NCAA agrees to end transfer rules permanently;

[TheA_Bomb]

7 minutes ago, SLU_Lax said:

Agree, but I want to make an observation. Davell Roby played on some dismal teams. Seeing him stay, rooting for him, and watching him grow was one of the very few bright spots. 
 

I don’t even want to imagine watching those teams without at least feeling some long term connection with a player. 

Do you respect Roby more for staying during the hard times?

[SLU_Lax]

47 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

Do you respect Roby more for staying during the hard times?

Yes. He is not one of the ten best players of all time, but he is in my personal favorite top ten. He never even complained. He just put his head down, worked hard, and competed. 
 

Ash did the same thing. Ash like Roby committed to a top team to find the bottom fell out just as they arrived. Ash also handled it well, but being a transfer and not four years, Ash is all too easy to forget. I also know his shooting could be a bit inconsistent, but that didn’t bother me. 

[BrettJollyComedyHour]

19 hours ago, TheA_Bomb said:

Do you respect Roby more for staying during the hard times?

I have a funny story from undergrad about Roby (he was a year ahead of me) that a friend of mine told me; so Roby arrives late to class as the professor is lecturing and getting ready to ask some questions, so the professor asks Roby a question and he responds: "I'd love to answer that question, but right now, it's snack time" and he tucks into some fruit snacks.

[cgeldmacher]

On 6/2/2024 at 11:19 AM, TheA_Bomb said:

Many fans' enjoyment of the sport appears tied to their past views of student-athletes remaining at a school for four years or being penalized should they transfer. The arguments for this view are the enjoyment of watching an athlete develop or because a player is loyal. I, too, enjoy believing that a student-athlete is loyal to my chosen school and watching such an athlete develop. However, why would enjoyment be increased by restricting an athlete's freedom? If athletes are genuinely loyal, they will choose to stay if given the freedom of choice. Sport has no meaning but that which we assign to it: wins/losses, enjoying a player, bragging rights over fellow fans. The rule changes don't preclude an athlete from staying at a school for four years or even six years, in the case of Jimerson. The rule changes allow greater freedom of choice and allow players to pursue happiness how they see fit, whether at SLU or another school. It is up to SLU and us fans to make our team a desired destination so that better players choose to play here. Those deriving their enjoyment from loyalty should see their enjoyment increase as they no longer watch Sisyphus push the ball up and down the court but players who freely chose to attend SLU.

 

In every team sport that most Americans follow (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, WNBA, MLS) the system is set up so that players are on a team for several years.  They are required to be with the same team for several years.  Then, when free agency hits, players rarely sign one year deals.  This allows fans to get to know a player and cheer for him or her for several seasons.

College sports is now set up to allow players to change teams every year if they choose.  Nowhere else does that.  Whether you agree or not that this should be the way that it is, there is nothing wrong about someone saying that this will make college sports less enjoyable.

[TheA_Bomb]

29 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

In every team sport that most Americans follow (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, WNBA, MLS) the system is set up so that players are on a team for several years.  They are required to be with the same team for several years.  Then, when free agency hits, players rarely sign one year deals.  This allows fans to get to know a player and cheer for him or her for several seasons.

College sports is now set up to allow players to change teams every year if they choose.  Nowhere else does that.  Whether you agree or not that this should be the way that it is, there is nothing wrong about someone saying that this will make college sports less enjoyable.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the viewpoint of a fan that wants to see a player at their school for multiple years. I enjoy seeing players develop at my school with my coach. 

I'm pointing out that the changes don't stop that from happening. They just aren't required to stay. Is your enjoyment of college sports derived from a player being required to stay at a school? Or choosing to stay at a school?

[Old guy]

4 hours ago, TheA_Bomb said:

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the viewpoint of a fan that wants to see a player at their school for multiple years. I enjoy seeing players develop at my school with my coach. 

I'm pointing out that the changes don't stop that from happening. They just aren't required to stay. Is your enjoyment of college sports derived from a player being required to stay at a school? Or choosing to stay at a school?

The issue of having players decide they want to stay in a team under a coach, is complex. First, if they are looking for NIL money and they are coming out of a winning season, they are likely to leave the team and go to whoever pays the highest amount to them. Loyalty exists and will be a factor, but the players most likely to develop loyalty to a coach or team are the freshmen coming straight from high school. Many of these kids are pretty good players passed over in favor of experienced players from the portal. Freshmen have every reason to develop gratitude to the coach that choose them, and gratitude is a good part of loyalty. We have a number of freshmen that may  choose to stay with the team for next year.

