford made very well).

Also, Ford did look at it from "the lens" of a player who transferred - he did it himself as a player! He talked about the benefits of sitting out a year. You view sitting out a year as a punishment, but like Ford, I don't. That's a point we'll never find common ground on.

If you think this really about giving "power to the players" and their "freedoms", rather than the true driver of it - the likes of the ACC and Big 10 attempting to gain more power, than I'm afraid you are very naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ACE said:

We get it, nobody is going to change your mind and you won't bother to listen to what Ford had to say. These poor players need more "freedoms" - which, btw, people who have freedoms usually still have rules that need to be followed (a point Ford made very well).

Also, Ford did look at it from "the lens" of a player who transferred - he did it himself as a player! He talked about the benefits of sitting out a year. You view sitting out a year as a punishment, but like Ford, I don't. That's a point we'll never find common ground on.

If you think this really about giving "power to the players" and their "freedoms", rather than the true driver of it - the likes of the ACC and Big 10 attempting to gain more power, than I'm afraid you are very naive.

Perfectly said, it is not about freedom for players its about the top 50 programs getting stronger at the expense of the lower 300 programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ACE said:

We get it, nobody is going to change your mind and you won't bother to listen to what Ford had to say. These poor players need more "freedoms" - which, btw, people who have freedoms usually still have rules that need to be followed (a point Ford made very well).

Also, Ford did look at it from "the lens" of a player who transferred - he did it himself as a player! He talked about the benefits of sitting out a year. You view sitting out a year as a punishment, but like Ford, I don't. That's a point we'll never find common ground on. 

If you think this really about giving "power to the players" and their "freedoms", rather than the true driver of it - the likes of the ACC and Big 10 attempting to gain more power, than I'm afraid you are very naive.

There's a lot of outside pressure driving this. Student's rights issues have been receiving national support in recent months (specifically with NIL rights). Big conferences are jumping in because they also think the rule is good for them, but they didn't start the conversation. Here's a good article summarizing some of the federal gov't pressures the NCAA is under for NIL...it's related to the changing of perspective that is driving the transfer rule change. 

https://www.si.com/college/2020/02/12/ncaa-mark-emmert-senate-name-image-likeness

Also, no one gives a hoot if YOU don't think it's a punishment for a transfer to have to sit out a year. Transferring without sitting out a year is indisputably a freedom that coaches/most other sport athletes enjoy that CBB players don't. We agree that it is not equal. 

College sports are modernizing. With that, athletes are getting more power and leverage by the year. You (and coaches like Ford) don't have to like it, but the well being of college basketball ratings is not the primary concern of the social pressures facing NCAA.

12 minutes ago, CBFan said:

Perfectly said, it is not about freedom for players its about the top 50 programs getting stronger at the expense of the lower 300 programs.

There is literally bipartisan congressional hearings about players rights and NIL. This is a national social issue.  Please see link above if you care. Everything isnt a conspiracy to hurt mid-majors hahaha

 

 

Easiest solution to the “sitting out a year is actually a good thing” is to give that option to people but not mandate it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, glazedandconfused said:

There's a lot of outside pressure driving this. Student's rights issues have been receiving national support in recent months (specifically with NIL rights). Big conferences are jumping in because they also think the rule is good for them, but they didn't start the conversation. Here's a good article summarizing some of the federal gov't pressures the NCAA is under for NIL...it's related to the changing of perspective that is driving the transfer rule change. 

https://www.si.com/college/2020/02/12/ncaa-mark-emmert-senate-name-image-likeness

Also, no one gives a hoot if YOU don't think it's a punishment for a transfer to have to sit out a year. Transferring without sitting out a year is indisputably a freedom that coaches/most other sport athletes enjoy that CBB players don't. We agree that it is not equal. 

College sports are modernizing. With that, athletes are getting more power and leverage by the year. You (and coaches like Ford) don't have to like it, but the well being of college basketball ratings is not the primary concern of the social pressures facing NCAA.

There is literally bipartisan congressional hearings about players rights and NIL. This is a national social issue.  Please see link above if you care. Everything isnt a conspiracy to hurt mid-majors hahaha

 

I do not think it is a conspiracy and it is not the US congress business to be interfering in such matters, it has nothing to do with running the country.

This is just my opinion and its worth as much as yours.

ACE likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CBFan said:

Perfectly said, it is not about freedom for players its about the top 50 programs getting stronger at the expense of the lower 300 programs.

That is certainly what the top 50 programs will attempt to reap from the rule change.  But it's just as likely that the bench player that they run off to make room for a high-performing mid-major player develops into a high-peforming player at the mid-major level.   All the parity we've seen recently has demonstrated that, in a lot of cases, there just isn't that much difference between the 50th ranked player and the 150th ranked player.  

Bizziken likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people are overreacting to this including most coaches.  Maybe more players will transfer, but I doubt it will be a floodgate of transfers that some are expecting.  Most kids do their homework and pick a school/coach they like in the beginning, therefore, they won't just transfer at the drop of a hat because they don't have to sit the year.  Also, for everyone who is fearing that Power 5 schools will poach star mid-major players, #1 a lot of players actually like their schools/coaches & want to stay there rather than play for the big boys* (ex: do you think Steph Curry would have jumped from Davidson? or would Goodwin leave SLU? heck no) & #2 it is a two way street - a lot of guys riding the bench at Power 5 schools can transfer down and become stars at the lower level.

*The NBA is full of stars who played / dominated at the mid-major level (Curry, Lillard, McCollum, Morant, Hayward, etc.).  A big part of their development was actually getting a lot of playing time and a long leash to make mistakes because they were the best player on their teams in college.  Some kids will realize this and not want to jeopardize their future chasing the biggest college name to transfer to.

I hope they do something to enforce suspensions across schools though.  Example, player A beats up his GF and gets supended at school #1 (let's call it Mizzou to make this realistic).  It would be a shame if this rule allows him to transfer, avoid punishment, and immediately play at a new school  #2 (let's call it Oregon).

rgbilliken likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

I think a lot of people are overreacting to this including most coaches.  Maybe more players will transfer, but I doubt it will be a floodgate of transfers that some are expecting.  Most kids do their homework and pick a school/coach they like in the beginning, therefore, they won't just transfer at the drop of a hat because they don't have to sit the year.  Also, for everyone who is fearing that Power 5 schools will poach star mid-major players, #1 a lot of players actually like their schools/coaches & want to stay there rather than play for the big boys* (ex: do you think Steph Curry would have jumped from Davidson? or would Goodwin leave SLU? heck no) & #2 it is a two way street - a lot of guys riding the bench at Power 5 schools can transfer down and become stars at the lower level.

*The NBA is full of stars who played / dominated at the mid-major level (Curry, Lillard, McCollum, Morant, Hayward, etc.).  A big part of their development was actually getting a lot of playing time and a long leash to make mistakes because they were the best player on their teams in college.  Some kids will realize this and not want to jeopardize their future chasing the biggest college name to transfer to.

I hope they do something to enforce suspensions across schools though.  Example, player A beats up his GF and gets supended at school #1 (let's call it Mizzou to make this realistic).  It would be a shame if this rule allows him to transfer, avoid punishment, and immediately play at a new school  #2 (let's call it Oregon).

There is already a ton of transfers. Ford said there were something like 800 last year. That' s over 2 per team in the NCAA.Interestingly Ford said the new rule would be a positive for SLU. Players would want to transfer to us because of the quality of our facilities and overall program. He also said it has around a 99% probability that the new rule will go into effect.  Hope he's wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...