Transfers - 2023

[HoosierPal]

4 hours ago, wgstl said:

If I ran the show, you get one free waiver, and additional one time waiver if the coach leaves.  After that, you sit. no exceptions. 

Curious on the coach leaves…and goes to another school. If coach (Pitino and Sanders) run off a bunch of current players, would you allow transferring player from the coach’s old school go to that school (St Johns and Colorado)?

Otherwise I am good with it. 
Yea the runoff would be very difficult to evaluate. 

[wgstl]

9 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Curious on the coach leaves…and goes to another a school. If coach (Pitino and Sanders) run off a bunch of current players, would you allow transferring player to go to that school (St Johns and Colorado)?

Otherwise I am good with it. 
Yea the runoff would be very difficult to evaluate. 

True, maybe fired.  

[Cowboy II]

3 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

You make a good point.  Here is the timeline.  The new transfer waiver rules were voted in on January 11, 2023.  That was well publicized by all sports outlets.  Per John Rothstein, the NCAA published a quick summary of the new guidelines on March 23.   Football's portal was already wide open by then, but basketball opens the day after championship selections are made.  That is basically mid-March.

https://x.com/JonRothstein/status/1638718369409933314?s=20

 

-what I don't know is if the vote for the rule was unanimous, perhaps VCU and UNC voted against and are trying to make their case to the public that the rule is so bad it needs to overturned

-I also don't know if I was made King what rule I would declare but I do know unlimited transfers would not be part of it

[WVBilliken]

2 hours ago, Cowboy II said:

-what I don't know is if the vote for the rule was unanimous, perhaps VCU and UNC voted against and are trying to make their case to the public that the rule is so bad it needs to overturned

-I also don't know if I was made King what rule I would declare but I do know unlimited transfers would not be part of it

One transfer seems fair to me.  More than that, and college sports become pure chaos IMO. 

Kind of excited to see the frosh big men and what they can do.  Didn't seem to hurt the Majaris team that went to 3 straight NCAA's after being forced to play freshmen the year Mitchell and Reed couldn't play.

[TheA_Bomb]

Not sure why fans/schools/NCAA feel the need to dictate who can play where.

 

Now I understand mid-season transfer within the same conference can be problematic.

 

But why do you care if someone transfers 1, 2, 3, 4 times?

[3star_recruit]

11 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

Not sure why fans/schools/NCAA feel the need to dictate who can play where.

 

Now I understand mid-season transfer within the same conference can be problematic.

 

But why do you care if someone transfers 1, 2, 3, 4 times?

Businesses need stability.

[billikenfan05]

1 hour ago, TheA_Bomb said:

Not sure why fans/schools/NCAA feel the need to dictate who can play where.

 

Now I understand mid-season transfer within the same conference can be problematic.

 

But why do you care if someone transfers 1, 2, 3, 4 times?

This isn't 'Nam, there are rules....

Look the ONLY thing being denied here is his ability to play in games (and I guess travel with the team?). The major point of his appeal was to come home and be close to his father. He gets to enroll at VCU, he gets to be on scholarship, practice with the team, the only thing he doesn't get to do is suit up for games. He will still get to play in a year. I'm not seeing where the pushback is against the NCAA on this one. 

[HoosierPal]

2 hours ago, TheA_Bomb said:

 

Now I understand mid-season transfer within the same conference can be problematic.

 

 

Why?  if you don't care if a student transfers 1, 2, 3, or 4 times, nor care where they can play, what is wrong with a mid-season transfer and immediate eligibility at a same conference school?

[White Pelican]

You beat me to it. Hell, why even make them enroll in school? Just turn it into pro sports and be done with it. The grad transfer thing is likely a big joke anyway. How many of those "student-athletes" actually get that masters?

And yeah, if a guy wants to leave mid-season and go to a rival school, why should fans/schools/the NCAA feel the need to dictate where he can play.

 

[TheA_Bomb]

13 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

Why?  if you don't care if a student transfers 1, 2, 3, or 4 times, nor care where they can play, what is wrong with a mid-season transfer and immediate eligibility at a same conference school?

Conference teams are competing against each other for standing within the Conference and a mid-season change within the conference could severely effect the outcome of that specific season. Therefore, I understand controls to stop immediate eligibility for mid-season transfer. It is a reasonable limitation on a student athlete to protect the integrity of the game.

