Transfer Rules

[ACE]

27 minutes ago, kshoe said:

I'm definitely more in the Ace camp than not as I think good mid-major players will be poached left and right by power teams. It'll be incredibly easy for them as all they have to do is call up their AAU coach and mention that Duke is now interested in Jordan Goodwin for his senior year. Word get's to Jordan and he then has a decision to make. Not always an easy decision...

I wonder if the parity we have experienced this year and years past coupled with the NBA getting close to ending the rule that they won't make kids wait a year out of high school, thus ending the one-and-done pipeline, is making these power teams/conferences want to find a new method for ensuring they always have access to the best players.

That's a great point.

[ACE]

3 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

So 1,000's of kids transfer every year now and college basketball is just fine. More parity now then ever. 3 top 5 teams are mid-majors.  If we remove the arbitrary one year penalty, 1000's of kids will transfer next year and college basketball will be just fine and 18-22 year olds will be more capable of finding the situation that best serves them, whether it is moving to a bigger program, to a smaller program, to a school closer to home, to a school that better suits their educational goals, etc.

If it's "fine" currently, then why change it?

Again, I don't see having to sit out a year and get a free year of education and player development as a punishment. It makes kids pause and weigh whether it is worth a move, rather than making an impulsive move.

 

[willie]

8 minutes ago, wgstl said:

I just dont see the need of a kid to go from a Umass up to a Pittsburgh.  There will be kids going from a Drake to a gonzaga, of course.  My point is, theres not too many schools that will benefit from it.  Sure the typical top 30 schools will have their pickings, but you gotta remember, when those schools are taking in those transfers, it leaves more HS kids available.  you have roughly 30 top schools, vs 150 mid majors schools.  thats not a lot.  A school like SLU is safe.  The line that it hurts are teams that are typically 175 and below

I don't see how you can say a school like SLU is safe. Players like Goodwin,French and a Jimerson would be prime candidates to be poached. All 3 are good enough to play anywhere and all 3 offer a certain skill that the top programs would want. It's a terrible proposal for schools like SLU. 

[willie]

8 minutes ago, wgstl said:

I just dont see the need of a kid to go from a Umass up to a Pittsburgh.  There will be kids going from a Drake to a gonzaga, of course.  My point is, theres not too many schools that will benefit from it.  Sure the typical top 30 schools will have their pickings, but you gotta remember, when those schools are taking in those transfers, it leaves more HS kids available.  you have roughly 30 top schools, vs 150 mid majors schools.  thats not a lot.  A school like SLU is safe.  The line that it hurts are teams that are typically 175 and below

I don't see how you can say a school like SLU is safe. Players like Goodwin,French and a Jimerson would be prime candidates to be poached. All 3 are good enough to play anywhere and all 3 offer a certain skill that the top programs would want. It's a terrible proposal for schools like SLU. 

[willie]

Sorry for the double. 

[ACE]

Adam Zagoria

@AdamZagoria

·

5m

Georgetown coach Patrick Ewing on the prospect of the NCAA allowing players to transfer and become immediately eligible. "It's going to be the wild, wild West. Right now, I don't like it."

 

 

[glazedandconfused]

12 minutes ago, ACE said:

If it's "fine" currently, then why change it?

Again, I don't see having to sit out a year and get a free year of education and player development as a punishment. It makes kids pause and weigh whether it is worth a move, rather than making an impulsive move.

 

1. They are already getting free education and are playing basketball at the same time. Taking away the basketball portion of that is clearly a punishment haha. It doesn't matter that you don't want to acknowledge it.

2. If you think there are no impulsive transfers now, I have some Carteare Gordon stock to sell you

in Response to your question of it being "fine" then why change it?    because 18-22 year olds will be more capable of finding the situation that best serves them, whether it is moving to a bigger program, to a smaller program, to a school closer to home, to a school that better suits their educational goals, etc. 

 

And yes Coaches and AD's and Conferences will generally be against it, but that's because it's not a change for them. Patrick Ewing can go to a new school and start coaching right away. Mark Richt can do the same. Something tells me they wouldn't like an arbitrary 1 year break period between changing their jobs...even if they were given free night classes haha

 

 

[CBFan]

1 hour ago, ACE said:

Yep, this is a terrible idea. There will be a flood of kids trying to go to "higher profile" schools in the pursuit of increasing their pro basketball aspirations. Mid majors who put the time in and discover some hidden gems and develop them will become even more susceptible to getting screwed. Imagine some traditional blue blood program that is going through a crap season like North Carolina right now... This will make it even easier for them to hit the free agent market and poach quality players that other programs developed in an attempt for a quick fix.

