A10 Early Entries & Transfer (Consolidated Listing)

[3star_recruit]

36 minutes ago, slu72 said:

I do think the 1 year sit out rule may well have prevented players and schools from going aggressively after transfers. If a P5 needs a spot filled, say a big, for one season they would prefer a GT to a say a Soph mid who won’t be available. But w/o the rule the Soph becomes The more attractive option. He fills the immediate need and still has a year to play. 
I don’t worry too much about losing Yuri, as I do Jimmy Bell and Jimerson. Say, Jimmy really comes on but not yet draft ready. Say Izzo has a need for a serviceable big. Jimmy’s from Lansing. That’s going to be an attractive option for him. A guy like Jimerson is going to be wanted by a lot of schools, so if a school like UVA comes after him, I think he’d be tempted. The reasons in both cases: Elite Home programs where they get to play in front of family and friends. The one year of sitting is no longer an obstacle. Call me paranoid, but this rule is a mid killer. 

If the bolded becomes a trend, it will shorten the tenure of disappointing high major underclassmen.  High major schools will cut ties with players who don't produce even quicker than they do now.  And where are those guys going to go?  Mid-majors.

[cgeldmacher]

52 minutes ago, Pistol said:

Right. I just don't think it changes much except the speed at which this existing trend occurs. The balance of power won't change. Everyone still has 13 scholarships.

I think it will eliminate the Cinderella mid-major team from making a run in the tournament.  In the past, those have been veteran teams that commentators laud because they have chemistry (i.e. Loyola Chicago a few years ago).  If you eliminate the experience that lower level teams can build over time, then I think you won't see those surprise tournament teams anymore.

I also think it will hurt fan support from many schools.  The big programs that cater to one and doners have fan bases that are so strong they can overcome turning over the entire roster every two years.  Non-bluechip level teams will take a hit due to their fanbases not being able to follow guys for several years.

Lastly, regardless of whether it is inevitable or not, it will suck for Ford, or whoever our coach is, to bring in a guy that we hope is a diamond in the rough, a situation we rely on, and then see the kid develop into a star, only to be snapped up by a powerhouse school before getting to see the end of his career.  I see Jimerson as just this type of kid.  If he breaks out over the next season or two, why wouldn't he transfer to University of Virginia if they had a final four team already and Bennett tells him that he is the missing piece of their puzzle.  He gets to play in his home state and his parents can come to more games.

Situations like that will make it hard to be a Billiken fan.  I hope Chris May is using every bit of power he has in his position on that NCAA committee to prevent that rule change from happening.

EDIT - saw SLU72's comments and realize that some of our points were very similar

[Pistol]

1 hour ago, slu72 said:

I do think the 1 year sit out rule may well have prevented players and schools from going aggressively after transfers. If a P5 needs a spot filled, say a big, for one season they would prefer a GT to a say a Soph mid who won’t be available. But w/o the rule the Soph becomes The more attractive option. He fills the immediate need and still has a year to play. 
I don’t worry too much about losing Yuri, as I do Jimmy Bell and Jimerson. Say, Jimmy really comes on but not yet draft ready. Say Izzo has a need for a serviceable big. Jimmy’s from Lansing. That’s going to be an attractive option for him. A guy like Jimerson is going to be wanted by a lot of schools, so if a school like UVA comes after him, I think he’d be tempted. The reasons in both cases: Elite Home programs where they get to play in front of family and friends. The one year of sitting is no longer an obstacle. Call me paranoid, but this rule is a mid killer. 

 

1 hour ago, cgeldmacher said:

I think it will eliminate the Cinderella mid-major team from making a run in the tournament.  In the past, those have been veteran teams that commentators laud because they have chemistry (i.e. Loyola Chicago a few years ago).  If you eliminate the experience that lower level teams can build over time, then I think you won't see those surprise tournament teams anymore.

I also think it will hurt fan support from many schools.  The big programs that cater to one and doners have fan bases that are so strong they can overcome turning over the entire roster every two years.  Non-bluechip level teams will take a hit due to their fanbases not being able to follow guys for several years.

Lastly, regardless of whether it is inevitable or not, it will suck for Ford, or whoever our coach is, to bring in a guy that we hope is a diamond in the rough, a situation we rely on, and then see the kid develop into a star, only to be snapped up by a powerhouse school before getting to see the end of his career.  I see Jimerson as just this type of kid.  If he breaks out over the next season or two, why wouldn't he transfer to University of Virginia if they had a final four team already and Bennett tells him that he is the missing piece of their puzzle.  He gets to play in his home state and his parents can come to more games.

Situations like that will make it hard to be a Billiken fan.  I hope Chris May is using every bit of power he has in his position on that NCAA committee to prevent that rule change from happening.

