Transfer Rules Change

#26
Little Rock, Arkansas
but less so when players have broken team rules or whatnot. And how do you resolve that anyway? What are the terms under which a player can be kicked off a team? There comes NCAA discretion creeping in through the back door again.
I would say that just because a player broke team rules, doesn’t mean they will transfer. In fact, the fear of losing a year of eligibility COULD get them to stay, take their punishment, and learn from the experience as opposed to running. Which is a good thing...if it happens.

Regarding players kicked off the team for a violation of team rules, I’d say the same thing applies. If there is no chance for reconciliation, and the offense was egregious or repetitive enough, you have to use a year to go to a new school.

It isn’t perfect, and definitely opens things up for “less than honest” coaches to simply “find” infractions to kick kids off a team whereas normally they wouldn’t care as long as that player performs well...but hopefully that would be few and far between.

But I just think in general that looking at the college landscape and diagnosing the issue as a surplus of player power, and players needing to have rules and punishments imposed on them to limit their choices isn't the way I would look at it. They have the short end of the stick as it is.
I’m definitely not one who thinks the players have all the power. It is definitely slanted towards the schools/coaches/NCAA. However, it honestly should be slanted, at least a little bit, towards the adults with 30+ years experience and not the students who JUST got out of high school. Maybe 60/40?

Big time decisions that affect large scale organizations and involve millions/billions of dollars shouldn’t be in the hands of the our newest adults. Sure, a few may be responsible enough to make good decisions, but the vast majority are not yet ready. I mean, 99.9% of them don’t choose Illinois when they are recruited so we know they have sub-par decision making skills.:thumb:

But if we absolutely wanted to make sure the schools had to pay a little more to even things out, I would say that you make immediately eligible transfers cost 2 scholarships in the same year. So a rising sophomore that enters the portal, with 3 years to play 3 (since he is giving up his extra year in the system I’ve proposed), could get contacted by a school. If a school wants him to play next year, no questions asked, they have to apply two scholarships to him. And then one for each year after that.

So instead of that player taking up 4 scholarship years in 4 calendar years (redshirt and 3 to play) he uses up 4 scholarship years in 3 but negatively impacts the schools numbers for the first year.

Just spit-ballin.
 
#27

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
Do people really believe that Creaning is a widespread problem?

What I mean is that the practice of "encouraging" players to move on is widespread, but is there strong evidence (any evidence?) that a high percentage of the players pushed out the door are unhappy with the situation?

I don't doubt it happens, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's not a big deal for a huge number of kids. Legitimate playing time is a big deal to most kids. If you're not going to get it, you'll likely be happy to know that and happy to move on.
 
#28
Do people really believe that Creaning is a widespread problem?

What I mean is that the practice of "encouraging" players to move on is widespread, but is there strong evidence (any evidence?) that a high percentage of the players pushed out the door are unhappy with the situation?
I would say that the explosion of transfers is eroding some of the charm of college sports, based in the idea that you recruit kids out of high school and that they share something resembling the college experience that we had, and are a part of our program, and no other, for life.

That was always a myth to a large extent, but it's even less than that now, and falling.

And where the consensus public opinion about transfers is all about "millennials these days with their participation trophies and their avocado toast running away at the first sign of something hard", I think Creaning as a result of the enormous pressure on the millionaire coaches to win big and win now is the larger factor driving the increase.

These kids are becoming completely disposable if they aren't critical to win tomorrow's game. I think the smartest non-blueblood programs are finding ways to avoid that trend (though *other* smart ones are playing the waiver wire to their advantage) but it's a bad direction for the sport either way.
 
#29

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
I would say that the explosion of transfers is eroding some of the charm of college sports, based in the idea that you recruit kids out of high school and that they share something resembling the college experience that we had, and are a part of our program, and no other, for life.

That was always a myth to a large extent, but it's even less than that now, and falling.

And where the consensus public opinion about transfers is all about "millennials these days with their participation trophies and their avocado toast running away at the first sign of something hard", I think Creaning as a result of the enormous pressure on the millionaire coaches to win big and win now is the larger factor driving the increase.

These kids are becoming completely disposable if they aren't critical to win tomorrow's game. I think the smartest non-blueblood programs are finding ways to avoid that trend (though *other* smart ones are playing the waiver wire to their advantage) but it's a bad direction for the sport either way.
So you want to create a system that you call friendlier for athletes but you really don't have a sense that the current system is actually unliked by those athletes in terms of "Creaning".

You've set up a strawman regarding "participation trophies". People understand that some players are just the wrong fit for a variety of reasons. There's nothing wrong with them deciding to move on. You seem to want them to stick around even when they don't want to because it has more charm for you. Sorry, but that isn't pro athlete at all.

I think you're over blowing the problem. You'd think that there would be more examples of guys who have graduated dumping on the coaches who pushed them out when they actually wanted to stay. Maybe there are lots of stories like that out there. Post a few links for us. If you don't, I"m going to assume that by and large people are fine with how different players with different talent levels kinda find their right spot, with some exceptions, of course.