However, I think that limitations on transfers and immediate eligibility out of season are unreasonable.  It is none of our business why a student wants to transfer.  So now some panel of strangers picked by a faceless organization in Indianapolis gets to review the merits of someone's psychological reasons to transfer? A young man or woman in order to play a sport is forced to display their most private life issues for debate by panel of strangers and internet fodder?! That could have a detrimental impact on their mental health, and or future chosen career.  It is a definite violation of privacy.

To take part in school activities of which athletics are, you should be a full time student in good standing.  Outside of that there should be very minimal rules. 

Those advocating limited transfers and loss of playing time are advocating protectionism because they want to keep a student athlete at their school.  I advocate freedom and a right to privacy. I will usually side with the individual vs a conglomerate of beareaucrats making money off the efforts of said individuals.

I asked a legitimate question only 3Star gave an answer.  Make the argument why should a student be limited on transfers and immediate eligibility? I've explained what I feel is a reasonable limitation and what isn't and my reasons for my position. 

[Cowboy II]

-I consider staying at the school part of the bargain in the transaction that is recruiting, perhaps naively and perhaps too old school and feel that going to and from many schools seems to go against that too many times

 

 

[Lord Elrond]

If they are professionals, then they should be signed to a contract, which locks them to one team for the length of the contract. This is what the NCAA gets for not treating athletes as professionals, and not sharing the revenue with players.

[cgeldmacher]

13 hours ago, TheA_Bomb said:

Conference teams are competing against each other for standing within the Conference and a mid-season change within the conference could severely effect the outcome of that specific season. Therefore, I understand controls to stop immediate eligibility for mid-season transfer. It is a reasonable limitation on a student athlete to protect the integrity of the game.

However, I think that limitations on transfers and immediate eligibility out of season are unreasonable.  It is none of our business why a student wants to transfer.  So now some panel of strangers picked by a faceless organization in Indianapolis gets to review the merits of someone's psychological reasons to transfer? A young man or woman in order to play a sport is forced to display their most private life issues for debate by panel of strangers and internet fodder?! That could have a detrimental impact on their mental health, and or future chosen career.  It is a definite violation of privacy.

To take part in school activities of which athletics are, you should be a full time student in good standing.  Outside of that there should be very minimal rules. 

Those advocating limited transfers and loss of playing time are advocating protectionism because they want to keep a student athlete at their school.  I advocate freedom and a right to privacy. I will usually side with the individual vs a conglomerate of beareaucrats making money off the efforts of said individuals.

I asked a legitimate question only 3Star gave an answer.  Make the argument why should a student be limited on transfers and immediate eligibility? I've explained what I feel is a reasonable limitation and what isn't and my reasons for my position. 

Let me take a shot.  Because colleges are supposed to be about educating people and not about billion dollar sports leagues.  Collegiate basketball players who switch schools multiple times are not doing so because they have an issue with the quality of the education they are receiving for free.  They are doing so, because of purely basketball related reasons.

When players sign with a school as freshmen, they are getting a lot out of signing that piece of paper.  They get free tuition often valued at $30,000 to $80,000 a year.  They get free housing.  They get all of their food for free.  They get access to multimillion dollar facilities to play a game that has nothing to do with the education they are receiving.  They get free transportation to and from games.  They get hotel rooms for road games.  They get free tutoring for their classes that most students don't have access to.  They get fame and notoriety that allows them to, now, profit from given the new NIL rules.

For all of this, it is not unreasonable to ask those players to live by a certain set of rules.  Show up to practice.  Go to class.  You say you "advocate freedom."  How about the freedom to get all this stuff and not have to show up for practice.  Why doesn't your philosophy include that?  How about not show up for classes?  Why doesn't your advocating of freedom include proposing that they be free from having to go to class or maybe not have to show up at the games.

When someone receives something, like a salary for instance, there are requirements that come with it.  You have to show up for work.  You have to do a good job.  You do not have the "freedom" to punch your boss in the nose.  There are rules you have to live by.

The idea that college athletes who choose to go down a road that they don't have to, no one is forcing them, should not have any restrictions on how they collect the benefits they receive is asinine.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with placing restrictions on what an athlete is allowed and not allowed to do when he agrees to attend a university and play for that university's team and receive all of the benefits that come with it.

[3star_recruit]

That's a very strong argument, cgeldmacher.  Playing college basketball isn't a right, it's a privilege.  Privileges have strings.  There's fewer strings now than there have ever been.

