“95% certain” transfers will soon be allowed to play immediately in basketball & foot

[gopherguy15]

All I see are negatives across the board with this...

1) It would destroy many mid-major school's chances of making the big dance (or doing anything as a cinderella in March Madness). Think of an under-the-radar recruit that that was given a shot by a non-power 5 team. That school puts in the time and effort with the kid, only to see him leave right away. Loyalty would be a thing of the past.
2) It would create an unfair advantage to the blue bloods. Want to win a national championship? Just stock up with the great players from the lower power 5 schools and the mid-majors, and combine those with the one-and-dones. This would create super teams.
3) It would hurt most player's development. There have been many success stories of players struggling the first and/or second years of their college careers, only to blow up their junior and senior years because they put in the necessary work to become a better player. Adversity? Things not going exactly how you thought it would? Who cares, I'll just transfer to an easier situation.
4) Coaching will become nasty. Coaches with try to pry players away from other schools in droves. It will make coaching for mid-majors and lower power 5 programs even tougher.
5) It would change March Madness. Ready to see less and less upsets? Ready for #1 and #2 seeds to dominate the final four year in and year out? It would happen a lot more if this rule was passed.

Why not just make a rule that if your coach gets fired or leaves the team, all players have the option to transfer without having to wait a year?

 

[MennoSota]

Holy crap the wild west will begin...coaches will have to recruit their own players every year and will have to walk on egg shells for them.

Go Gophers!!

AAU basketball in college...
My first reaction is uggh.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I would assume the rule wouldn't apply to the season that they are in, rather it goes into effect the next year. If the NCAA goes this route, I'm sure there will be a timeframe after the season where the players will be given a chance to transfer if they choose.

Yep. He just said he thinks they shouldn't be treated any differently than regular students. If he really wanted it that way, then what I posted would be possible too. It never will be of course which is my point. They aren't regular students. They will always have more restrictions than regular students.

 

[cjbfbp]

Disagree.

Coaches who treat their players poorly will be hurt by this. Coaches who treat their players well won’t be hurt at all. Why is it bad to give more rights to players?

You're right. It is good to give more rights to players and it is long past due. I don't agree that "nicer" coaches won't have many transfers. They'll still have transfers.

There are over 700 transfers a year from D1 schools now. There will be far more if the sit out requirement is revoked. But, that's OK. If you lose a player by transfer, there will be plenty of transfers available to fill the positions.

 

[howeda7]

All I see are negatives across the board with this...

1) It would destroy many mid-major school's chances of making the big dance (or doing anything as a cinderella in March Madness). Think of an under-the-radar recruit that that was given a shot by a non-power 5 team. That school puts in the time and effort with the kid, only to see him leave right away. Loyalty would be a thing of the past.
2) It would create an unfair advantage to the blue bloods. Want to win a national championship? Just stock up with the great players from the lower power 5 schools and the mid-majors, and combine those with the one-and-dones. This would create super teams.
3) It would hurt most player's development. There have been many success stories of players struggling the first and/or second years of their college careers, only to blow up their junior and senior years because they put in the necessary work to become a better player. Adversity? Things not going exactly how you thought it would? Who cares, I'll just transfer to an easier situation.
4) Coaching will become nasty. Coaches with try to pry players away from other schools in droves. It will make coaching for mid-majors and lower power 5 programs even tougher.
5) It would change March Madness. Ready to see less and less upsets? Ready for #1 and #2 seeds to dominate the final four year in and year out? It would happen a lot more if this rule was passed.

Why not just make a rule that if your coach gets fired or leaves the team, all players have the option to transfer without having to wait a year?

They may well kill the golden goose. I was surprised to see SDSU's AD was on this committee. Imagine how hot the big boys would have been after a guy like Nate Wolters. Any time you find a kid like that, he'll be gone to the big boys by his sophomore or junior year.

 

[SM_25]

As for the basketball side of this transfer rule I don't think it would be a bad thing, but when you think about it for football, it is a very bad thing. Only reason is that Freshman can step in on a basketball court and dominate from day 1. Not the case for football players, so looking at it from the football side it is a little disturbing. I still stand by my opinion that it wouldn't be a bad thing for basketball, but it would absolutely kill teams in football.

