Garcia to UNC and Kofi to UK would be the definition of nauseating. It would also be entirely expected for a fanbase that has been cupped up for over a decade.
That depends on how you define fair. If every team is bending or breaking the rules, is it still playing fair if you follow their letter? Or is it more fair to start bending or breaking them as well?(whispers) we haven't been playing fair for a while now
There was an interesting take on this at IlliniBoard that essentially boils down to this being a covid thing.
This is the TL;DR version. Typically, the NBA draft is in late June and the deadline to withdraw is prior to the NCAA transfer portal deadline. This year it's reversed with the transfer deadline being July 1st and NBA Draft withdrawal July 7th. In order to be able to transfer without being required to sit out a year, names had to be in by 11:59 pm yesterday. The thought is that Kofi put his name in to keep the no-sit transfer rule in play in the event we didn't have a spot for him if he comes back, and that others who have put their name in both the portal and the draft are doing the same thing. They're hedging their bets.
I know some will scoff at this at being too optimistic. It might be, but I thought it was still worth sharing.
OA left some on the table but not Chin.If memory serves, he was offered more to stay, but my memory is not what it used to be.
The new transfer rules are mostly temporary, though. I don't see any reason to think that NCAA basketball players will be playing musical chairs with teams in perpetuity. I think we currently have a confluence of several unique situations (COVID-induced loosening of transfer rules, NIL, rising profile of the G League) that are causing turmoil.This makes perfect sense and well thought out. I still lean on it being too optimistic yes. I think we'll know pretty quick if he is thinking about other schools. If there is any hint he is in contact with another program, I immediatly think he's leaving.
It's a bit frustrating how BU just can't keep people around. I understand there are circumstances and every situation is different, but you've lost you top in state recruit to LSU, you've lost 3 assistants that you apparently offered big money to and still left, you've lost a high level recruit in Storr because he apparently wasn't bought in to BU yet, you potentially could be losing the best big recruit in a long long time to another school as well. Maybe I'm too harsh, maybe this happens to everyone, but man, dudes seem to be skipping outta here quick.
With the new transfer rules, this has become rhe wild west.
You might be right. I do however think there is a growing thought of player empowerment (which in most cases I'm all for) that if given the chance, most think that the grass is greener on the other side.The new transfer rules are mostly temporary, though. I don't see any reason to think that NCAA basketball players will be playing musical chairs with teams in perpetuity. I think we currently have a confluence of several unique situations (COVID-induced loosening of transfer rules, NIL, rising profile of the G League) that are causing turmoil.
When some players get burned by not having a team after entering the portal, it will cause the numbers to go down for marginal players. I don‘t see the trend changing for players who have done well. And I don’t think the 1 time transfer rule is going anywhere. If anything it will be expanded over time. Or at least there will be a push for it.The new transfer rules are mostly temporary, though. I don't see any reason to think that NCAA basketball players will be playing musical chairs with teams in perpetuity. I think we currently have a confluence of several unique situations (COVID-induced loosening of transfer rules, NIL, rising profile of the G League) that are causing turmoil.
I have to amend my previous statement and version of this post. The COVID transfer rules were made permanent in that a student athlete who transfers does not have to sit a year provided it is their first transfer. This is the first time that has happened, so there is going to be a lot of people jumping at the chance because there are 4 classes of players that never had that benefit. But next year, there will only be one class of players who haven't had that benefit, so the number of transfers should decrease in part because there are going to be a lot fewer eligible (and interested) players and also because some student athletes will be burned by this by overestimating their own prospects.When some players get burned by not having a team after entering the portal, it will cause the numbers to go down for marginal players. I don‘t see the trend changing for players who have done well. And I don’t think the 1 time transfer rule is going anywhere. If anything it will be expanded over time. Or at least there will be a push for it.
Curious what parts of the transfer rules you see as being temporary?
There will be a lot of ebb and flow on this these first years. Some will figure it out faster than others, but eventually there will be tiers that will surface based on the money generated for the players. Also the rules established by the NCAA at this point are temporary. Significant changes may occur although I have no idea what that might mean.We could all be big fans of this NIL stuff here in a couple months.
