Transfer Rules

[CBFan]

9 hours ago, glazedandconfused said:

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.
 

 

Your not respectfully challenging posts when you have used words such as conspiracy to describe posters such as myself that believe it is about helping the top 50 programs..

I have a remedy for obsessed poster like you.

[glazedandconfused]

46 minutes ago, CBFan said:

Your not respectfully challenging posts when you have used words such as conspiracy to describe posters such as myself that believe it is about helping the top 50 programs..

I have a remedy for obsessed poster like you.

I am sorry for disrespecting you then. 

If the worst a debate gets is someone saying “not everything is a conspiracy about _____” that’s pretty respectful by 2020 internet standards.

[slufanskip]

15 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.

I know you didn't make it initially but the ice cream analogy is a silly one. Coaches should have the authority to ban players from eating ice cream before games. It's a performance issue. Now of course Perkins can eat the ice cream if he wants and the coach can bench him. We can take the idea od complete freedom to do anything we want a bit too far. 

As far as transfers go I'm undecided on how I feel. However, players currently have 100% freedom. Playing college basketball isn't a god given right. You want to play in my organization there are rules you need to agree to. If you don't like the rules choose a different path to grow your skills and advance your career. People seem to think the school benefits more from the player than the player benefits from the school. I disagree. 99% of student athletes at SLU or in the NCAA overall could not get paid for their athletic abilities the value of what they receive at SLU. The coaches and school put a lot into developing the kids. 

What I don't like is that the school can drop a kid without penalty but the kid can't leave without penalty. Allow the kid to leave unrestricted if the coach leaves and don't allow the school to reuse the scholarship for a year if they drop a kid. 

[HoosierPal]

24 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

What I don't like is that the school can drop a kid without penalty but the kid can't leave without penalty. Allow the kid to leave unrestricted if the coach leaves and don't allow the school to reuse the scholarship for a year if they drop a kid. 

While that certainly is the rule, I'm not sure how often that is done, where in effect a student wanted to return but the coach said no.  We think Majerus did it once (Thompson?), but since then, I can't come up with a firm yes he was forced out.  All the guys who left when Ford came here pretty much were out the door already, (with maybe Bartley different?).  I have no idea how the conversations went between those two.  Bartley didn't leave until after Ford was hired.

When a normal student transfers, they are usually doing so for academic reasons or a social/family issue.  If they have a scholarship at School A, it doesn't necessarily transfer to School B.  Athletes transfer 99% of the time for sports. When is the last time you heard of an athlete transferring to get into a business school or an engineering program.  it probably happens, but not that often, particularly at the P5 level in basketball.  To me comparing normal students transferring to athletes is apples and oranges.

There is a simple fix for the variance in how athletes in different sports are treated.  Make all scholarship athletes sit a year when transferring.  If you are not on an athletic scholarship, you can transfer as a normal student.

[glazedandconfused]

4 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

While that certainly is the rule, I'm not sure how often that is done, where in effect a student wanted to return but the coach said no.  We think Majerus did it once (Thompson?), but since then, I can't come up with a firm yes he was forced out.  All the guys who left when Ford came here pretty much were out the door already, (with maybe Bartley different?).  I have no idea how the conversations went between those two.  Bartley didn't leave until after Ford was hired.

When a normal student transfers, they are usually doing so for academic reasons or a social/family issue.  If they have a scholarship at School A, it doesn't necessarily transfer to School B.  Athletes transfer 99% of the time for sports. When is the last time you heard of an athlete transferring to get into a business school or an engineering program.  it probably happens, but not that often, particularly at the P5 level in basketball.  To me comparing normal students to athletes is apples and oranges.

There is a simple fix for the variance in how athletes in different sports are treated.  Make all scholarship athletes sit a year when transferring.  If you are not on an athletic scholarship, you can transfer as a normal student.

I think Jared Drew might have had his scholarship pulled by Crews but idk if i remember correctly.

