Jump to content

NCAA Transfer Rule being Looked at


Indykev
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wow this would be Major. This would open a big can of worms. Look at the transfer numbers now. They would grow 10x. You would need some kind of tampering rule for sure. Big schools would pluck every player they missed on from smaller schools. With that being said I like it. It would allow the kids to move from a coach that promised them the moon then didnt follow through. Allows the kids to move if the coach left or was fired. If they are allowed one move that would be ok.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Was getting ready to post the same. If people think transfer season is a zoo now....just wait for this. My only advice is you'll have to over recruit almost to the point where you expect at least a transfer a season if not more. At least the NCAA put in a minimum GPA has to be achieved.

Yes gpa attached plus they can only transfer once without sitting a year. no team hopping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess in the big scope of things kids should be able to transfer without sitting out but I do feel sorry for some of these smaller schools. Players that weren't heavily recruited out of high school that have a couple great seasons at a smaller school will almost now be used as a feeder school to the larger programs. Good luck NCAA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for it.  Don't think the rule would present a particularly big problem for Archie, and there's no reason kids shouldn't be able to try and improve their situations.  This would be a step toward actually putting the interests of the "student-athlete" first.  That sound you hear is me playing the world's smallest violin for all the small schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FW_Hoosier said:

I'm all for it.  Don't think the rule would present a particularly big problem for Archie, and there's no reason kids shouldn't be able to try and improve their situations.  This would be a step toward actually putting the interests of the "student-athlete" first.  That sound you hear is me playing the world's smallest violin for all the small schools.

Are you sure that this is putting the interests of the "student " first, or just the athlete? You'd have to be sure that the new  school accepts all the credits that were previously earned. Does the new school have the same quality program as the school the kid is leaving?  Putting the interests of the STUDENT athlete first is much more than just opening a revolving door for kids that have not lived up to their expectations.

I agree that when coaches leave a program to work elsewhere, it leaves kids in a lurch. We learned with the hiring of Archie that this situation is not insurmountable for both the program and the kids.

It's hard enough in the world of one and dones for a fan base to get behind kids that are short term. As an alumnus who supports the program both financially and as a fan,  I want to see kids come in and stay with the program for the duration. With this potential ruling the distinction between Kentucky and the rest of college basketball becomes blurrier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long time coming. Not that I am in agreement with it..... but like the song....."the times, they are changing".  I hated the free agency rule when it came to major league baseball.  Surprising that it has taken this long for this come to college sports.  Do I like it ? No.  However, I understand it.

Now.... if something can be done about the one and done rule.... I will not be necessarily be happy, but will feel better if this change comes to fruition. I am much agreement with you, Jerry Lundgren.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All my ex-wives approached marriage this way.  Leave me, and on to the next guy (or, in one case, gal) with no waiting.  One difference is that they didn't have to maintain a minimum intelligence requirement.  If that would have been the case, #7 would have had to wait about 26 years before she got married again.

Edited by 5fouls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

Are you sure that this is putting the interests of the "student " first, or just the athlete? You'd have to be sure that the new  school accepts all the credits that were previously earned. Does the new school have the same quality program as the school the kid is leaving?  Putting the interests of the STUDENT athlete first is much more than just opening a revolving door for kids that have not lived up to their expectations.

I agree that when coaches leave a program to work elsewhere, it leaves kids in a lurch. We learned with the hiring of Archie that this situation is not insurmountable for both the program and the kids.

It's hard enough in the world of one and dones for a fan base to get behind kids that are short term. As an alumnus who supports the program both financially and as a fan,  I want to see kids come in and stay with the program for the duration. With this potential ruling the distinction between Kentucky and the rest of college basketball becomes blurrier. 

I put "student-athlete" in quotes for a reason.  These kids are athletes first, students second.  That's just the way it is in college basketball today, even at IU.  What is it to any of us whether the new school a player chooses has a "quality program" or not?  And if the kid hasn't "lived up to their expectations," why would you want to block a transfer in the first place?  The double standard for coaches and players leaving schools is also completely indefensible, especially when you consider how much money the coaches make off these kids.

Look at a kid like Nick Zeisloft.  We recruited him away from Illinois State, and now he's playing in the NBA D League.  He never would have had that opportunity if he hadn't come to IU, and that's really what it's all about.  Let the kid make the best decision for him.  What we want as fans really shouldn't matter - it's selfish to think otherwise.  And I don't see how UK is relevant to this conversation.  We've probably had more transfers than they have over the past few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think there'd have to be some deadline established.  Maybe the 1st of the year could become the NCAA trade deadline.  If the team you're on sucks, move on to bigger and better things for the spring!

