Go Back   Fighting Illini Forums > Sports > Fighting Illini Basketball

Major Potential Shift In NCAA Transfer Rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Sep 8, 2017, 08:58 PM   #76
Johnny Lawrence
Posts: 533
I'm still waiting for examples as to how having to sit out a year hurts 99% of the the student athletes that transfer?
Johnny Lawrence is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2017, 10:37 PM   #77
FiveStar
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Lawrence View Post
I'm still waiting for examples as to how having to sit out a year hurts 99% of the the student athletes that transfer?
Uh, they don't get to play.
FiveStar is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2017, 11:31 PM   #78
icengineer
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveStar View Post
Uh, they don't get to play.
Well, shouldn't you have to give up something, to get something? Just saying.

Seems like sort of a participation ribbon mentality to just allow a SA the ability to transfer, just because they want to.
icengineer is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 12:41 AM   #79
Serious Late
Serious Late's Avatar
Location: Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque via Chicago via Champaign via Peoria
Posts: 2,334
Some on here are wildly overstating the extent to which players are going to ditch their current program and leave their teammates, coaches, friends, community, general comfort, etc. in order to play for a better program. Athletes that want to leave a program now, do. It happens in large quantities. Will it increase some, sure. Will it increase to some absurd extent that makes the current format of the institution unrecognizable. I don't buy it.

It isn't as though there is this huge contingent of players thinking "I am happy where I am, but if this transfer rule were in place, I would give up all that I have built at my current school in order to move somewhere slightly better!"

Let them transfer and play. Let the universities have to work a little harder to keep the athletes that keep the lights on across the athletic department.

__________________
One word... Consistency.
Serious Late is online now Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 01:43 AM   #80
Obelix
Obelix's Avatar
Posts: 7,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Late View Post
Some on here are wildly overstating the extent to which players are going to ditch their current program and leave their teammates, coaches, friends, community, general comfort, etc. in order to play for a better program. Athletes that want to leave a program now, do. It happens in large quantities. Will it increase some, sure. Will it increase to some absurd extent that makes the current format of the institution unrecognizable. I don't buy it.
You may not buy it but data shows otherwise. The number of graduate transfers tripled from 2011-2016 because simply the rule allowed them to transfer with no penalty, and in 2016 there were 400+ transfers in Division I. Yet, data shows that many transfers earn few graduate credits and leave school when their athletics eligibility expires, which validates the fact that it is simply an "athletic" decision (not academic). Actually, data shows that those who indeed stay and pursue graduate studies at the same institution graduate at a much higher rate.

There is a growing number of high profile transfers from smaller schools every year who decide to transfer rather than stay at their school, just because the 5th year rule allows them to. Fifth-year transfers have become a trend. Why do you think that is? And no, it is not because that major is not offered at their school
Obelix is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 05:02 AM   #81
IlliniKat91
IlliniKat91's Avatar
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelix View Post
You may not buy it but data shows otherwise. The number of graduate transfers tripled from 2011-2016 because simply the rule allowed them to transfer with no penalty, and in 2016 there were 400+ transfers in Division I. Yet, data shows that many transfers earn few graduate credits and leave school when their athletics eligibility expires, which validates the fact that it is simply an "athletic" decision (not academic). Actually, data shows that those who indeed stay and pursue graduate studies at the same institution graduate at a much higher rate.

There is a growing number of high profile transfers from smaller schools every year who decide to transfer rather than stay at their school, just because the 5th year rule allows them to. Fifth-year transfers have become a trend. Why do you think that is? And no, it is not because that major is not offered at their school
Just because I'm a bit of a geek like this, do you have that data? It'd be interesting to see.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
IlliniKat91 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 05:38 AM   #82
illiniguy24
illiniguy24's Avatar
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveStar View Post
Uh, they don't get to play.


They still get a free year of education while they sit out, though, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
illiniguy24 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 06:09 AM   #83
whovous
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by icengineer View Post
Are non-athlete scholarship students able to transfer unhindered? I honestly don't know. Even if they are allowed, I doubt there is a scholarship waiting at the new school.
The fact that student athletes usually have their schooling paid for separates them from the average student. And there is no way they transfer without a guaranteed scholarship waiting.
I did. I received debate scholarships at both schools. That pretty much qualified me as a non-athlete.
whovous is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 06:22 AM   #84
whovous
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelix View Post
Every student can transfer when they want and where they want, including basketball and football players. This has nothing to do with the "student" and academic aspect. Rules that govern competition exist in all sports including professional sports for reasons of fairness in competition. This is the basis for all sports.

