Transfer Rules

[glazedandconfused]

2 minutes ago, ACE said:

Bang, he got it.

Ace, since you think the year probation is actually a good thing for players, I assume you think transfers will go down when transfers no longer have that benefit?

See how you kind of talk yourself in a circle there.

[HoosierPal]

1 hour ago, glazedandconfused said:

There is literally bipartisan congressional hearings about players rights and NIL. This is a national social issue.

Congress only cares about college athletes if they are voting age.  It's not a social issue to congress, it's a re-election issue.  It sounds really good, right now, to be for it.  Elections are coming up in November, hence the interest.

[glazedandconfused]

It’s a 

43 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Congress only cares about college athletes if they are voting age.  It's not a social issue to congress, it's a re-election issue.  It sounds really good, right now, to be for it.  Elections are coming up in November, hence the interest.

It’s a re-election issue because it’s what the majority of voting age people want then....and a majority of people couldn’t care less about Power 5 conference college basketball as compared to mid-majors

[CBFan]

6 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

It’s a 

It’s a re-election issue because it’s what the majority of voting age people want then....and a majority of people couldn’t care less about Power 5 conference college basketball as compared to mid-majors

I think you are right I am sure the majority want this and the NCAA sees big money in it but our government has no jurisdiction in this matter they need to stay out of it and as HP stated in his post will forgot about player freedom after the election.

I believe this is going to happen whether I like it or not and you can be happy about player freedom.

[Bills71]

1 hour ago, glazedandconfused said:

Ace, since you think the year probation is actually a good thing for players, I assume you think transfers will go down when transfers no longer have that benefit?

See how you kind of talk yourself in a circle there.

Now I understand how glazedandconfused you are!

[glazedandconfused]

25 minutes ago, CBFan said:

I think you are right I am sure the majority want this and the NCAA sees big money in it but our government has no jurisdiction in this matter they need to stay out of it and as HP stated in his post will forgot about player freedom after the election.

I believe this is going to happen whether I like it or not and you can be happy about player freedom.

CBB competitiveness aside, you aren’t happy players are getting more freedom?  

[ACE]

12 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

Ace, since you think the year probation is actually a good thing for players, I assume you think transfers will go down when transfers no longer have that benefit?

See how you kind of talk yourself in a circle there.

Huh?

Just because this change is certain to lead to more transfers, IMO, doesn't make it good policy.  Some of the players would probably also like the "freedom" to have ice cream, cake, meth and heroin included as part of their pre-game team buffet, but that doesn't mean it's "a good thing" for the players or the game.

[glazedandconfused]

1 minute ago, ACE said:

Huh?

Just because this change is certain to lead to more transfers, IMO, doesn't make it good policy.  Some of the players would probably also like the "freedom" to have ice cream, cake, meth and heroin included as part of their pre-game team buffet, but that doesn't mean it's "a good thing" for the players or the game.

But the point of freedoms are that you have the right to make decisions for yourself. We don’t need or want a bunch of old heads mandating what is best for these athletes.

 

If perkins wants to eat ice cream before games, that’s 100% his right. SLU shouldn’t ban him from eating ice cream. He won’t because he’s individually motivated to be a good player, not because a rule says he shouldn’t.

[ACE]

1 minute ago, glazedandconfused said:

But the point of freedoms are that you have the right to make decisions for yourself. We don’t need or want a bunch of old heads mandating what is best for these athletes.

 

If perkins wants to eat ice cream before games, that’s 100% his right. SLU shouldn’t ban him from eating ice cream. He won’t because he’s individually motivated to be a good player, not because a rule says he shouldn’t.

The players should also have the "freedoms" to not take ANY classes. Just get rid of that whole pesky "student" part of student/athlete. 

[glazedandconfused]

10 minutes ago, ACE said:

The players should also have the "freedoms" to not take ANY classes. Just get rid of that whole pesky "student" part of student/athlete. 

No. Just give basketball students the same rights as every other student. 

If a volleyball player on a full-ride wants to transfer schools between soph and junior years, they can play immediately. Why shouldn’t a basketball player? “Because that’s how it’s been” is not a legitimate reason.

 

Not giving an athlete the right to freely transfer without sitting out a year, because it could hurt the bottom line of some programs or the sport in general, (especially when those athletes get 0% of the sport’s revenues) is not right.

 

EDIT: spare me the “scholarships are compensation enough” takes. Other athletes and students get scholarships too and bring in far less money for the school.

[ACE]

Wonder if players transferring at semester will be immediately eligible at another school? That would be fun. 