I have never understood the idea of having to simply sit out one year and get a free education is a "punishment" for a kid.  It doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. Not only does the kid get an extra year of free education they can take the time to work on their game and really hit the weight room. Kids can improve a great deal over the course of that redshirt year, and having that "free" year has proven to beneficial to a lot of kids. And kids who actually care about getting an education benefit by getting that free year.

 

Really good post Ace the best example of a player sitting out a year and working on his game is Javon Bess.

Bess also benefited receiving an extra year of a SLU education, what is that worth? 

[wgstl]

10 minutes ago, willie said:

I don't see how you can say a school like SLU is safe. Players like Goodwin,French and a Jimerson would be prime candidates to be poached. All 3 are good enough to play anywhere and all 3 offer a certain skill that the top programs would want. It's a terrible proposal for schools like SLU. 

Why would they leave a team that they built up, and are poised for an NCAA run next year?

Im saying SLU in its current state is safe from this.  

 

[wgstl]

Why do people think this also cant help us?  

Ford is building this program to the point where we expect a competitive team every year. How would this not help us grab a low major player every once and a while?

[HoosierPal]

43 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

There will always be kids, Jordan Goodwin and Tre Mitchell being great examples, who choose to stay home and play at mid-majors despite having a multiple high major offers out of high school.

Tre went with his HS coach.  I'm not sure "staying home' had much to do with it.  He is from Pittsburgh.

[CBFan]

Just now, wgstl said:

Why do people think this also cant help us?  

Ford is building this program to the point where we expect a competitive team every year. How would this not help us grab a low major player every once and a while?

I think the only way it would benefit SLU is if the local kids that went elsewhere would like to come home and play.

[HoosierPal]

6 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Why would they leave a team that they built up, and are poised for an NCAA run next year?

Im saying SLU in its current state is safe from this.  

 

Henry Honda, UVA grad, owns a Honda Dealer in Charlottesville.  After next season, "Hey Gibson, why not come home and play for the Cavs.  We are one player away from a second NCAA championship.  I think you are that player.  And as a bonus, I have a 2021 Honda Ridgeline you can drive.  All I need is your mug on a couple of billboards around town."

[wgstl]

Just now, CBFan said:

I think the only way it would benefit SLU is if the local kids that went elsewhere would like to come home and play.

so you're telling me given next years team, plus the promising youth we have, you couldn't get a kid from lets say monmouth to come here? or NJIT, or marist. 

[wgstl]

2 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Henry Honda, UVA grad, owns a Honda Dealer in Charlottesville.  After next season, "Hey Gibson, why not come home and play for the Cavs.  We are one player away from a second NCAA championship.  I think you are that player.  And as a bonus, I have a 2021 Honda Ridgeline you can drive.  All I need is your mug on a couple of billboards around town."

So you can now pay players? Missed that rule 

[ACE]

The spring recruiting period will be chaos. 

Imagine the hysteria after Ja Morant's freshman year at Murray State. Schools clamoring to get him to transfer for one year and sell him on the false narrative of going to a "higher profile" school to improve his NBA stock. A kid like Morant doesn't need to go that route, but he could have be enticed by it... and a lot of kids will buy that sales pitch. This will seem to lead to even more middle men getting in the ear of kids that greener pastures are available.

Or an SEC school hires a new coach in the spring. That coach has a bunch of scholarships to fill and immediately brings in several high quality mid major transfers who previously weren't looking to transfer. Those mid major schools are left scrambling late in the spring. Do they go shopping quality low major players to fill their spots? Where does it end? The sit out a year situation pumps the breaks a little to prevent a wild west situation.

[3star_recruit]

26 minutes ago, ACE said:

But there are also plenty of kids who don't have high major offers out of high school, go the mid major route and prove they are good enough to play at the P5 level. Those are the kind of kids who could easily be wooed by "higher profile" programs. 

There were nearly 1,000 transfers last year. The current rules have not prohibited a LOT of kids from transferring, so why make it even easier?

You're talking like we have a say in this.  The elites in any group will try to come up with schemes to ensure their success.  But college basketball is a strange animal - gaming the system never seems to pan out the way they expect.  Somehow there's more parity now than there was 20 years ago. 