 

So you are saying any athlete who wants to transfer schools should have to sit out while normal students don’t? What is the reasoning for this? To protect the bottom line of the sport and college programs? So students who actually provide some level of revenue for the schools get less freedom to move while getting the same school benefits?

[HoosierPal]

9 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

I think Jared Drew might have had his scholarship pulled by Crews but idk if i remember correctly.

 

So you are saying any athlete who wants to transfer schools should have to sit out while normal students don’t? What is the reasoning for this? To protect the bottom line of the sport and college programs? So students who actually provide some level of revenue for the schools get less freedom to move while getting the same school benefits?

How much revenue does the men's soccer team contribute back to the university?  The woman's cross country team?  Does SluSignGuy department get a % of the woman's volleyball revenue? (BTW, Mizzou's athletic department is in the red.)

Answered your initial question.....reread my post. 

[glazedandconfused]

7 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

How much revenue does the men's soccer team contribute back to the university?  The woman's cross country team?  Does SluSignGuy department get a % of the woman's volleyball revenue? (BTW, Mizzou's athletic department is in the red.)

Answered your initial question.....reread my post. 

But then what is the reason for not allowing athletes to transfer freely? Is there a reason outside of the hypothetical “it’s better for the sport”.

 

If students want to sit out a year and grow or get a masters eventually, I’m ok with them taking a transfer redshirt but we shouldn’t be mandating that from on high because we want to control these students for our viewing pleasure.

[HoosierPal]

4 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

But then what is the reason for not allowing athletes to transfer freely? Is there a reason outside of the hypothetical “it’s better for the sport”.

If you don't want to read my posts, then why are you responding to me?

[glazedandconfused]

7 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

If you don't want to read my posts, then why are you responding to me?

I asked why should students have to sit out. How does your post (below) answer that? Unless you are saying because they are mostly transferring for sports reasons they should have to sit out. Is that correct?

41 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

While that certainly is the rule, I'm not sure how often that is done, where in effect a student wanted to return but the coach said no.  We think Majerus did it once (Thompson?), but since then, I can't come up with a firm yes he was forced out.  All the guys who left when Ford came here pretty much were out the door already, (with maybe Bartley different?).  I have no idea how the conversations went between those two.  Bartley didn't leave until after Ford was hired.

When a normal student transfers, they are usually doing so for academic reasons or a social/family issue.  If they have a scholarship at School A, it doesn't necessarily transfer to School B.  Athletes transfer 99% of the time for sports. When is the last time you heard of an athlete transferring to get into a business school or an engineering program.  it probably happens, but not that often, particularly at the P5 level in basketball.  To me comparing normal students transferring to athletes is apples and oranges.

There is a simple fix for the variance in how athletes in different sports are treated.  Make all scholarship athletes sit a year when transferring.  If you are not on an athletic scholarship, you can transfer as a normal student.

 

[ACE]

45 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

I think Jared Drew might have had his scholarship pulled by Crews but idk if i remember correctly.

 

So you are saying any athlete who wants to transfer schools should have to sit out while normal students don’t? What is the reasoning for this? To protect the bottom line of the sport and college programs? So students who actually provide some level of revenue for the schools get less freedom to move while getting the same school benefits?

"Normal" students don't play sports so there is no reason to sit out... they are allowed to immediately start taking classes upon transferring... just like student-athletes.

[HoosierPal]

9 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

I asked why should students have to sit out. How does your post (below) answer that? Unless you are saying because they are mostly transferring for sports reasons they should have to sit out. Is that correct?

 

Congratulations on copying and pasting.  If you don't agree with my answer, that is fine.  I have an opinion that I don't need you to validate.  You have repeated your opinion a few dozen times, and that is fine also.  You don't need me to validate it either.

[glazedandconfused]

10 minutes ago, ACE said:

"Normal" students don't play sports so there is no reason to sit out... they are allowed to immediately start taking classes upon transferring... just like student-athletes.