Even at the professional level, it is not that a player has complete freedom to move to any team he or she wants, whenever he/she wants, wherever he/she wants. There are rules and regulations on player movement, including free-agency, that govern sports in the interest of fair competition. College sports should be no different, so let's not pretend that this is about the "students."
Every student can transfer when and where they want, but only basketball and football players have to give up a year of that for which they were recruited in the first place as a quid pro quo for exercising that right.

And yes, professionals give up the right to transfer as well. The difference is that they are compensated handsomely for giving up that right. When the NCAA gives college football and basketball players the right to collective bargaining, then and only then might we have comparable situations.

I agree with the point Obelix made in several other replies: If we change the rules as I propose, it will have a significant impact on college football and basketball. Changes have consequences, but I do not see that as a justification for denying college football and basketball players rights granted to all other students and all other student-athletes.
whovous is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 08:01 AM   #85
Adnarel
Banned
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by illiniguy24 View Post
They still get a free year of education while they sit out, though, right?
You're intentionally being dense, maybe to make a point or something, I don't know. Student-athletes obviously care about being athletes and removing their ability to be so is a hit to their QOL. Let's spell it out:

Kid: I want to play D1 collegiate sportsball. I'm going to go to this school to do so.
NCAA: Have fun.
Kid: Shoot, I'd like to transfer because x.
NCAA: No more fun for you for the next year.
Kid: I am suffering.
Adnarel is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 08:14 AM   #86
Serious Late
Serious Late's Avatar
Location: Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque via Chicago via Champaign via Peoria
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelix View Post
You may not buy it but data shows otherwise. The number of graduate transfers tripled from 2011-2016 because simply the rule allowed them to transfer with no penalty, and in 2016 there were 400+ transfers in Division I. Yet, data shows that many transfers earn few graduate credits and leave school when their athletics eligibility expires, which validates the fact that it is simply an "athletic" decision (not academic). Actually, data shows that those who indeed stay and pursue graduate studies at the same institution graduate at a much higher rate.

There is a growing number of high profile transfers from smaller schools every year who decide to transfer rather than stay at their school, just because the 5th year rule allows them to. Fifth-year transfers have become a trend. Why do you think that is? And no, it is not because that major is not offered at their school
And there are multiple of differences between a graduate transfer and an undergraduate transfer. Transfer rates for a graduate student were likely artificially low prior to the rule (you are giving up 1 year to get only one year). Were similar percentages of graduate students transferring as undergraduate students when they had to sit out a year? If the number jumped from say, 10% to 30% and the undergraduate rate is currently 40% (random numbers), then the affect this had on grad students would have essentially no bearing on undergraduate students. I don't know the answer to that, but would be interested.

You have also fulfilled your non-athletic objective at the initial university, so whether you plan to complete your advanced degree or not, many of your friends, classmates, expected time on campus have all completed/moved on. At 22, I was less inclined to stick around C-U than I was at 20...

__________________
One word... Consistency.
Serious Late is online now Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 08:46 AM   #87
Johnny Lawrence
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnarel View Post
You're intentionally being dense, maybe to make a point or something, I don't know. Student-athletes obviously care about being athletes and removing their ability to be so is a hit to their QOL. Let's spell it out:

Kid: I want to play D1 collegiate sportsball. I'm going to go to this school to do so.
NCAA: Have fun.
Kid: Shoot, I'd like to transfer because x.
NCAA: No more fun for you for the next year.
Kid: I am suffering.
NCAA: Take a year to assimilate to your new surroundings, get your coursework on track, get to know your new team and coaches and you still have the same amount of eligibility remaining.
Johnny Lawrence is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 09:11 AM   #88
Obelix
Obelix's Avatar
Posts: 7,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Late View Post
And there are multiple of differences between a graduate transfer and an undergraduate transfer. Transfer rates for a graduate student were likely artificially low prior to the rule (you are giving up 1 year to get only one year). Were similar percentages of graduate students transferring as undergraduate students when they had to sit out a year? If the number jumped from say, 10% to 30% and the undergraduate rate is currently 40% (random numbers), then the affect this had on grad students would have essentially no bearing on undergraduate students. I don't know the answer to that, but would be interested.

You have also fulfilled your non-athletic objective at the initial university, so whether you plan to complete your advanced degree or not, many of your friends, classmates, expected time on campus have all completed/moved on. At 22, I was less inclined to stick around C-U than I was at 20...
The comparison you are asking is less relevant. The fact is that the data do destroy your earlier point that you do not "buy" the fact that they will transfer as opposed to staying because of "teammates, coaches, friends, community, general comfort, etc."