Again, I don't see the balance of power changing at all. We have just as much ability to bring guys in on short notice to fill a hole, we're in a major market that produces a lot of talent and will be an attractive place to finish a college career (keep an eye on the STL guys going to power conference programs right now), and we have a staff that has shown an ability to keep guys together and happy, for the most part.

Ford and Stuen have both said it in recent interviews - Recruiting never stops. They're now recruiting players from HS, prep school, JUCO, D-I, and their own program. This makes their job harder but also seems to play into their skill sets.

Everyone has 13 scholarships. For every guy a big program grabs, they have to let someone go. We've benefited from this dynamic more than we've lost from it in recent history. We've mostly lost guys due to coaching changes, off-court stuff, and lack of playing time. How many guys have we lost jumping upward for power program glory? A lot less than we've gained from both higher- and lower-level programs.

I agree that in shortening the transfer cycle, there is less disincentive for outgoing players and more incentive for coaches to seek quick term fixes outside of grad transfers. We may see more roster turnover in general, and that's in an era of about 1000 transfers a season already. I just think you guys are more worried about it than you need to be. 1000 transfers for 353 programs works out to a little under 3 transfers per team already. That covers an outbound grad transfer and 1-2 disgruntled guys chasing more minutes. That's about right. The new rule only gives a one-time waiver, too; I think players transferring a second or third time would be subject to sit-out rules.

SLU will be fine.

[willie]

4 minutes ago, Pistol said:

 

Again, I don't see the balance of power changing at all. We have just as much ability to bring guys in on short notice to fill a hole, we're in a major market that produces a lot of talent and will be an attractive place to finish a college career (keep an eye on the STL guys going to power conference programs right now), and we have a staff that has shown an ability to keep guys together and happy, for the most part.

Ford and Stuen have both said it in recent interviews - Recruiting never stops. They're now recruiting players from HS, prep school, JUCO, D-I, and their own program. This makes their job harder but also seems to play into their skill sets.

Everyone has 13 scholarships. For every guy a big program grabs, they have to let someone go. We've benefited from this dynamic more than we've lost from it in recent history. We've mostly lost guys due to coaching changes, off-court stuff, and lack of playing time. How many guys have we lost jumping upward for power program glory? A lot less than we've gained from both higher- and lower-level programs.

I agree that in shortening the transfer cycle, there is less disincentive for outgoing players and more incentive for coaches to seek quick term fixes outside of grad transfers. We may see more roster turnover in general, and that's in an era of about 1000 transfers a season already. I just think you guys are more worried about it than you need to be. 1000 transfers for 353 programs works out to a little under 3 transfers per team already. That covers an outbound grad transfer and 1-2 disgruntled guys chasing more minutes. That's about right. The new rule only gives a one-time waiver, too; I think players transferring a second or third time would be subject to sit-out rules.

SLU will be fine.

I know the official SLU line is that it may even be good for us as people want to play for us, but I'm with 72.  What is keeping a high major stopping from trying to poach a Jordan or Has for a specific need. They would go for a best or most promising player. There may even be a suitcase involved. The major washout is not going to be as good as the player being poached. Who would we get as a transfer who would be as good as say Perkins. 

[HoosierPal]

The second half of the upcoming equation is being ignored: NIL payment.  Add that to free transfer and mix up the pot.  Simply put, get Chaifetz (or Imo's) to outbid those rich alumni at the various P5 schools.  And Pistol is right. You have 13 scholarships, only 8 to 10 play significant minutes, so 'movin on up' does have its challenges.

And if anyone cares, Jacob Toppin has been targeted to redshirt next season ever since he signed with the Cats.

 

[3star_recruit]

10 minutes ago, willie said:

I know the official SLU line is that it may even be good for us as people want to play for us, but I'm with 72.  What is keeping a high major stopping from trying to poach a Jordan or Has for a specific need. They would go for a best or most promising player. There may even be a suitcase involved. The major washout is not going to be as good as the player being poached. Who would we get as a transfer who would be as good as say Perkins. 

Again, both of those guys already had high major offers out of high school.  Practically every top 200 player got high major offers out of school, including most recently, Yuri-mania.  They chose SLU because they liked the fit.  

[Reinert310]

12 minutes ago, willie said:

I know the official SLU line is that it may even be good for us as people want to play for us, but I'm with 72.  What is keeping a high major stopping from trying to poach a Jordan or Has for a specific need. They would go for a best or most promising player. There may even be a suitcase involved. The major washout is not going to be as good as the player being poached. Who would we get as a transfer who would be as good as say Perkins. 

If Goodwin wanted to leave after his freshman year, he would’ve left. I have no doubt that other schools reached out to him. Will mid-majors lose some big time players to Power-6 poaching? Of course. But a lot of players will stay for the sane reasons they committed to a mid-major over power-6 schools in the 1st place. Fit. Comfort and trust with coaches. Ect.

