Potential transfer changes getting big thumbs down!
- Thread starter hart2chesson
- Start date
I agree with what most of the coaches are saying....I think it potentially has quite an impact on the landscape of the game.
OFC
OFC
Coaches that are not in the OAD scenario will start recruiting from other colleges and build programs with transfers instead of High School seniors. Good or bad it will definitely change the landscape of College hoops again. The Marquis Boldens will not hang around for a 2nd year and grow with a program they will just go elsewhere. I think it will be utter chaos and look even more like the League with kids changing schools.
Will put more pressure on coaches too to keep a kid happy, given that he can walk out the door after the season and be in a new uniform the following season.
My first impression is that I don't like the notion of entering what amounts to free agency into college athletics.
I agree with the above comments by our posters, and think the players are exerting enough power with the OAD scenario.
OFC
OFC
Perhaps I missed something but will it look like September in the major leagues where college teams could "rent a player" for a tournament run? Or at least, if a coach sees by Thanksgiving that his freshman big men aren't working out, could he go look for replacements to come in the second semester? It's hard enough getting to know our players from year to year as it is now.
Why not allow it? I mean let's muck it up so bad that the pencil pushers in charge will do something to get game back more under control. Take what we've seen happen at Duke in last few years with one and dones: 3 go pro after title in 15, we lose 4 underclassmen this past season, will probably lose 5 more underclassmen after this season, and 1 will do it after reclassifying. We will see more kids probably do what Bagley is doing. Grayson is a senior by accident/luck. Unless something changes, our best senior day in years may be one of the last ones with watching a good player play his last game in Cameron.
So I say let's screw it up some more!
So I say let's screw it up some more!
It will definitely screw it up more! Like one of those coaches said, every postgame handshake line becomes open season!
OFC
I'm ok with the possible change. I would prefer that the player must stay at his original school of choice for 2 years though and transfer must be approved by majority % of league or conference schools. Yes, Bolden is the perfect example and why not give him the option of playing and potentially starting elsewhere. I think it would add a welcome twist to the recruiting game.
I think it would be horrible. The first thought that jumped into my head would be collegiate AAU. Then I read that and one of the last things Daniels said was it would be like AAU. I do like his suggestion that if a coach leaves those kids can transfer without sitting for a year if they want, however then the school could just flat out be without a roster or an extremely depleted one very easily. There are already a boatload of transfers every year, a large portion of which are just kids looking for instant gratification playing time. Now part of me says yes that is their right, the other part of me says when is enough enough. That part I'm torn on- bc while I definitely think kids have the (or should) right to do what they think is best for them, the idea that kids can get ACTUALLY RECRUITED OVER in real time anytime is absurd. This isn't even free agency this is free agency on steroids. So while I think there can be a happy medium, there needs to be some sort of rationale discourse put in place otherwise chaos ensues.
I think it will water down the game even more than it already is. You already have so many transfers, the most talented players going OAD or 2 and done, creating a lack of synergy and cohesiveness for a program. You do this and it just makes it that much worse.
Sometimes though it has to be made worse before the egg heads see it and change it. Like the NBA now possibly changing the one and done rule. Took them how many years and now guys that truly aren't ready to maybe do something different? Some coaches will get embarrassed, mid major teams will lose a kid to a power conference team after that kid improves.
Bobby Knight said it best years ago in an interview that if the NCAA had been in charge of the WWll invasion of Normandy, they would have landed in Greece
timo of course as Duke fans we naturally think of the recent Duke transfers but why not give them a fresh start at fulfilling their dream of being a star? Examples being Michael Gbinije. Obi and Jeter. Those guys should have been starting for some team and it didn't water us down too badly.
Here we all are thinking about guys like Bolden. He is the 0.1% This rule is a good thing for virtually every other regular, non-NBA athlete. Schools and coaches can pull schollies year to year with little to no warning, which totally screws over kids sometimes. The worst is when a coach knows they are leaving, but don't tell their players. I think we should empower the athletes just the same. Give them a one-time, penalty-free way out if things are not looking good. Sure, it makes it hard to hold top players accountable, but so what? Is that really the top priority here? It will only take guys a few seasons to realize there are risks when leaving too.
You use Bolden as a .1% example and then give a .1% example of schools pulling scholarships on kids? When does that ever happen?
The rest I tend to agree with you and @Mac9192 that there is a serious problem. I just don't think this is the solution at all. There has to be a happy medium. And if the nba is going to clear up the OAD issue, that helps the NCAA without having to do anything, to your point Mac, the less they do probably the better. I do think there needs to be some deregulating of rules for kids to have more freedom, but the all out free for all doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
Btw, the article correctly points out that there are over 800 transfers a year. That's insane. Shouldn't the goal be to try and decrease that number? Find constructive ways to help kids want to stay at the original institution they chose in the first place? I get that they're not regular students but they're still kids.