[TheA_Bomb]

1 hour ago, cgeldmacher said:

For all of this, it is not unreasonable to ask those players to live by a certain set of rules.  Show up to practice.  Go to class.  You say you "advocate freedom."  How about the freedom to get all this stuff and not have to show up for practice.  Why doesn't your philosophy include that?  How about not show up for classes?  Why doesn't your advocating of freedom include proposing that they be free from having to go to class or maybe not have to show up at the games.

When someone receives something, like a salary for instance, there are requirements that come with it.  You have to show up for work.  You have to do a good job.  You do not have the "freedom" to punch your boss in the nose.  There are rules you have to live by.

The idea that college athletes who choose to go down a road that they don't have to, no one is forcing them, should not have any restrictions on how they collect the benefits they receive is asinine.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with placing restrictions on what an athlete is allowed and not allowed to do when he agrees to attend a university and play for that university's team and receive all of the benefits that come with it.

Thanks for the response. In my previous message I agree that a student athlete should be a full time student in good standing.  So I think you misunderstand my position.  In good standing means that you are eligible academically at the school you attend based on whatever educational certification board they utilize.

As to your other point regarding receiving something therefore something is expected.  Yes many athletes receive special benefits because of their talent.  So they are expected to perform the sporting event if able. It is a meritocracy for the public to view. If you don't practice and perform you lose your place on the team you can lose your scholarship. I agree with this position.  Much like your reference to a job there are expectations

I also understand that no one is forced to be an athlete. However why does choosing to be an athlete in college subject someone to undue external control? That I don't agree with.  We the sports consumers are the reason why this is so out of control relative to what it used to be or what you think it should be.

It is none of anyone's business why someone may decide to transfer schools and why should that decision preclude them from participating in sports that the school and fans of that school want to see?  It's arbitrary and unduly limiting that other students do not experience. Therefore,  it's wrong within our American standards of individual freedom.

If you're a student in good standing, enrolled in the school,  the school wants you to play.  You should be able to play. 

I suspect those opposed do not like the turmoil, the speed of change lately and think that it impacts their chosen school negatively. Furthermore,  I suspect that many value loyalty.  I understand that we want to believe that player is loyal to a school we love.  Some are and those that transfer aren't.  To force them to stay my arbitrary rules is selfish and controlling. I value a person being able to determine how they want to live their life aka Freedom over my selfish enjoyment of a sports team that may lose a good player. 

[Wendelprof]

1 hour ago, TheA_Bomb said:

It is none of anyone's business why someone may decide to transfer schools and why should that decision preclude them from participating in sports that the school and fans of that school want to see?  It's arbitrary and unduly limiting that other students do not experience. Therefore,  it's wrong within our American standards of individual freedom.

 

Not so sure I agree completely with that statement.  Let's be honest, student athletes are quasi-employees.  They are given special status and treatment in exchange for their promise to represent the school in a given sport.  In the business world, employees don't have the completely unfettered right to decide to switch jobs.  Under certain circumstances we permit covenants not to complete.  Under certain circumstances we permit employers to sue other employers for tortious interference with a contract.  I think arguments could be developed that support similar restrictions in the world of college athletes (particularly wiith respect to the latter - isn't that essentially what the tampering rule is all about?).

[TheA_Bomb]

1 hour ago, Wendelprof said:

Not so sure I agree completely with that statement.  Let's be honest, student athletes are quasi-employees.  They are given special status and treatment in exchange for their promise to represent the school in a given sport.  In the business world, employees don't have the completely unfettered right to decide to switch jobs.  Under certain circumstances we permit covenants not to complete.  Under certain circumstances we permit employers to sue other employers for tortious interference with a contract.  I think arguments could be developed that support similar restrictions in the world of college athletes (particularly wiith respect to the latter - isn't that essentially what the tampering rule is all about?).

Athletes aren't employees they're students.  They do represent a school and as far as i know most schools have a code of conduct so they should follow that code. Also if they don't represent the school well they can be kicked off the team or have playing time limited. 

There is no quasi-employee status. For an employee/employer relationship non-competes are signed with full knowledge of both parties and limited. Many places they are very hard to enforce as it limits the individual.  The cornerstone of our society is to favor the individual except when it conflicts with an over riding public need. I don't view a fans need to believe players are loyal to their school or for a sport team to be more or less competitive to over ride that individual freedom. Furthermore, scholarships are year to year why should a commitment by a player be more of they choose not to continue?