[willie]

14 minutes ago, Reinert310 said:

If Goodwin wanted to leave after his freshman year, he would’ve left. I have no doubt that other schools reached out to him. Will mid-majors lose some big time players to Power-6 poaching? Of course. But a lot of players will stay for the sane reasons they committed to a mid-major over power-6 schools in the 1st place. Fit. Comfort and trust with coaches. Ect.

I understand what you guys are saying and maybe he is a bad example but if a Kentucky came calling and said you are our final piece to a national championship he may be tempted especially if there were incentives involved. 

[CBFan]

3 hours ago, Taj79 said:

CB fan:  please explain "the benefit of the doubt" part of your statement.  I understand your statement two posts ago about vacating virus hot spots.  Levi Stockard (and I'm not picking on him just using that known example) doesn't seem to fit that mold.  Neither do the Mitchells.  LJ Figueroa might but he upgraded from St. John's (NYC = covid hot spot) to Oregon as far as basketball is concerned.  Why not give Jacob Toppin a waiver?  Why not Adam Kunkel?  Mac McClung?  If your going to give waivers out willy-nilly to avoid a massive backlog (as Pistol suggested) give it in a blanket.  Otherwise, its disingenuous at best.

Hope all is well with you Taj.

Benefit of the doubt from players that are transferring because of a COVID and the NCAA is not challenging them on a waiver.

The NCAA is inconsistent always in their rulings and I agree with the names mentioned in your examples of not fitting the COVID mold.  I believe the NCAA has a one size fits all mentality this season so all players are transferring because of COVID. The NCAA also might be trying to see what the reaction is with allowing so many waivers then if there is a bad reaction the NCAA will blame the pandemic.

There are plenty of people taking advantage of the pandemic.  My company is busy I am on a job site right now in Kansas and in March my company canceled raises before the country shut down.  I have not missed a day of work and have worked weekends.
My opinion is post pandemic that waivers should only be given to players if the coach leaves or the school is put on probation that is no fault of the player.

Instant eligibility will make the mids a farm team.

[Reinert310]

26 minutes ago, willie said:

I understand what you guys are saying and maybe he is a bad example but if a Kentucky came calling and said you are our final piece to a national championship he may be tempted especially if there were incentives involved. 

The “final piece” to be the 3rd guy off the bench at Kentucky...or the 1st option on a team that has realistic Sweet 16 (and beyond) hopes. I don’t think that’s all that difficult of a choice.

[3star_recruit]

31 minutes ago, willie said:

I understand what you guys are saying and maybe he is a bad example but if a Kentucky came calling and said you are our final piece to a national championship he may be tempted especially if there were incentives involved. 

In your scenario, a bottom feeder high major team is in even more danger of being poached than a winning mid-major program built on homegrown talent is.

[willie]

1 hour ago, Reinert310 said:

The “final piece” to be the 3rd guy off the bench at Kentucky...or the 1st option on a team that has realistic Sweet 16 (and beyond) hopes. I don’t think that’s all that difficult of a choice.

You are selling Jordan short. He could and would start for anyone. 

[willie]

1 hour ago, 3star_recruit said:

In your scenario, a bottom feeder high major team is in even more danger of being poached than a winning mid-major program built on homegrown talent is.

Star you are guilty  of slotting players and teams as to high low mid . There are good players everywhere. A good player from anywhere can and would be poached. 

[Reinert310]

6 minutes ago, willie said:

You are selling Jordan short. He could and would start for anyone. 

Agree to disagree. Even if he’s starting, he’s maybe the 3rd or 4th option at Kentucky. He’s the 1st option at SLU who could very realistically make just as deep of a run at SLU as Kentucky would. If we keep winning, keep recruiting like we have been, there will be no reason to leave. It will effect more middling schools who happen across a diamond in the rough than it will SLU.

[willie]

2 minutes ago, Reinert310 said:

Agree to disagree. Even if he’s starting, he’s maybe the 3rd or 4th option at Kentucky. He’s the 1st option at SLU who could very realistically make just as deep of a run at SLU as Kentucky would. If we keep winning, keep recruiting like we have been, there will be no reason to leave. It will effect more middling schools who happen across a diamond in the rough than it will SLU.

People leave because the grass can always be greener. Kentucky has bluegrass. Why did Blackshere leave Virginia Tech as a grad transfer for Florida? He was already the top dog. 

[Reinert310]

1 minute ago, willie said:

People leave because the grass can always be greener. Kentucky has bluegrass. Why did Blackshere leave Virginia Tech as a grad transfer for Florida? He was already the top dog. 