I'm still in shock that the NCAA is considering a rule that would actually benefit the athlete.
I say do it. This is America. The only example of slavery in this country is high level college sports. They create all this cash but don't see a dime and then they are told if they leave, they can't play for a year. Though a coach can go coach. A professor can go teach. A student can transfer and go study. If you weren't good enough to play at Duke and transfer to Alaska State A and M to just play, go ahead. We at least know who will be the leaders of this country in 20 years and who won't be
Coaches dont turn over at NEAR THE RATE players will change schools under the so called "Bilas Bill." Imagine if just one starter per school has this master plan when he signs on w/a mid-major, and elevates his game to status of transferring to big time program to get noticed more by NBA scouts.
OFC
OFC
It is more common than you think, just not when it comes to high value assets like Bolden. I'm thinking more about no-name players that fill out the rosters at non-power schools. I have two students right now that transferred in to our soccer team because coaches left them high and dry. Injuries can often mean the end of a scholarship. The athletes are never offered more than a handshake in terms of a 4 year guarantee. It depends on the school/coach as to what that handshake really means.
My point was that there aren't that many Boldens out there that could hypothetically shop themselves to good programs without worrying about not getting another offer. There are, however, many instances of young men and women whose future scholarships are up in the air because of things outside of their control. I just don't find it fair to restrict the athletes' mobility, but put zero restrictions on the coaches or the scholarships.
While that number is insanely high, I think that reflects how much money is at stake and how academics are often irrelevant in this business. The idea that we should try and restrict these transfers with regulations seems like flawed social engineering to me. If we did not bend academic standards for college athletes and allowed 18 year olds to go pro, I think that transfer number drops to like 100. I'm not sure changing transfer rules really addresses the root cause.
The college basketball purist in mean doesn't like it. I certainly like continuity. But the players shouldn't have restrictions; the sit-out year is tantamount to a non-compete clause, which in the business world, essentially means not competing against your former employer. It's hard for me to justify why a student-athlete, who isn't compensated, should be treated like an employee.
It would certainly make recruiting interesting. The turnover rate would be outrageous. But I think it might actually help Duke. If we only have 2-3 returning players, and let's suppose only 1 looks like a legitimate starter, then we could offer a lot of playing time. We could easily attract 3-4 OADs for most recruiting classes, as we're currently doing, and we could also steal a couple of transfers every class, too. The transfers could be potential starters, but more than likely they would be the key bench players.
It would certainly make recruiting interesting. The turnover rate would be outrageous. But I think it might actually help Duke. If we only have 2-3 returning players, and let's suppose only 1 looks like a legitimate starter, then we could offer a lot of playing time. We could easily attract 3-4 OADs for most recruiting classes, as we're currently doing, and we could also steal a couple of transfers every class, too. The transfers could be potential starters, but more than likely they would be the key bench players.
Currently, scholarships are 1 year each. There is no such thing as a 4-year scholly in D1 Athletics. Maybe a school can offer a 2,3, or 4 year scholarship with a binding clause that a student athlete can't walk out without waiting a year.
As it stands, I think the college has more power over the athlete.
As it stands, I think the college has more power over the athlete.
There is no question it's not fair for the athlete and the college absolutely has complete control. If it wasn't for media uproar and public embarrassment guys like Cam wouldn't have been allowed to go to unc without sitting a year. That's not fair at all. Having said that, I do believe there is a better solution out there than the one that was presented, that's my only point.
Slavery? Really? There is that thing that is called a Scholarship that allows Athletes to get a free education at some of the finest institutes in the country. I would hardly call that slavery. I did not have the opportunity to attend a Duke University because I was not athletic enough and my dad chose to drink my college fund away. I would have loved to been a Slave to the College sports world.
Get all of your housing, meals, stipends and clothes covered as well? Yeah that must really be torture.
I'm usually on the side of compensating players but when you make a moronic comparison to "slavery" you lose all credibility.
Like you I would have killed to be a D1 athlete, and while we are on the topic, the amount of D1 athletes that even have a gripe to earn more than I stated above is minuscule. I still think there should be another revenue stream for those athletes in revenue generating sports, but that's another topic.
So the scholarship is for 1 year. It has to be renewed every year. If a university wants to keep a student / athlete for 4 years, make it a binding agreement.
I agree with this sentiment. I should note that the college should be forced to honor a four year scholarship rather than a one year renewable. Obviously there are gray areas in everything so there have to be benchmarks met on each side, but this should be standard. A kid shouldn't lose a scholarship, especially if injured.