It is true that an employee can not take intellectual property they developed at another employer to a new one with out some compensation but they can take their talent. There is no limitation on that at all. 

I think the tamperIng rules are silly.  They are unevenly enforced by an inept organization and nearly impossible to enforce.  They should go away.  See my previous concession about mid season transfers having to sit out as being a reasonable compromise to protect the integrity of the game.

[3star_recruit]

3 hours ago, TheA_Bomb said:

Athletes aren't employees they're students.  

They're both.  They're basically work-study students.  Pay for play just made it official.

[TheA_Bomb]

39 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

They're both.  They're basically work-study students.  Pay for play just made it official.

There is no pay for play. There is NIL. There are organizations' with a sole purpose of luring and keeping the best players.  It does not constitute an employee/employer relationship for playing sports as it is not the school who the player represents by playing that is paying.

Also even if Student Athletes were employees, they would be free to leave at anytime for any reason for a job that suits them better.  Very few employees are limited in their freedom to move. At will employment can go both ways. 

What does being "basically an employee"* have to do with limiting movement of a student to another school and playing immediately?

[3star_recruit]

10 hours ago, TheA_Bomb said:

There is no pay for play. There is NIL. There are organizations' with a sole purpose of luring and keeping the best players.  It does not constitute an employee/employer relationship for playing sports as it is not the school who the player represents by playing that is paying.

Also even if Student Athletes were employees, they would be free to leave at anytime for any reason for a job that suits them better.  Very few employees are limited in their freedom to move. At will employment can go both ways. 

What does being "basically an employee"* have to do with limiting movement of a student to another school and playing immediately?

Think of it as a non-compete clause.  Businesses use non-complete clauses for a number of reasons.  If a business invests heavily in training an employee, they might use a non-compete to prevent that employee from taking their newly-acquired skills to a competitor soon after the training.

[TheA_Bomb]

5 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

Think of it as a non-compete clause.  Businesses use non-complete clauses for a number of reasons.  If a business invests heavily in training an employee, they might use a non-compete to prevent that employee from taking their newly-acquired skills to a competitor soon after the training.

I understand this view. A program uses their resources to scout, recruit, train a player then they leave.  So it is an investment of resources on behalf of the school that is lost. 

Scholarships are year to year. A school can revoke a scholarship. Do you want a scholarship to be guaranteed for the duration of 4 years? If so some agreement like a contract is more fair. But, I worry about more professionalization of college sports and more legal issues,  collective bargaining agreements, contracts all sounds horrible.  

I don't personally like all the transferring. I enjoyed a commit coming,  developing,  you get to know them and cheer for them over the years until they graduate.  But I'm not a player, players are voting with their feet.  Coaches are pushing players out that don't perform. I don't think the above should preclude a person's ability to live,  go to school, study where they want to.  Who am I or the NCAA to question a person's reasons? Also I don't think it would be legally enforceable.

[BLIKNS]

Sure I know the answer, but since we are still waiting on the season....

What if a 2 time transfer,  had waiver denied , had to sit out a year but got enough credits, at the new school, and graduated at semester, could they become eligible as a grad transfer??

Just throwing that out there

 

[slu72]

You have these debates these days for one reason; the transfer portal which has had  a much broader impact on the college sports world than even the NIL. For example take a FR who is dissatisfied with his playing time. The portal gives him the immediate satisfaction of going elsewhere with no delay. Are NIL $$ his objective? Unlikely unless he’s a proven commodity, say like Love, then it becomes a free agency move. I have no problem with that, but he should be forced to sit for a year. Now for the guy who got 2 mpg and averaged 1 ppg, it’s more about playing time. This guy is not in the market/portal for NIL bucks, because no school’s or sponsors are gonna throw limited funds at an unproven commodity. The big mistake here was doing away with the sit out one year rule. Unless, this rule was deemed illegal by the courts, it should make a return. This would bring back some stability to college sports. To have to sit out that one year for an 18-20 year old is not a hardship, although to them it may seem like a life sentence. I don’t know why the portal was ever adopted to begin with other than the NCAA was ordered by a court ruling to do away with it. Were they? 

[brianstl]

Students on an academic scholarship and take part in the chess team or something like debate aren’t prevented from transferring and competing at their next school immediately.

[brianstl]

And the last thing these schools want is for these athletes to be considered employees.  That would kill the ability of all but a couple of dozens of schools to afford athletic programs and those that remained would only have football, men’s basketball and just enough women’s programs to comply with Title X