But what is the reason to sit out for some athletes? Because it hurts the overall quality of the sport? If that's the reason then that's unjust. 

 

9 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Congratulations on copying and pasting.  If you don't agree with my answer, that is fine.  I have an opinion that I don't need you to validate.  You have repeated your opinion a few dozen times, and that is fine also.  You don't need me to validate it either.

So you are ok with forcing an athlete to sit out a year but writing someone's initials on a message board is not ok? Good Points HP

[ACE]

13 hours 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.

These kids just need the "freedom" to do what they feel. Perhaps the NCAA could put on a festival for them...

 

[glazedandconfused]

@glazedandconfused Transfer rules I told you so

^(Just a post so I can easily detailed google search and find this thread and start handing out some Ls in a couple years when the college basketball world doesn't collapse.)

[slu72]

I think you have to look at why the one year sit out rule was first put in place. I'm not sure what the reasoning was but am pretty sure a lot of AD's wanted it due to recruiting and ancilliary expenses of getting a kid signed up out of HS. Honestly, I am somewhat surprised they are reconsidering it. If a kid's hell bent on getting out of school A, he'll take the year and use it wisely. I do agree if the coach jumps ship on a recruit, the recruit should be released from his obligation. But Travis is right when he says what will this do to HS recruiting? What will it do to current rosters? Do you start revoking players scholies when you need a good PG, PF, or Sniper. 

What's a guy like Calipari going to do under this rule? He's finding out one and doners may not be end all he figured it was. UK is all about national championship banners, and they don't care what it takes to hang another one. So, Calipari looks at the A10 and sees players like Mitchell, the GW Freshman, Yuri, Perkins, Jimerson, you get the picture. Do you think, he wouldn't like to load up UK with an all mid major squad made up of experienced and proven Sophs, Juniors, and Seniors? He'd do it in a NY minute. And then Coach K, who followed Calipari's lead of loading up on one and doners, would quickly follow suit. Then the transfer train starts rolling down the track and all the elites are jumping on board. You got cherry picking going on all over the place, except the mids will be left to pick over the bones of released P5-6 players. 

This no penalty rule is a lousy rule. Scholarship athletes ARE different than your everyday student.  They are granted access to privileges that everyday students don't receive. There's got to be a cost to them for those privileges, and right now that cost is sitting out a year if you leave. I don't think for a young person who might graduate when he's 22 or 23 instead of 21 that is too high a price to pay for a free education.  We all ready give these kids a lot of free passes, it's time they learned the hard economic rule of Tanstafl, There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. 

[NH]

53 minutes ago, slu72 said:

What's a guy like Calipari going to do under this rule? He's finding out one and doners may not be end all he figured it was. UK is all about national championship banners, and they don't care what it takes to hang another one. So, Calipari looks at the A10 and sees players like Mitchell, the GW Freshman, Yuri, Perkins, Jimerson, you get the picture. Do you think, he wouldn't like to load up UK with an all mid major squad made up of experienced and proven Sophs, Juniors, and Seniors? He'd do it in a NY minute. And then Coach K, who followed Calipari's lead of loading up on one and doners, would quickly follow suit. Then the transfer train starts rolling down the track and all the elites are jumping on board. You got cherry picking going on all over the place, except the mids will be left to pick over the bones of released P5-6 players. 

You think coaches like John Calipari would rather try to get transfers like Yuri Collins than signing McDonalds All-Americans? Why doesn't he try to get more mid-major transfers today? I'm sure there are plenty of players who would be willing to sit out a year if it meant getting minutes at a school like Kentucky. That is a ludicrous fear. 