The fact is that they are transferring at very growing numbers as opposed to staying at current school and doing graduate work. Fifth-year transfers are indeed a trend, the reasons are not academic, and the impact is on high(er) profile athletes who transfer for purely athletic reasons. It has nothing to do with the ethics of whether they get their degree or not. But the data shows that they are making a basketball decision, not an academic one, which is what will happen to high profile players without a transfer year. They will not transfer to UK, KU etc. for academic purposes, they will transfer to play basketball with no academic benefit. The same way that fifth-year players transfer for athletic reasons, while data showing the decreased academic benefit of that decision (as opposed to staying at the current school).

There are NO academic restrictions whatsoever right now. Academically the transfers can go anywhere they want, whenever they want (same rules and regulations as all students) and they do get the extra benefit of the sit out year getting paid in the form of scholarships. They are under scholarship during that year, and actually most get the academic benefit of an extra academic year paid, despite not playing basketball.
Obelix is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 09:12 AM   #89
Adnarel
Banned
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Lawrence
NCAA: Take a year to assimilate to your new surroundings, get your coursework on track, get to know your new team and coaches and you still have the same amount of eligibility remaining.
Yes, that is the NCAA's official justification. Ostensibly, they have numbers (GPA, graduation with degree rate) to back it up. I simply question whether this paternalistic approach is still the best one.
Adnarel is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 09:52 AM   #90
Obelix
Obelix's Avatar
Posts: 7,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by whovous View Post
Every student can transfer when and where they want, but only basketball and football players have to give up a year of that for which they were recruited in the first place as a quid pro quo for exercising that right.

And yes, professionals give up the right to transfer as well. The difference is that they are compensated handsomely for giving up that right. When the NCAA gives college football and basketball players the right to collective bargaining, then and only then might we have comparable situations.

I agree with the point Obelix made in several other replies: If we change the rules as I propose, it will have a significant impact on college football and basketball. Changes have consequences, but I do not see that as a justification for denying college football and basketball players rights granted to all other students and all other student-athletes.
Let's just make that absolutely clear again: there are no academic rights or other benefit that a non-athlete student has when they transfer. None! On the contrary, the sit-out (extra) year is fully paid for student-athletes.

There are millions and millions of regular students who have to give something that they do and love because the school does not provide support for what they do, outside of academics. It is a privilege to go to college, get a free education, stipend, free academic support and tutoring, etc. and be able to play the sport you love. Universities do not have to support specific sports as they do not support multiple other extracurricular activities.

Also, given the current cost of college education, student-athletes get paid what most would consider handsomely. Free education, stipend, and tons of extra support/benefits when millions of students can't afford an education. The current structure also supports students in non-revenue sports, thousands of students on athletic scholarships. Even in revenue sports, the last scholarship player on the bench, also gets the same benefits. I coach AAU and it is a dream for every parent on the tour for their kid(s) to get a free college education.

Athletic competition is governed by rules that preserve not only fairness, but in the case of colleges, a structure that can be viable and sustainable. Rules should not be to the benefit of a few schools or a few profile athletes. Sure the high profile athlete will benefit with such rule as will the high profile programs. But smaller programs will not be able to financially support athletics, scholarships, multiple sports, facilities, stipends, etc. Who will pay for it? Tuition? Tax-payers? As a result, they will drop specific sports, as multiple schools have already done, multiple schools have reduced scholarship teams because they simply can't support them. It will be a detriment to the general student-athlete population.

Finally, let's stop with this "professional sport should have rules and regulations but not college sports." Rules and regulations apply to all levels and are different in every sport to preserve a viable structure and fair competition. Even at lower levels than college.
Obelix is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 10:10 AM   #91
Serious Late
Serious Late's Avatar
Location: Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque via Chicago via Champaign via Peoria
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelix View Post
The comparison you are asking is less relevant. The fact is that the data do destroy your earlier point that you do not "buy" the fact that they will transfer as opposed to staying because of "teammates, coaches, friends, community, general comfort, etc."

The fact is that they are transferring at very growing numbers as opposed to staying at current school and doing graduate work. Fifth-year transfers are indeed a trend, the reasons are not academic, and the impact is on high(er) profile athletes who transfer for purely athletic reasons. It has nothing to do with the ethics of whether they get their degree or not. But the data shows that they are making a basketball decision, not an academic one, which is what will happen to high profile players without a transfer year. They will not transfer to UK, KU etc. for academic purposes, they will transfer to play basketball with no academic benefit. The same way that fifth-year players transfer for athletic reasons, while data showing the decreased academic benefit of that decision (as opposed to staying at the current school).