[NH]

I think there are very valid points to be made on both sides of this issue, and I think a lot of it is generational. In terms of the college basketball product, I think I agree with many that it would overall be a negative. Less continuity is going to create less cohesion, and probably a worse product on the floor. It would probably also hurt lower and mid major schools, but not to the extent I think some on here are suggesting. If you look at the current system, there’s not that much to restrict guys from transferring. I doubt we’d see that many more examples than we currently of players leaving to go up in level. 
 

At the end of the day, a school can cut a kids scholarship after any year, and a coach can leave at any time. If we’re willing to accept that these kids are effectively university employees, then I think they should be treated with the rights typically afforded to employees. It’s a personal decision and the person most affected (by far) is the player making the call to leave. For all these reasons, I’m in favor of this type of change. But I can totally see why someone would be opposed.

[NH]

I would also just follow up my post by saying that the way this type of rule is enforced will be really important to how successful it is. Things like tampering restrictions and transfer windows/deadliness will be really important. And I, as with most CBB fans, have no confidence in the NCAA to implement these types of things.

[glazedandconfused]

7 minutes ago, NH said:

I think there are very valid points to be made on both sides of this issue, and I think a lot of it is generational. In terms of the college basketball product, I think I agree with many that it would overall be a negative. Less continuity is going to create less cohesion, and probably a worse product on the floor. It would probably also hurt lower and mid major schools, but not to the extent I think some on here are suggesting. If you look at the current system, there’s not that much to restrict guys from transferring. I doubt we’d see that many more examples than we currently of players leaving to go up in level. 
 

At the end of the day, a school can cut a kids scholarship after any year, and a coach can leave at any time. If we’re willing to accept that these kids are effectively university employees, then I think they should be treated with the rights typically afforded to employees. It’s a personal decision and the person most affected (by far) is the player making the call to leave. For all these reasons, I’m in favor of this type of change. But I can totally see why someone would be opposed.

I agree, but, by that logic, opposing this change means morally you are ok with withholding these “rights afforded to other employees” because it would possibly hurt the overall quality of college basketball. The cohesion/consistency of college basketball teams should not determine whether players are afforded the same rights all of their peers in other sports/clubs have.

Hard to defend that as just. 

[cheeseman]

The problem is that this is a big money sport and when money gets involved, it encourages shady activities.  The NCAA does not have a great track record of policing especially policing big name programs.

[HoosierPal]

Not a whole lot of conversation on how this will benefit the STUDENT- athletes academically. 

[Reinert310]

2 hours ago, glazedandconfused said:

But the point of freedoms are that you have the right to make decisions for yourself. We don’t need or want a bunch of old heads mandating what is best for these athletes.

 

If perkins wants to eat ice cream before games, that’s 100% his right. SLU shouldn’t ban him from eating ice cream. He won’t because he’s individually motivated to be a good player, not because a rule says he shouldn’t.

In the current format, players still have the right to transfer, they just have to sit out a year. There are consequences to every action. Sometimes kids need to be saved from themselves. It sometimes, quite literally, pains me to think about some of the horrible decisions I made as a 18-23 year old college kid, without any outside false promises of glory and riches. Yes, in a perfect world, coaches, boosters, et al, would never recruit a kid with malice or deceit, those promises would never be too good to be true, and college kids would be mature enough to see through it all to make rational decisions about what’s best for their future. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and I’d be willing to bet these rule changes will end up hurting just as many student-athletes as it helps.

[3star_recruit]

1 minute ago, Reinert310 said:

In the current format, players still have the right to transfer, they just have to sit out a year. There are consequences to every action. Sometimes kids need to be saved from themselves. It sometimes, quite literally, pains me to think about some of the horrible decisions I made as a 18-23 year old college kid, without any outside false promises of glory and riches. Yes, in a perfect world, coaches, boosters, et al, would never recruit a kid with malice or deceit, those promises would never be too good to be true, and college kids would be mature enough to see through it all to make rational decisions about what’s best for their future. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and I’d be willing to bet these rule changes will end up hurting just as many student-athletes as it helps.

Which is why I think I think it's much ado about nothing.  Neither the players, as a group, or the power schools, as a group, will benefit from this change like they think they will. 18-22 year olds don't have a very realistic view of their abilities.  And the Power 5 programs are putting out about as weak a product as I've ever seen.  Running off more players and creating more instability in their rosters may actually exacerbate the problem.

[glazedandconfused]

25 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Not a whole lot of conversation on how this will benefit the STUDENT- athletes academically. 