You know from the service that it is very difficult to win over the troops and the noncoms. If you succeed you have a "happy" unit that will follow you (the CO) to the gates of hell. Regular units may not feel much loyalty to the Co but will be loyal to one another and get the job done effectively. Finally there are dysfunctional units with ineffective COs and dysfunctional lower level officers and/or noncoms. You are much better off not being assigned to these dysfunctional units.

Overall, what I mean to say is that loyalty is hard to develop in any group of people. I think Schertz is capable of developing loyalty from his players. We will see what happens.

[cheeseman]

21 minutes ago, Old guy said:

The issue of having players decide they want to stay in a team under a coach, is complex. First, if they are looking for NIL money and they are coming out of a winning season, they are likely to leave the team and go to whoever pays the highest amount to them. Loyalty exists and will be a factor, but the players most likely to develop loyalty to a coach or team are the freshmen coming straight from high school. Many of these kids are pretty good players passed over in favor of experienced players from the portal. Freshmen have every reason to develop gratitude to the coach that choose them, and gratitude is a good part of loyalty. We have a number of freshmen that may  choose to stay with the team for next year.

You know from the service that it is very difficult to win over the troops and the noncoms. If you succeed you have a "happy" unit that will follow you (the CO) to the gates of hell. Regular units may not feel much loyalty to the Co but will be loyal to one another and get the job done effectively. Finally there are dysfunctional units with ineffective COs and dysfunctional lower level officers and/or noncoms. You are much better off not being assigned to these dysfunctional units.

Overall, what I mean to say is that loyalty is hard to develop in any group of people. I think Schertz is capable of developing loyalty from his players. We will see what happens.

Ain't the free market a ***** when it hits you

[someoneelse]

15 hours ago, Old guy said:

The issue of having players decide they want to stay in a team under a coach, is complex. First, if they are looking for NIL money and they are coming out of a winning season, they are likely to leave the team and go to whoever pays the highest amount to them. Loyalty exists and will be a factor, but the players most likely to develop loyalty to a coach or team are the freshmen coming straight from high school. Many of these kids are pretty good players passed over in favor of experienced players from the portal. Freshmen have every reason to develop gratitude to the coach that choose them, and gratitude is a good part of loyalty. We have a number of freshmen that may  choose to stay with the team for next year.

You know from the service that it is very difficult to win over the troops and the noncoms. If you succeed you have a "happy" unit that will follow you (the CO) to the gates of hell. Regular units may not feel much loyalty to the Co but will be loyal to one another and get the job done effectively. Finally there are dysfunctional units with ineffective COs and dysfunctional lower level officers and/or noncoms. You are much better off not being assigned to these dysfunctional units.

Overall, what I mean to say is that loyalty is hard to develop in any group of people. I think Schertz is capable of developing loyalty from his players. We will see what happens.

Loyalty is a good attribute, but I won't denigrate someone for choosing life changing wealth for you and your family over loyalty to a coach/school.  An 20 year old can pull their family out of debt and possibly into a modest house. That could even be the basis for intergenerational wealth transfer.  

You only have so many years to monetize your skill and, even if you want to go overseas, you probably aren't making more money playing basketball.  So taking the money and running is something I can't criticize someone for.  

[Old guy]

4 hours ago, someoneelse said:

Loyalty is a good attribute, but I won't denigrate someone for choosing life changing wealth for you and your family over loyalty to a coach/school.  An 20 year old can pull their family out of debt and possibly into a modest house. That could even be the basis for intergenerational wealth transfer.  

You only have so many years to monetize your skill and, even if you want to go overseas, you probably aren't making more money playing basketball.  So taking the money and running is something I can't criticize someone for.  

That is correct, I did not intend to criticize them. Everybody does what they think is best for themselves and their families. However what is best for the individual is not necessarily what is best for the team. In my prior post I dealt with what would be best for the team, not with the individual players chasing NILs

An issue that has to be mentioned here is the problems players getting large NILs will need to deal with, assuming their goal is to build the basis for intergenerational wealth transfer. The majority of these kids and their families are likely to lack any understanding about the issues they will face handling large amounts of money in a way that they will reach this goal. They and  their families have very little concept of how onerous taxes may become beyond a certain level of income. The issue is to manage this money so it can become a life changer for the player and his family. This requires, of course, all kinds of specialized professional services like investment advisors, accountants, lawyers and these services cost money. The player and his family will need to be able to check that the people they hire to advise them are qualified to provide this advise. Just keep this in mind, to start with being paid a large amount of money can become a nightmare without the proper money management. People and families with no concept of handling large amounts of money have to be very careful with how they use the money when they get it.