There are NO academic restrictions whatsoever right now. Academically the transfers can go anywhere they want, whenever they want (same rules and regulations as all students) and they do get the extra benefit of the sit out year getting paid in the form of scholarships. They are under scholarship during that year, and actually most get the academic benefit of an extra academic year paid, despite not playing basketball.
Your comparison of graduate to undergraduate rates is 100% useless, that is a given. For a large contingent of graduate transfers, prior to the rule their option of transfer was 0. 1 year of eligibility left, transfer, use up that year sitting out. They went from no option to an option. Not in any way similar to the undergrad transfer situation.

Of course the number of transfers will grow among undergrads, that would be a part of the point. Just not in a seismic way that permanently alters the landscape in a way the sports can't handle. That is an incorrect viewpoint.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

__________________
One word... Consistency.
Serious Late is online now Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 10:22 AM   #92
FiveStar
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by icengineer View Post
Well, shouldn't you have to give up something, to get something? Just saying.

Seems like sort of a participation ribbon mentality to just allow a SA the ability to transfer, just because they want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illiniguy24 View Post
They still get a free year of education while they sit out, though, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Somebody asked for an example of how it hurts a student athlete. Not being able to play immediately is clearly a direct, realistic answer to that question. On the flip side, it would be beneficial to the university the player is transferring to. They're not losing money by paying for a kids school while he's not playing. That lets you gets the next guys in more efficiently. As we have all personally seen, a lot can happen in that sit out year.
FiveStar is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 10:44 AM   #93
Obelix
Obelix's Avatar
Posts: 7,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Late View Post
Your comparison of graduate to undergraduate rates is 100% useless, that is a given.
That is not my comparison, the NCAA did the study. The data does not support your point that transfers will not prevalently happen as opposed to staying because of "teammates, coaches, friends, community, general comfort, etc." Clearly they transfer for basketball reasons, not academic and as opposed to staying and continuing at current school. The ones who do, according to NCAA, they have a much higher academic benefit and graduation rate.

Quote:
For a large contingent of graduate transfers, prior to the rule their option of transfer was 0. 1 year of eligibility left, transfer, use up that year sitting out.
Again, you are backtracking from earlier point that students will not prevalently transfer and stay at current school because of "teammates, coaches, friends, community, general comfort, etc." The comparison was the option of staying at current school and do graduate work versus transfering to a new school for graduate work. That was the NCAA comparison, which showed that it was actually a decreased academic benefit and the decisions were simply athletic.

For the record, on graduate transfers, my position has always been the same. The rule is a hoax. I have not advocated eliminating graduate transfers. On the contrary, just treat them as regular transfers, give them the extra year of eligibility after having to sit the 1-year transfer as all other transfers (paid). The rule had an academic motivation (reward) not a basketball one. It will give them an extra year to truly do graduate work (most programs require more than 1 year) and eliminate the purely basketball decisions.

Last edited by Obelix; Sep 9, 2017 at 10:54 AM.
Obelix is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 11:41 AM   #94
Serious Late
Serious Late's Avatar
Location: Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque via Chicago via Champaign via Peoria
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelix View Post
That is not my comparison, the NCAA did the study. The data does not support your point that transfers will not prevalently happen as opposed to staying because of "teammates, coaches, friends, community, general comfort, etc." Clearly they transfer for basketball reasons, not academic and as opposed to staying and continuing at current school. The ones who do, according to NCAA, they have a much higher academic benefit and graduation rate.



Again, you are backtracking from earlier point that students will not prevalently transfer and stay at current school because of "teammates, coaches, friends, community, general comfort, etc." The comparison was the option of staying at current school and do graduate work versus transfering to a new school for graduate work. That was the NCAA comparison, which showed that it was actually a decreased academic benefit and the decisions were simply athletic.

For the record, on graduate transfers, my position has always been the same. The rule is a hoax. I have not advocated eliminating graduate transfers. On the contrary, just treat them as regular transfers, give them the extra year of eligibility after having to sit the 1-year transfer as all other transfers (paid). The rule had an academic motivation (reward) not a basketball one. It will give them an extra year to truly do graduate work (most programs require more than 1 year) and eliminate the purely basketball decisions.
Perhaps I have not stated my stance clearly. Sitting out a year is a major impediment to a graduate transfer. Sitting out a year is much less a major impediment to an undergraduate. Thus, the shift to eliminating a sit out year for a graduate transfer can not be useful data as a reference for what will happen for undergraduates transferring without sitting out.