He left even without a new transfer rule. There have always been transfers, there always will be transfers. But the whole notion that every good player at every mid-major will eventually be poached by some power-6 school because of a change in the transfer rule is nonsense to me.

[Brighton]

24 minutes ago, willie said:

You are selling Jordan short. He could and would start for anyone. 

Well, he's starting here. Your fear mongering is annoying.

[3star_recruit]

39 minutes ago, willie said:

People leave because the grass can always be greener. Kentucky has bluegrass. Why did Blackshere leave Virginia Tech as a grad transfer for Florida? He was already the top dog. 

Because his coach left.

[brianstl]

3 hours ago, willie said:

You are selling Jordan short. He could and would start for anyone. 

I think Jordan should start, but I think he would start the game on the bench behind a five star recruit at Kentucky.  If Cal wants to keep landing those types of recruits he has to start them.  It is just the way it is at a place like Kentucky.

[Billiken Rich]

All of this is moot TODAY.  Travis Ford is the best recruiting coach we've ever had and I hope we can keep him until he retires.  Would you trust Brad, Crews, even Romar or Spoon to keep the band together on a no waiting transfer merry-go-round?  All the busy-Billie-bodies would be freaking out over every instagram picture.  We'd all be nervous wrecks.  That's no way to live.....

[crymdg2]

NEVER count out Jordan Goodwin. You'll pay EVERY time.

[NH]

There will come a day when we lose a star player to a bigger school via transfer, and this board enters full meltdown mode. Just as there have been days when important players from smaller schools have decided to transfer and ended up at SLU (Isabell, Henriquez, Mcbroom, Barnett) all come to mind. If you have a bad coach, a bad culture, or you aren't winning games then these types of transfers are question not of if, but when. Fortunately, we have a good coach, a great culture, and we are winning games. Any player who transfers away under the current #TeamBlue culture, either doesn't think he is going to play enough or wasn't bought in to begin with.

As others have said, Goodwin and French could've transferred to just about any school they wanted, any of the past 3 seasons. If Perkins wasn't happy with being a 6-man I'm sure he could transfer to and start at any number of Big 10 or Big 12 schools. Yuri and Jimerson could transfer to the vast majority of D1 schools and play major minutes. If Demarius Jacobs wanted to leave, he could probably go to an A-10 caliber school and be a focal point of the offense, as opposed to the 4th or 5th option.

If we invest in our program, facilities, culture, coaches, recruiting, fanbase, etc. we will be a net beneficiary of transfers. I could be way off, but I really think it's that simple. 

 

[3star_recruit]

7 minutes ago, NH said:

There will come a day when we lose a star player to a bigger school via transfer, and this board enters full meltdown mode. Just as there have been days when important players from smaller schools have decided to transfer and ended up at SLU (Isabell, Henriquez, Mcbroom, Barnett) all come to mind. If you have a bad coach, a bad culture, or you aren't winning games then these types of transfers are question not of it, but when. Fortunately, we have a good coach, a great culture, and we are winning games. But that isn't our situation. Any player who transfers away under the current #TeamBlue culture, either doesn't think he is going to play enough or wasn't bought in to begin with.

As others have said, Goodwin and French could've transferred to just about any school they wanted, any of the past 3 seasons. If Perkins wasn't happy with being a 6-man I'm sure he could transfer to and start at any number of Big 10 or Big 12 schools. Yuri and Jimerson could transfer to the vast majority of D1 schools and play major minutes. If Demarius Jacobs wanted to leave, he could probably go to an A-10 caliber school and be a focal point of the offense, as opposed to the 4th or 5th option.

If we invest in our program, facilities, culture, coaches, recruiting, fanbase, etc. we will be a net beneficiary of transfers. I could be way off, but I really think it's that simple. 

 

Pretty much.  In fact, being a net beneficiary of transfers is a big factor in how mid-majors become high-majors.  

[ACE]

Agreed, that I do feel confident with Ford handling things in this new normal of transferring, but I'm concerned about what it will do overall for the A-10.

And as I pointed out toward the end of  last season on the radio with Frank, Ford came out very strongly against this plan and what the likely ramifications will be for non P5 schools. The fact that our own coach is so strongly against it, should give us all pause.

[NH]

50 minutes ago, ACE said:

Agreed, that I do feel confident with Ford handling things in this new normal of transferring, but I'm concerned about what it will do overall for the A-10.

And as I pointed out toward the end of  last season on the radio with Frank, Ford came out very strongly against this plan and what the likely ramifications will be for non P5 schools. The fact that our own coach is so strongly against it, should give us all pause.

The only thing I’d push back with slightly is that basically every coach has come out against it, including big coaches like Saban and Izzo. The proposed rule gives coaches less control over the players, and coaches don’t tend to like uncertainty.