I'm not a fan of this rule, but I could live with it as long as they put the deadline before the fall semester.  If you leave your team mid season, you have to sit out the rest of the year.  Otherwise it could be chaos on in season transfers.  If they didn't have a deadline, I could see a high ranked player going to a small school to show off their skills for the fall semester, just to wait and see which team is in the best shape for the spring and transfer to that school.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Indykev said:

Wow this would be Major. This would open a big can of worms. Look at the transfer numbers now. They would grow 10x. You would need some kind of tampering rule for sure. Big schools would pluck every player they missed on from smaller schools. With that being said I like it. It would allow the kids to move from a coach that promised them the moon then didnt follow through. Allows the kids to move if the coach left or was fired. If they are allowed one move that would be ok.

Hate this idea because there are way to many transfers right now.  If they let this happen it is like making every player a free agent every year.  it will allow bigger schools just to poach players from smaller conferences that was a late bloomer.  I am tired of people making all these unneccasary changes to the game of college basketball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FW_Hoosier said:

I put "student-athlete" in quotes for a reason.  These kids are athletes first, students second.  That's just the way it is in college basketball today, even at IU.  What is it to any of us whether the new school a player chooses has a "quality program" or not?  And if the kid hasn't "lived up to their expectations," why would you want to block a transfer in the first place?  The double standard for coaches and players leaving schools is also completely indefensible, especially when you consider how much money the coaches make off these kids.

Look at a kid like Nick Zeisloft.  We recruited him away from Illinois State, and now he's playing in the NBA D League.  He never would have had that opportunity if he hadn't come to IU, and that's really what it's all about.  Let the kid make the best decision for him.  What we want as fans really shouldn't matter - it's selfish to think otherwise.  And I don't see how UK is relevant to this conversation.  We've probably had more transfers than they have over the past few years.

Your first comment is what is wrong with college athletics today. The NCAA's most recent statistics show that of the 18,684 Men's basketball participants in 2015-16, 1.1% of them went on to become "Major Pros" meaning that they were drafted by the NBA. 19.1% fell into the "Total Pro" category, meaning that they played for money somewhere. So, 4 out of every 5 kids playing in college need to have something else to fall back on. I'm a firm believer that it is up to the university to provide these kids access to the best education possible for the high probability that their futures lead to something other than a huge professional basketball contract. 

I am also a firm believer in perserverance, seeing thru to the finish what you started, and not quitting because things aren't what you believed them to be. When I said that a kid wasn't living up to their expectations, I put that on the kid, his family and his advisors. Too many of these kids come out of high school/AAU ball believing that things like playing time should be handed to them. This rule would just further instill the thought that 'hey, if I am not getting what I thought I would" from program A, I can just exit and move on to the next. No sense of responsibility, no willingness to work through hardships. For every Nick Zeisloft you come up with I can name at least as many Frank Kaminskys who came to UW as a lightly regarded recruit and worked his tail off to become a first round pick. 

 

As far as the UK reference, my point was that this rule will allow colleges to essentially use kids for one year and then turn them loose. Coaches that think they are just one kid away from a potential Final Four team will purge programs for kids that fit that need for that season. Basically, the same concept as Cal bringing in kids who he knows will only be in his program for one year.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

Your first comment is what is wrong with college athletics today. The NCAA's most recent statistics show that of the 18,684 Men's basketball participants in 2015-16, 1.1% of them went on to become "Major Pros" meaning that they were drafted by the NBA. 19.1% fell into the "Total Pro" category, meaning that they played for money somewhere. So, 4 out of every 5 kids playing in college need to have something else to fall back on. I'm a firm believer that it is up to the university to provide these kids access to the best education possible for the high probability that their futures lead to something other than a huge professional basketball contract. 

I am also a firm believer in perserverance, seeing thru to the finish what you started, and not quitting because things aren't what you believed them to be. When I said that a kid wasn't living up to their expectations, I put that on the kid, his family and his advisors. Too many of these kids come out of high school/AAU ball believing that things like playing time should be handed to them. This rule would just further instill the thought that 'hey, if I am not getting what I thought I would" from program A, I can just exit and move on to the next. No sense of responsibility, no willingness to work through hardships. For every Nick Zeisloft you come up with I can name at least as many Frank Kaminskys who came to UW as a lightly regarded recruit and worked his tail off to become a first round pick. 

 

As far as the UK reference, my point was that this rule will allow colleges to essentially use kids for one year and then turn them loose. Coaches that think they are just one kid away from a potential Final Four team will purge programs for kids that fit that need for that season. Basically, the same concept as Cal bringing in kids who he knows will only be in his program for one year.

 

 

The issue I have with this point of view is, who are we (or the NCAA) to decide what's best for a kid when it comes to a transfer?  The decision has nothing to do with our lives, and they're not our kids.  So it really doesn't matter whether you're a firm believer in "perseverance" and "a willingness to work through hardships."  The decision should be up the kids and their families.  And the rule addresses the issue of "responsibility" anyway by only allowing one transfer.