Additionally, it is my opinion that factors such as teammates, friends, community, etc. are larger factors for a player who is in the midst of their undergraduate pursuit than a player who has completed their undergraduate pursuit.

Furthermore, I do believe that there will be an increase in transfers as a result of this rule, just not to the extent that the institution is harmed beyond repair or the sports become skewed in a way that it doesn't provide the same enjoyment for fans that it always has.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, as this is simply each of our own subjective opinions with no tangible facts or existing data to support our current beliefs, I believe that the athletes deserve as much liberty as can possibly be afforded to them, given it is on their backs that the whole college sports landscape exists. Until proven otherwise, and as of now there is no data to do so, I will continue to always support any efforts to further reward college athletes.

__________________
One word... Consistency.
Serious Late is online now Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 12:04 PM   #95
afpharmdawg
afpharmdawg's Avatar
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 216
I am not dismissing anyone using data nor specifically saying it is wrong. Here is a fact, using data from a trend does not mean future results. Yes, it can help predict a possible trend but it does not mean the trend will continue. So, to say the grad transfer rate has increased will mean to not have to sit out a year will do the same cannot be stated as fact. We can predict possible outcomes in the future. That said I believe Obelix is correct in his prediction. I am now off my soapbox.

__________________
"I sometimes wish that people would put a little more emphasis upon the observance of the law than they do upon its enforcement." Calvin Coolridge
afpharmdawg is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 12:39 PM   #96
Obelix
Obelix's Avatar
Posts: 7,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Late View Post
Furthermore, I do believe that there will be an increase in transfers as a result of this rule, just not to the extent that the institution is harmed beyond repair or the sports become skewed in a way that it doesn't provide the same enjoyment for fans that it always has.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, as this is simply each of our own subjective opinions with no tangible facts or existing data to support our current beliefs, I believe that the athletes deserve as much liberty as can possibly be afforded to them, given it is on their backs that the whole college sports landscape exists. Until proven otherwise, and as of now there is no data to do so, I will continue to always support any efforts to further reward college athletes.
Of course there will be a an increase in transfers and that will happen as a result of removing a rule/restriction. But that is not IMO the key point. It is the effect of the changed dynamics on college basketball and college sports in general.

There is a huge difference between revenue and non-revenue college sports. For most of the non-revenue sports the effect is minimal, really non-existent. But it is a huge leap of faith to believe that high-profile athletes in smaller schools will not transfer to high profile programs just for basketball with no real academic substance in their decision. It is the same when people say that high level recruits can go anywhere and make it to the NBA, yet they are baffled by the fact that the huge majority always go to UK, KU, Duke, UNC, etc.

The effect of lower level players transferring would be minimal. Sure, you will replace them, 13 before, 13 now, we still field a team, higher turnover, etc. The impact would be on the those higher level players transferring and the effect of that. Right now, the only hope to compete against the huge recruiting advantage of high profile programs is to develop players, team chemistry, cohesiveness, etc. and hope that high level recruits at top programs lack experience/chemistry. Now, top level programs would be able to recruit experienced players in addition to those top recruits. Huge advantage, no way smaller programs can compete with that. Do you honestly believe that top programs will not do that?

I have been a huge advocate of student-athletes and spend much time with them. But the revenue shift of balance and lack of ability of smaller programs to compete will have a detrimental effect on student-athletes, it will not have a positive effect. Why do you think that colleges keep on dropping scholarship teams/sports? Or why did the conferences realign? Or why is there a huge battle for TV coverage? Look at our current basketball coverage, it screams "irrelevant." What do you think would be the impact of some of Lovie's or BU's young talent deciding to leave? There would be a huge impact and it is naive IMO to believe, "oh... it will not happen, they just love their school too much." It will absolutely happen. JMO.
Obelix is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 12:53 PM   #97
Serious Late
Serious Late's Avatar
Location: Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque via Chicago via Champaign via Peoria
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelix View Post
Of course there will be a an increase in transfers and that will happen as a result of removing a rule/restriction. But that is not IMO the key point. It is the effect of the changed dynamics on college basketball and college sports in general.

There is a huge difference between revenue and non-revenue college sports. For most of the non-revenue sports the effect is minimal, really non-existent. But it is a huge leap of faith to believe that high-profile athletes in smaller schools will not transfer to high profile programs just for basketball with no real academic substance in their decision. It is the same when people say that high level recruits can go anywhere and make it to the NBA, yet they are baffled by the fact that the huge majority always go to UK, KU, Duke, UNC, etc.