That is correct on the one time waiver. Although they can make exceptions to that on a case by case basis like they did previously.Players are getting a free pass to transfer without sitting a year due to COVID. It's a one-time blanket waiver, and once we enter the next academic year, transfer rules revert back to having to sit a year. At that point, the opportunity cost associated with transferring increases and you will see far fewer players jumping around.
Hmm. I now see they made that decision permanent, but if I recall, it only can be used one time.
It will be interesting for sure. Last year the NCAA was already allowing a lot of waivers, but going back to 2019 there was just short of 1000 transfers. (Compared to 1716 at last count this year). It will still be a thing, but I agree this year will likely be the max whatever that number ends up at.I have to amend my previous statement and version of this post. The COVID transfer rules were made permanent in that a student athlete who transfers does not have to sit a year provided it is their first transfer. This is the first time that has happened, so there is going to be a lot of people jumping at the chance because there are 4 classes of players that never had that benefit. But next year, there will only be one class of players who haven't had that benefit, so the number of transfers should decrease in part because there are going to be a lot fewer eligible (and interested) players and also because some student athletes will be burned by this by overestimating their own prospects.
I think this will all reach an equilibrium within a season or two. We will see more transfers than before, but nothing like this year.
I thought a new policy was in effect that allowed all first time transfers without a sit out year going forward. The next one required a sit out.That is correct on the one time waiver. Although they can make exceptions to that on a case by case basis like they did previously.
If Kofi hires an agent to find a team to play college ball, does he then lose eligibility to play in the NBA?
I don't see any reason to think that NCAA basketball players will be playing musical chairs with teams in perpetuity.
I think you are missing my point, though. What I am suggesting is that athletes can only transfer without sitting a year one time, so it won't be a constant churn. The fact that some will get left with no date to the dance after this round of transfers will probably also make future transfers think a little harder about transferring in future years.The cream of the crop, roughly the top 50 top college guys each year, as judged by potential, will go pro with realistic expectations of getting to the NBA. Below that is a less differentiated pool of talented players who are still difference makers at the division 1 level. The big dance is 68 teams, so you don't have to be great to make it, and making it is a huge deal for most coaches/programs. To me this means there will be a scramble for talent which opens up with NIL opportunities. I expect that to change what we currently view as the norm.
For sure there will be players who stay. I can see various categories --guys who make spending money and don't see a reason to disrupt their education, marginal players who won't attract attention either way, and guys who are difference makers who've used their free transfer but still aren't ready for various reasons (injury, etc). But the guys just outside the draft will be the most coveted, and make rosters feel unstable. The differences between fan bases is significant, so IMO it stands to reason the NIL opportunities will be as well. And a lot of players already get questionable advice.
This year should be a record for turnover that stands for a long time, but I think the trend continues despite the one-off nature of it.
Are we going to show him the money?
You think he cares about that?What an impressive way to tarnish your legacy at Illinois...
When will the NCAA stop pretedning this is amateur sportsLet the bidding wars begin.
I mean I think he does but at the end of the day getting paid is priority one.You think he cares about that?
I think you are missing my point, though. What I am suggesting is that athletes can only transfer without sitting a year one time, so it won't be a constant churn. The fact that some will get left with no date to the dance after this round of transfers will probably also make future transfers think a little harder about transferring in future years.
I honestly don't see how NIL moves that needle much other than potentially influencing the one-time transfer decision of a player looking for a bigger pay day. But really, that's hardly a guarantee. A player in the NCAA builds their brand primarily locally, and transferring means they have to start over and may not get much in the way of NIL money right off the bat. The players with enough clout and visibility to get more national dollars likely have less incentive to transfer: they already have the visibility they need.
Transfers will almost certainly be more common given the new rules, but I don't think it's going to be the Wild West, either. The economics of it don't make sense. The question in my mind is how many off-seasons will it take for that to sort out.