This rule change isn’t about academics though it’s about students being deterred from transferring based on what sport they play. Hence, no discussion on here. But if i had to guess:

I wouldn’t really expect a major impact to academics. If anything, the possibility of transferring will make sure everyone has their grades and discipline in order so they are academically eligible to transfer if it comes to that. It also allows for students to transfer to another school without not being able to play basketball for a year if they find a better academic fit. There will always be some kids who don’t care about school and some that do. I don’t foresee this changing it significantly. Most kids are self-motivated.

 

Additionally, there’s been a lot of talk about the positives of a year off: Physical and mental growth...ability to go to grad school and what not. I would propose that a “Transfer Red Shirt” would be acceptable if a player chooses to sit out a year to get acclimated to a new school. So it would be allowed, but not dictated from on high.

[CBFan]

4 hours ago, glazedandconfused said:

CBB competitiveness aside, you aren’t happy players are getting more freedom?  

I was on the mom and dad scholarship these guys are getting a free ride at the best higher learning institutions in the world.  You act like these players are indentured servants with your use of the words player freedom and it is laughable as is you challenging every poster that differs with your opinion.

[glazedandconfused]

26 minutes ago, CBFan said:

I was on the mom and dad scholarship these guys are getting a free ride at the best higher learning institutions in the world.  You act like these players are indentured servants with your use of the words player freedom and it is laughable as is you challenging every poster that differs with your opinion.

I’m respectfully challenging opposing view points in a thread that is specifically for this issue. How is that laughable? I’m obviously in the minority on this board (likely generation gap) but that doesn’t mean I can’t try and make my point as long as I don’t start attacking people

Also, I never once said anything implying they were like indentured servants. Indentured servants were people who, because they had no other realistic options, worked for no pay and sacrificed some of their freedoms (temporarily) with the idea that they would make a living and earn complete freedom down the road. I think we all agree that would be crazy to do to someone in the present.
 

 

[NH]

51 minutes ago, CBFan said:

I was on the mom and dad scholarship these guys are getting a free ride at the best higher learning institutions in the world.  You act like these players are indentured servants with your use of the words player freedom and it is laughable as is you challenging every poster that differs with your opinion.

They aren’t getting a scholarship as a gift or for charity. They’re getting it because they make the school more money than the scholarship costs. And they choose to do that, so nobody is saying we should feel bad for them. But it’s also not crazy to say they should be able to go provide that service at another school that wants them if they so choose, without being forced to sit out a year. 

[RiseAndGrind]

This thread is TLDR but until coaches are forced to sit out after switching schools or scholarships are guaranteed for 4 years, I don't have a problem giving students more freedom.

[Quality Is Job 1]

1 hour ago, NH said:

They aren’t getting a scholarship as a gift or for charity. They’re getting it because they make the school more money than the scholarship costs. And they choose to do that, so nobody is saying we should feel bad for them. But it’s also not crazy to say they should be able to go provide that service at another school that wants them if they so choose, without being forced to sit out a year. 

Not to say that I'll raise a big stink when the rule goes into effect (notwithstanding that I don't like it, as I've stated previously), but "being forced to sit out a year" does provide student-athletes an additional year of education without paying tuition, books, or room-and-board while adding on another year of academic benefits not available to "common" students.

Common students, even if they get academic scholarships, don't get as much paid for as student-athletes.  (They do get the opportunity to work-study for pay, though.)  However, if student-athletes in other sports are afforded the opportunity to transfer without sitting out, then I think the basketball players should be subject to the same stipulations.  I wasn't aware the transfer rules weren't across the board.

Decades ago, freshmen weren't eligible, but then the NCAA changed the rules, and everyone adapted.  College basketball fans can adapt to this rule change, as well, but I question whether this change is really good for the state of college basketball.

I know there are those who want to consider what might be (or appear) best for the student-athletes, but the reality is that the athletes are entertainers, and if the interest from those who enjoy the diversion wanes such that season ticket sales diminish, sponsorship decreases, and the networks start losing (or making a great deal less) money from airing the product, then the NCAA will need to reexamine how it governs its cash cows.

[rgbilliken]

I feel like this actually could be good for the game. People don’t like to think of it as a market, but it is one, and the sitting out a year makes it much less efficient. A more efficient market with more mobility both ways seems like a good thing. With regard to whether it helps or hurts SLU, seems to me like it would help. There are plenty of kids riding the bench at P5 schools who could get minutes in the A10. The sit out a year rule is a disincentive to go get more minutes at another school, creating an inefficiency. Remove that disincentive and I think SLU can capitalize. And if there are stars at SLU who would jump ship for a blue blood in the future, seems like that would mean they haven’t bought in, so fine, they can go. If we have people riding the bench who can go get minutes on a worse team without sitting out, that’s great for them and I wish them the best. Seems fine.