It's the lack of continuity that's causing these super-talented rosters to underperform.  It's not the lack of talent.  Poaching players from mid-majors has not and will not solve Duke and Kentuckys problem. And a scheme that doesn't solve the schemer's problem will ultimately fail.

 

 

[glazedandconfused]

12 minutes ago, ACE said:

The spring recruiting period will be chaos. 

Imagine the hysteria after Ja Morant's freshman year at Murray State. Schools clamoring to get him to transfer for one year and sell him on the false narrative of going to a "higher profile" school to improve his NBA stock. A kid like Morant doesn't need to go that route, but he could have be enticed by it... and a lot of kids will buy that sales pitch. This will seem to lead to even more middle men getting in the ear of kids that greener pastures are available.

Or an SEC school hires a new coach in the spring. That coach has a bunch of scholarships to fill and immediately brings in several high quality mid major transfers who previously weren't looking to transfer. Those mid major schools are left scrambling late in the spring. Do they go shopping quality low major players to fill their spots? Where does it end? The sit out a year situation pumps the breaks a little to prevent a wild west situation.

In your example, Ja Morant should be able to make the decision where he wants to go play unencumbered by a year penalty.  (Yes, Morant taking a year off basketball would be bad for his overall career.)

Why shouldn't a player be able to transfer if he wants to without having to sit out? A coach can jump to a new school. A university can pull a scholarship. This is and has always been a business enterprise. It's an athlete's rights issue more than it is a competitive imbalance issue. 

[HoosierPal]

33 minutes ago, wgstl said:

So you can now pay players? Missed that rule 

It's coming.  The NIL topic is hotter than this one.  If you recall, Chris May said it was the primary discussion at the recent A10 meetings, and they are moving forward.

[SShoe]

14 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

You're talking like we have a say in this.  The elites in any group will try to come up with schemes to ensure their success.  But college basketball is a strange animal - gaming the system never seems to pan out the way they expect.  Somehow there's more parity now than there was 20 years ago. 

It's the lack of continuity that's causing these super-talented rosters to underperform.  It's not the lack of talent.  Poaching players from mid-majors has not and will not solve Duke and Kentuckys problem. And a scheme that doesn't solve the schemer's problem will ultimately fail.

 

 

There's some validity to this, but the proposed transfer rule would also negatively impact the continuity of mid-major programs.  

All in all, it's an awful proposal for the sport and for schools like SLU.  

[wgstl]

Just now, HoosierPal said:

It's coming.  The NLI topic is hotter than this one.  If you recall, Chris May said it was the primary discussion at the recent A10 meetings, and they are moving forward.

I agree, but that’s years down the road. We’re talking about the other rule too. 

[HoosierPal]

Just now, wgstl said:

I agree, but that’s years down the road. We’re talking about the other rule too. 

I'm not sure of the timing.  May said spring, but I have no idea what would come out this spring....a future timetable?  A new rule?  It's very likely not years away.

[wgstl]

1 minute ago, HoosierPal said:

I'm not sure of the timing.  May said spring, but I have no idea what would come out this spring....a future timetable?  A new rule?  It's very likely not years away.

I thought I read somewhere about something relating to California and that it’s years away, maybe not 

[HoosierPal]

5 minutes ago, wgstl said:

I thought I read somewhere about something relating to California and that it’s years away, maybe not 

Definitely it is up in the air.  There have been hearings on Capitol Hill recently on this.  The NCAA did put out this directive last fall for an April recommendation from their working group.  (Perhaps that is what May was referring to.)  For my 2 cents, if the NCAA is going to make significant changes, let's get them all over with at once.

Updated October 29, 2019

Why didn’t the NCAA take immediate action on name, image and likeness rules?

The Board of Governors took a very important step forward at its meeting Oct. 29 by modernizing NCAA policy. It further directed all 1,100 members to create a structure for future name, image and likeness opportunities for student-athletes that is consistent with the college environment in each NCAA division.

Now that the NCAA Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group has provided its report to the board, what happens next?

Member schools in each division will continue to examine the issue, provide feedback to the working group and prepare for future rules changes. The working group is expected to provide updated recommendations to the Board of Governors in April.

[CBFan]

41 minutes ago, wgstl said:

so you're telling me given next years team, plus the promising youth we have, you couldn't get a kid from lets say monmouth to come here? or NJIT, or marist. 

Good question, I just don’t know, my guess is the kids from those schools would want something better than a A10 team.

Disclosure, I am not a fan of the A10 so my guess is biased.