The effect of lower level players transferring would be minimal. Sure, you will replace them, 13 before, 13 now, we still field a team, higher turnover, etc. The impact would be on the those higher level players transferring and the effect of that. Right now, the only hope to compete against the huge recruiting advantage of high profile programs is to develop players, team chemistry, cohesiveness, etc. and hope that high level recruits at top programs lack experience/chemistry. Now, top level programs would be able to recruit experienced players in addition to those top recruits. Huge advantage, no way smaller programs can compete with that. Do you honestly believe that top programs will not do that?

I have been a huge advocate of student-athletes and spend much time with them. But the revenue shift of balance and lack of ability of smaller programs to compete will have a detrimental effect on student-athletes, it will not have a positive effect. Why do you think that colleges keep on dropping scholarship teams/sports? Or why did the conferences realign? Or why is there a huge battle for TV coverage? Look at our current basketball coverage, it screams "irrelevant." What do you think would be the impact of some of Lovie's or BU's young talent deciding to leave? There would be a huge impact and it is naive IMO to believe, "oh... it will not happen, they just love their school too much." It will absolutely happen. JMO.
To some extent, some will happen, just as it happens now. I explicitly did not say "it will not happen", not sure how I could have been more clear on that.

I explicitly did say that in my opinion, it will not have the huge impact you are stating it will have. Primarily because this is already happening. The transfer year isn't impeding the kids now, taking away this nuisance isn't opening any floodgates.

But now we are just repeating our subjective opinions over and over again, sooooooo.

__________________
One word... Consistency.
Serious Late is online now Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 01:10 PM   #98
Obelix
Obelix's Avatar
Posts: 7,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Late View Post
Primarily because this is already happening. The transfer year isn't impeding the kids now, taking away this nuisance isn't opening any floodgates.
The transfer year isn't impeding kids from transferring now? It is a huge deterrent (not academic) for transferring, especially for high-profile players who are the ones who will impact competition dynamics.
Obelix is offline Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 02:26 PM   #99
Serious Late
Serious Late's Avatar
Location: Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque via Chicago via Champaign via Peoria
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelix View Post
The transfer year isn't impeding kids from transferring now? It is a huge deterrent (not academic) for transferring, especially for high-profile players who are the ones who will impact competition dynamics.
No.

Quote:
about 40% of all MBB players who enter Division I directly out of high school depart their initial school by the end of their sophomore year.
Too bad for the coaches that can't figure out how to operate within the new rules and lose out, but that isn't the problem of the players who create these opportunities for themselves. In my opinion, rules created to prevent this from happening to balance play aren't doing justice by the athletes creating these opportunities for themselves. And of course, it is still being way overstated the seismic shift this is going to create in transfers. Times point made... 4 and growing!

__________________
One word... Consistency.
Serious Late is online now Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2017, 03:16 PM   #100
Obelix
Obelix's Avatar
Posts: 7,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Late View Post
No.

Too bad for the coaches that can't figure out how to operate within the new rules and lose out, but that isn't the problem of the players who create these opportunities for themselves. In my opinion, rules created to prevent this from happening to balance play aren't doing justice by the athletes creating these opportunities for themselves. And of course, it is still being way overstated the seismic shift this is going to create in transfers. Times point made... 4 and growing!
You need to read the article more carefully. The majority of those transfers are not to Div. I schools where the one year transfer sit-out year applies. The majority occurs to Div. I, Div II, and below where the sit-out year in question does not apply, which actually supports the opposite conclusion. As the article also says 90% of those decisions are athletic, not-academic, which also supports to transferring down to avoid the current 1-year transfer requirement. As I mentioned, it is the athletic aspect that determines basketball transfers, not the academic aspect. Athletes have no more academic restrictions than any other regular student. Furthermore, the article says that even for the remained of the (minority) Div. I transfers, these transfers "often went to a less competitive program" (e.g. lack of PT, etc.).

As explained, multiple times above, the impact would be on high-profile players and the impact of the rule in their recruitment to top programs:

Quote:
The effect of lower level players transferring would be minimal. Sure, you will replace them, 13 before, 13 now, we still field a team, higher turnover, etc. The impact would be on the those higher level players transferring and the effect of that.

Last edited by Obelix; Sep 9, 2017 at 03:23 PM.
Obelix is offline Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools

Forum Jump