And yes, I'm for immediately eligibility for players who transfer, preferably just once.
 
#30
I think you're over blowing the problem.
"There's no problem here" is a perfectly fair response. I don't think there really was a problem 5 years ago. I might have preferred something different, but things were working okay. But for me, if the Luke Ford/Justin Fields thing doesn't have you seeing storms on the horizon, I'd suggest a new pair of binoculars. Institutionalized fakery + NCAA discretion = trouble.

I'm for immediately eligibility for players who transfer, preferably just once.
I really think this would invite a kind of chaos that dwarfs what we've already seen, but again I may be making a mountain out of a molehill.
 
#31

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
"There's no problem here" is a perfectly fair response. I don't think there really was a problem 5 years ago. I might have preferred something different, but things were working okay. But for me, if the Luke Ford/Justin Fields thing doesn't have you seeing storms on the horizon, I'd suggest a new pair of binoculars. Institutionalized fakery + NCAA discretion = trouble.



I really think this would invite a kind of chaos that dwarfs what we've already seen, but again I may be making a mountain out of a molehill.
were justin fields and luke ford creaned?

My no problem point was merely regarding creaning. and you really aren't demonstrating why you think it is a problem, other than the loss of charm for yourself.

I should have been more specific. If coach and player agree on a transfer, I see no reason for the player to sit. or for coaching changes. I hate the arbitrary nature of the process now. but the idea Georgia loses a scholly because Luke Ford wants to play closer to home doesn't seem like a good idea
 
#33
I think the real solution is to get the NBA and the NFL to agree to drop any employment restriction that prevents players from jumping right to the pros, and pony up to establish minor league systems that will let the future pros have an avenue to pursue their dreams. They can sink or swim on their own merit, as today they really don’t have much of a choice. Survival of the fittest at its’ finest, and no more hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over the welfare of the “students”.

Meanwhile the college games would be relieved of the illusion that they are the last bastion of amateur sports and actually provide an education for those athletes serious about school. Would the game quality suffer? Maybe a bit, but the fact remains college fans follow the school, not the players. The roster changes every year as players either graduate or move to the pros after satisfying the pro league rules for waiting. IMHO the popularity of the game would not suffer much, if at all.

The financial benefits college athletes are accused of pursuing would largely melt away, as the big bucks would always be in the pro track, although there would always be cheating if the incentives are big enough. My $0.02 contribution to a multi-billion dollar problem 🤣

This would pretty much table the transfers conundrum also, as the players that feel they want more PT or don’t fit or are asked to go Have more options.
 
#34
Cary, IL
"On Tuesday, the California state Assembly’s Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media Committee passed a bill that would allow college athletes in the state to profit from their name, image and likeness beginning in 2023. While the bill would not allow schools to directly pay athletes, players would be able to receive compensation from outside sources — for example, from a video game company or for signing autographs or memorabilia."

This would make the booster payouts legal, "You can be on the cover of this video game and I will pay you $500,000 for use of your likeness, assuming you are wearing a really cool uniform, like ____________ (fill in booster's university) for instance."
 
#35
"On Tuesday, the California state Assembly’s Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media Committee passed a bill that would allow college athletes in the state to profit from their name, image and likeness beginning in 2023. While the bill would not allow schools to directly pay athletes, players would be able to receive compensation from outside sources — for example, from a video game company or for signing autographs or memorabilia."

This would make the booster payouts legal, "You can be on the cover of this video game and I will pay you $500,000 for use of your likeness, assuming you are wearing a really cool uniform, like ____________ (fill in booster's university) for instance."
Welp. That's the end of college basketball
 
#36
"On Tuesday, the California state Assembly’s Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media Committee passed a bill that would allow college athletes in the state to profit from their name, image and likeness beginning in 2023. While the bill would not allow schools to directly pay athletes, players would be able to receive compensation from outside sources — for example, from a video game company or for signing autographs or memorabilia."

This would make the booster payouts legal, "You can be on the cover of this video game and I will pay you $500,000 for use of your likeness, assuming you are wearing a really cool uniform, like ____________ (fill in booster's university) for instance."
When you refuse to reform yourself from within on your terms, someone will come along and reform you from outside on their terms.
 
#37
Welp. That's the end of college basketball
I think the more likely thing is there begins a rift in collegiate sports. I thought I heard that if that bill was passed, the NCAA was strongly considering banning California schools from competitions. The other 49 states are probably ok for now...
 
#38

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
I think the more likely thing is there begins a rift in collegiate sports. I thought I heard that if that bill was passed, the NCAA was strongly considering banning California schools from competitions. The other 49 states are probably ok for now...
NCAA won't have to change at all. If a player takes money they can't play and if a school allows it they are banned. This is all for show. NCAA is a private voluntary association.