[glazedandconfused]

1 hour ago, slu72 said:

I think you have to look at why the one year sit out rule was first put in place. I'm not sure what the reasoning was but am pretty sure a lot of AD's wanted it due to recruiting and ancilliary expenses of getting a kid signed up out of HS. Honestly, I am somewhat surprised they are reconsidering it. If a kid's hell bent on getting out of school A, he'll take the year and use it wisely. I do agree if the coach jumps ship on a recruit, the recruit should be released from his obligation. But Travis is right when he says what will this do to HS recruiting? What will it do to current rosters? Do you start revoking players scholies when you need a good PG, PF, or Sniper. 

What's a guy like Calipari going to do under this rule? He's finding out one and doners may not be end all he figured it was. UK is all about national championship banners, and they don't care what it takes to hang another one. So, Calipari looks at the A10 and sees players like Mitchell, the GW Freshman, Yuri, Perkins, Jimerson, you get the picture. Do you think, he wouldn't like to load up UK with an all mid major squad made up of experienced and proven Sophs, Juniors, and Seniors? He'd do it in a NY minute. And then Coach K, who followed Calipari's lead of loading up on one and doners, would quickly follow suit. Then the transfer train starts rolling down the track and all the elites are jumping on board. You got cherry picking going on all over the place, except the mids will be left to pick over the bones of released P5-6 players. 

This no penalty rule is a lousy rule. Scholarship athletes ARE different than your everyday student.  They are granted access to privileges that everyday students don't receive. There's got to be a cost to them for those privileges, and right now that cost is sitting out a year if you leave. I don't think for a young person who might graduate when he's 22 or 23 instead of 21 that is too high a price to pay for a free education.  We all ready give these kids a lot of free passes, it's time they learned the hard economic rule of Tanstafl, There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. 

The "1 year of residence" rule started as a an IVY league only rule. It was to allow incoming transfers to sit a year before playing so they could become academically accustomed to school. Other conferences slowly started accepting the rule and the NCAA made it a nationwide rule to allow for competitive balance between all conferences. The NCAA on their website (and in litigation)  states the rule is in place for academic purposes. Needless to say this is a bogus reasoning when 95% of student athletes are not subject to this rule. JUCO transfers and Freshmen in CBB aren't subject to it either even though they are new to the school. 

And agreed with NH above and as support...there is no evidence to support college basketball players transfer to better schools more than to worse schools. See link below if you care:

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

[slufanskip]

4 hours ago, glazedandconfused said:

But what is the reason to sit out for some athletes? Because it hurts the overall quality of the sport? If that's the reason then that's unjust. 

 

So you are ok with forcing an athlete to sit out a year but writing someone's initials on a message board is not ok? Good Points HP

Any student can go to any school they want. They can transfer at the end of any year or mid year or whenever they want. However, if they want to play basketball and get the coaching and training plus a scholarship that many of them would not normally qualify for there are some restrictions. No one is forcing them to sign. They know the rules up front and have all the freedom they want went deciding to play by the rules of the organization they are choosing to join. 

[glazedandconfused]

6 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

Any student can go to any school they want. They can transfer at the end of any year or mid year or whenever they want. However, if they want to play basketball and get the coaching and training plus a scholarship that many of them would not normally qualify for there are some restrictions. No one is forcing them to sign. They know the rules up front and have all the freedom they want went deciding to play by the rules of the organization they are choosing to join. 

But why should there be restrictions and why are the restrictions only there for a couple of sports?

I understand that it is the rule currently (there is an anti-trust argument to be saved for another day) but if the best defense for the rule is "the rule is already in place and the players were aware of it" ....that's not a ton of defense of it.

 

[NH]

36 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

Any student can go to any school they want. They can transfer at the end of any year or mid year or whenever they want. However, if they want to play basketball and get the coaching and training plus a scholarship that many of them would not normally qualify for there are some restrictions. No one is forcing them to sign. They know the rules up front and have all the freedom they want went deciding to play by the rules of the organization they are choosing to join. 

This argument is very reasonable if you consider these players to be true student-athletes and amateurs. But the fact of the matter is that it's getting increasingly more difficult for the NCAA to make this case given the amount of money made off of these players. That is likely the reason this change is happening. Not because of some conspiracy to help Kentucky land more A-10 transfers, but as a concession to congress as part of a fight that the NCAA is currently losing over player compensation.
 