Schools have no loyalty to these kids (see Gelon, Grant) so expecting the kids to be loyal to the schools is totally hypocritical.  The fact that Gelon got kicked off the team and only had the option to sit for a year or go to a juco is ridiculous.  I guarantee that situations like his lead to far more transfers than situations involving "entitled millennials."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

Hate this idea because there are way to many transfers right now.  If they let this happen it is like making every player a free agent every year.  it will allow bigger schools just to poach players from smaller conferences that was a late bloomer.  I am tired of people making all these unneccasary changes to the game of college basketball.

Agree. What collegiate basketball is different from pro is the schools and coaches have certain level of control, but this change can potentially give student athletes too much power. What can come next could be extra benefits and monetary compensation.

My preference is for NCAA to research transfer cases and to permanently waive sit-out rule for certain situations (coaching changes, illness in family, etc.). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20606338/ncaa-mull-working-group-proposal-immediately-eligibility-transfers

 

 This is why coaches won't back this rule change, IT"S ALL ABOUT THEM. Painter is a dumbass. Doesn't support transfers, wants kids to fight though it. BUT if the COACH leaves or is fired it would be ok. LOL. Coaches can leave without penalty but oh the kids must stay and learn how to grow. LMAO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Indykev said:

Shocker!  I've always thought that college basketball coaches, as a group, are some of the slimiest people out there.  Only worried about protecting themselves and their bottom line, while claiming that they "only want what's best for the players" the entire time.  This is a prime example of that.  "I should be allowed to kick a player off my team with no consequences, but letting a player transfer with no consequences would ruin college basketball!"  The height of hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FW_Hoosier said:

The issue I have with this point of view is, who are we (or the NCAA) to decide what's best for a kid when it comes to a transfer?  The decision has nothing to do with our lives, and they're not our kids.  So it really doesn't matter whether you're a firm believer in "perseverance" and "a willingness to work through hardships."  The decision should be up the kids and their families.  And the rule addresses the issue of "responsibility" anyway by only allowing one transfer.

Schools have no loyalty to these kids (see Gelon, Grant) so expecting the kids to be loyal to the schools is totally hypocritical.  The fact that Gelon got kicked off the team and only had the option to sit for a year or go to a juco is ridiculous.  I guarantee that situations like his lead to far more transfers than situations involving "entitled millennials."

When a kid signs a letter of intent, that is a binding contract, and he knows that, or should know that when he signs. The university is providing the kid free tuition, room and board as well as the opportunity to improve his basketball skills to make him more marketable as a professional, if that is what he chooses. The rules as they stand, addresses the players ability to leave if he feels he is in the wrong spot...he just has to wait a year. Like breaking any contract, there are repercussions. 

The Gelon situation is a poor example, as it is more a function of his lack of skill than the structure of the rules. He was recruited to a program that he had no business being in. Not his fault, but that's part of it, and he knew signing the LOI as such.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

When a kid signs a letter of intent, that is a binding contract, and he knows that, or should know that when he signs. The university is providing the kid free tuition, room and board as well as the opportunity to improve his basketball skills to make him more marketable as a professional, if that is what he chooses. The rules as they stand, addresses the players ability to leave if he feels he is in the wrong spot...he just has to wait a year. Like breaking any contract, there are repercussions. 

The Gelon situation is a poor example, as it is more a function of his lack of skill than the structure of the rules. He was recruited to a program that he had no business being in. Not his fault, but that's part of it, and he knew signing the LOI as such.

 

So when a contract is broken, there should be repercussions, but only for one side.  Got it.  The value that the schools provide the players is nothing compared to the value that the players (as a group) provide the schools.  The very least the NCAA could do is allow the players to choose where they provide that value without punishing them.  The rules, as they currently stand, are total bullshit.

And the Gelon situation is a perfect example, as one of the primary driving forces behind the "transfer epidemic" is coaches running players who aren't good enough off their teams.  Look, I get it.  You want the schools to have all the leverage over the players because that's what you prefer as a fan of college basketball.  But don't try to pass that off as some kind of moral stance or concern for the players' best interest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://scout.com/college/basketball/recruiting/Article/NCAA-coaches-loudly-speaking-out-on-potential-new-transfer-rule--107036402

 

Archie gives his 2 cents on the subject. But he doesn't talk about how him moving up to IU impacted Dayton. My last comment on a subject that will never happen. Just goes to show you all coaches are greedy and self-serving. Don't do as I do, do as I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think players should be allowed to transfer 1 time,  at the end of the academic year and meet a academic standard (GPA) and play immediately.  Then you have to sit a year if you transfer again.   If schools/conference/NCAA didn't make billions off of college basketball and it was purely academic then i agree the student/athlete owes something to the school.  But schools get way more from the athlete than they do from the school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long time lurker....first time poster.

I have really mixed feelings about this.  I think it opens up a big can of worms and will allow for even more shady shenanigans by some of the more crooked programs in the country.  I do feel, however, that if a coach leaves then all/any players that want to go somewhere else should be allowed to transfer somewhere else and be eligible immediately.

p.s.  I really enjoy this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...