 

[Former Goofer]

Benefits the blue bloods big time. Now they'll be able to pluck the great players from across the country that play for middling teams. They (Kentucky for example) wont have to totally rely on unproven incoming freshmen.

 

[LongLiveMilesTarver]

Could a player potentially play the fall semester somewhere and then transfer to a different school for the winter semester? If so, that is awful.

Lynch gets suspended? Whelp, time to raid Marshall and get Penava. Suitable replacement.

 

[jamiche]

The current transfer rule is unfair to players. The rumored change is unfair to universities, fans and will further "uglify" the sport. There should be a way to come up with a system that is fair for all parties but I have no faith in the NCAA's ability to make that happen. One option might be to allow players to have a one time "transfer with no waiting period" opportunity at the end off their sophomore year and any school found guilty of tampering (intermediaries included) would be banned from post season play for five years.

 

[cjbfbp]

The current transfer rule is unfair to players. The rumored change is unfair to universities, fans and will further "uglify" the sport. There should be a way to come up with a system that is fair for all parties but I have no faith in the NCAA's ability to make that happen. One option might be to allow players to have a one time "transfer with no waiting period" opportunity at the end off their sophomore year and any school found guilty of tampering (intermediaries included) would be banned from post season play for five years.

Some good thoughts there. As far as unfair to universities, I don't really see how. If you lose a player, you have an easier chance of finding a replacement as the transfer rate likely would swell. As far as unfair to fans, I don't think that's a problem either. Every team has players that the fans wish would stay and others they wish would transfer. I was more than happy to see Buggs go and Springs come. If we had this rule in effect this season, Stockman could be taking up most of the minutes now played by Konate and Gas.

I suspect they will develop significant rules and penalties for contacting and trying to sell to other teams' players. Perhaps it would be as simple as creating a national registration for intended transfers. If a player registers on that list, the transfer decision is irrevocable, teams cannot offer a scholarship to anyone not on that list, and teams cannot contact players unless their names appears on that list.

As a matter of course, I think they would have to limit the number of times a player could transfer without restrictions.

One possible outcome I could see: these changes have a good chance of practically eliminating the five year scholarship. As another poster mentioned, that would have a more adverse effect on football than basketball players.

 

[cjbfbp]

Could a player potentially play the fall semester somewhere and then transfer to a different school for the winter semester? If so, that is awful.

I doubt it. I believe scholarships are irrevocable to universities (absent aggravating circumstances) for one year now and we know that players have to sit out a semester if they transfer mid-season. I suspect they would retain those rules.

 

[GFBfan]

As for the basketball side of this transfer rule I don't think it would be a bad thing, but when you think about it for football, it is a very bad thing. Only reason is that Freshman can step in on a basketball court and dominate from day 1. Not the case for football players, so looking at it from the football side it is a little disturbing. I still stand by my opinion that it wouldn't be a bad thing for basketball, but it would absolutely kill teams in football.

Team basketball has been on the decline since the one and done era. This transfer rule will further erode that as players move to different schools. Teams won't have time to develop chemistry on the court and running a system on offense or defense. It is bad for either football or basketball.

 

[Some guy]

You'd be in favor of a player being able to transfer mid-season and being able to play right away then? Like Jordan Murphy saying screw this and transferring to another program that is much better but had a PF just get hurt? When it comes to academics, they can transfer anytime they want just like regular students.

Opening up transfers would hurt the game. The rich would get richer.

Sure. Why not.

Even if you’re talking about a good player. A good team adding Jordan Murphy at the semester break would probably be a chemistry killer wit the rest of the team.
The most talent doesn’t always win. Which is why I think coaches would be more careful than you think they’d be.

 

[Some guy]

Team basketball has been on the decline since the one and done era. This transfer rule will further erode that as players move to different schools. Teams won't have time to develop chemistry on the court and running a system on offense or defense. It is bad for either football or basketball.

That may be true. It also gives a major advantage to teams that stick together and more and more teams become odd mixes

 

[bigticket1]

Yep. He just said he thinks they shouldn't be treated any differently than regular students. If he really wanted it that way, then what I posted would be possible too. It never will be of course which is my point. They aren't regular students. They will always have more restrictions than regular students.

They are also coming out of college with a degree and no student loan debt hanging over their heads for a good part of their wage earning years, unlike the vast majority of regular students. I'm not saying they don't deserve that, but most regular students would love to be in that situation.