[ACE]

https://www.kentucky.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mark-story/article223057140.html

Forgot about naming Yuri Collins and other mid major players, that's not the point, make no mistake, the likes of Calipari will aggressively be recruiting more experienced players. The one and done is likely to go away soon and even without that, Calipari was slowly starting to turn his attention to grad transfers, as more experienced teams started having more success.

 

[White Pelican]

12 hours ago, CBFan said:

Your not respectfully challenging posts when you have used words such as conspiracy to describe posters such as myself that believe it is about helping the top 50 programs..

I have a remedy for obsessed poster like you.

I took that remedy yesterday. He's just trolling now.

[slufanskip]

6 hours ago, NH said:

This argument is very reasonable if you consider these players to be true student-athletes and amateurs. But the fact of the matter is that it's getting increasingly more difficult for the NCAA to make this case given the amount of money made off of these players. That is likely the reason this change is happening. Not because of some conspiracy to help Kentucky land more A-10 transfers, but as a concession to congress as part of a fight that the NCAA is currently losing over player compensation.
 

Then lets get rid of all the sports where colleges lose money. You can't say it's unfair the school makes money off an athletic team but then require them to have teams that lose money. I don't have any info but my gut tells me as a whole most athletic departments don't make briefcases full of money. 

[slufanskip]

7 hours ago, glazedandconfused said:

But why should there be restrictions and why are the restrictions only there for a couple of sports?

I understand that it is the rule currently (there is an anti-trust argument to be saved for another day) but if the best defense for the rule is "the rule is already in place and the players were aware of it" ....that's not a ton of defense of it.

 

I'm just curious, How much money do you think SLU's athletic department makes if you put the entire cost of educating, tutoring, housing, feeding, training, etc … all the student athletes against the money the athletic department brings in. 

You act like the players are some kind of servant who has no other choice but to play D1 basketball. The restrictions are there because it's what the NCAA feels is a fair and/or necessary trade off for what they provide. 90% of college basketball players couldn't make 20k a year playing the sport. And most that end up making a living couldn't make it without the coaching and training they receive from the college. How many of the sports without restrictions receive the same full athletic scholarship and bene's that the basketball team gets? I know soccer isn't a full ride, baseball isn't a full ride. 

As I said in my initial post, I'm undecided how I feel. I see the case in some ways for both sides. I get why it seems unfair but I also get why the school and the NCAA feels the need to have some control and some restrictions. The major sports fund the rest of the athletic department and that is very important. 

[glazedandconfused]

9 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I'm just curious, How much money do you think SLU's athletic department makes if you put the entire cost of educating, tutoring, housing, feeding, training, etc … all the student athletes against the money the athletic department brings in. 

You act like the players are some kind of servant who has no other choice but to play D1 basketball. The restrictions are there because it's what the NCAA feels is a fair and/or necessary trade off for what they provide. 90% of college basketball players couldn't make 20k a year playing the sport. And most that end up making a living couldn't make it without the coaching and training they receive from the college. How many of the sports without restrictions receive the same full athletic scholarship and bene's that the basketball team gets? I know soccer isn't a full ride, baseball isn't a full ride. 

As I said in my initial post, I'm undecided how I feel. I see the case in some ways for both sides. I get why it seems unfair but I also get why the school and the NCAA feels the need to have some control and some restrictions. The major sports fund the rest of the athletic department and that is very important. 

I have no idea how much the athletic department makes but i’m not talking in favor of paying student athletes. I’m saying they should and will let students transfer without sitting out a year. I agree the money is a major issue in trying to pay athletes. I do think you made fair points and it’s reasonable to say that NCAA provides a lot for CBB athletes.  I do think it’s a joke that NCAA pretends the restrictions are there for “academic reasons”