New Transfer Rule Discussion

[MakingPlays]

What are everyone's thought on the one time free transfer rule that will get voted on this off-season?  Me personally, I was all for it at first without knowing much about it, I'm always for player empowerment, but seeing as how there are nearly 1000 players already in the portal and the season isn't even over it's becoming clear this was not a well thought out plan and it's going to seriously affect programs moving forward.

The problem with just giving kids a free pass transfer is that it gives them too much power, and almost makes it where coaches are at their mercy.  You bench a kid the 2nd half because he doesn't do what you say the first half.... guess what he transfers out with no consequences.  A kid is late for practice and you sit him out a game or don't start him.... guess what he transfers out with no consequences.  This rule pretty much gives kids a one time no accountability pass.  And you're talking about 18,19, 20 year olds, they are going to mistakes and it's best for them to learn from them and be held accountable rather than just running off.

You look at Georgetown for example.  Patrick Ewing develops the Wahab kid for 2 years, brings him along slowly, and the kid finally starts to blossom and he just leaves.  Under normal circumstances if he had to sit out a year 9 times out of 10 he would have stayed, but now that he gets a free pass, he probably had people in his ear saying he should have been playing more before this, and so now he transfers, and all the development Ewing put into him is wasted.

And my biggest fear with this new rule is it's going to basically eliminate mid-majors from having good players longer than a year, and at the P6 level you'll see those schools take less kids that need development, they'll just let those kids go to mid-majors and then just snatch them up in the transfer portal after a year or two.  Basically using mid-majors as JUCOs.    Also, I think it's going to really hurt coaches that have a system that need kids to be in their program 2 or 3 years to understand everything they are trying to do, kids are going to have people in their ear, and they will just transfer rather than wait their turn and learn the system.  

I seriously think the NCAA needs to go ahead and just allow free transfers this one year and then put everything back to the way it was before starting next year, transfer numbers were already high with them allowing graduate transfers, now you're talking about potentially 4 or 5 kids transferring from every team every year, it would be ridiculous.

 

[RedStormNC]

I was against it, but more I thought about it, I just don't think it's right to tell a kid he can't leave because he's not in a good situation to find a better situation.

Many coaches probably tell lots of lies and over promises to gets kids to sign.  They have no obligations to the kid after that.

Some kids will attempt to transfer and end up without a scholarship. Some doing it on bad advice, being nicely forced out etc. That's the worst of it, not the low to mid major coaches that lose talent they recruited. They will survive.

Otherwise make it legit 4 year guaranteed scholarship/committments with 1 year sit out if break other than true hardship.

Otherwise coaches should sit a year for jumping to greener $ pastures, after reeling in kids who then feel like they have to leave as they are not the new coaches type.

its sad and crappy all around and alums/fans really don't care as long as their alma mater comes out on top.  



 

 

[mjmaherjr]

I hate the idea and will end up making me root less for college hoops. I have no problem with kids being able to transfer and not have to sit if a coach leaves. This will make college hoops even dirtier with coaches. Matt A will thrive though

 

[Moose]

I’ve always been a big proponent of it. The covid year is making it seem worse. Give it two years for others to see you can’t just leave on a whim. More often that not it will backfire. Then the rule will be used more appropriately for the serious situations when a player needs to leave. 

 

[RedStormNC]

Initially I was against it, but I just don't think it's right to force someone to sit out if they think there is a better situation. 

Sadly some of these kids who transfer (by their own choice or being pushed out) may find themselves without a scholarship / team next season.  

Coaches don't sit out for taking a better job.  They make over promises and some cases lie to get kids to sign and then that's it until the next kid comes along who is potentially better. The mid major coaches will survive or just take the talent from the high majors that didn't live up to expecttations. Like a big game of musical chairs.

So much money involved by everyone and the alums/fans really don't care so much either as long as their school colors come out better when then music stops.
 

 

[GardenCity62]

As making plays posted I found it hard to come up with a reason for the new transfer rule until I heard John Rothstein explain what was behind the reasoning this weekend. John is certainly one of the most informed college basketball reporters.
He said the NCAA has no intention of paying the players but they will allow them to make money selling jerseys etc. but no direct payments. To appease those pushing for payments the NCAA will pass rules favoring the players, and this is the reason for a free transfer. The coaches hate it and the first casualty will a lowering of the scholarships from 13 to 10. Since players 11, 12 and 13 are the ones most likely to transfer that will cut down the number of transferrees and coaches will find it easier to keep 10 players happy with their playing time.
The down side to this change will be about a thousand less scholarships for high schoolers every year. At least this explanation tells me that the NCAA didn’t lose their minds with the free transfer rule.

 

[monte]

Not sure why anyone would be shocked at what's going on. Yeah it's made worse by the additional year granted to kids, but even without that it was a ludicrous idea. If a coach leaves i get it. If there are extenuating circumstances I get it. But the way it is now I am dead set against. If this continues, I'll follow college ball about as much as I follow pro ball, which is basically not at all. Probably add years to my life anyways. 

 

[Sjugrad13]

I’m happy for them. They already play for free at least you can allow them to dictate their happiness. All I hope is that we can get our own in the transfer pot and keep it moving. When it comes to ST. John’s I’m always going to root for it regardless of the players. 

 

[mjmaherjr]

D'LO who knows if he would have stayed but I love the fact he did and turned his life around and I'll root for him whatever he does

 

[L J S A]

Sadly some of these kids who transfer (by their own choice or being pushed out) may find themselves without a scholarship / team next season.

 

This is not being talked about enough.

Kids who were ranked highly and bombed at a major school will presumably always find a place -- Igiehon, for example -- at a mid-major or the local school they should have gone to in the first place.

Kids who put up big numbers will likely also always find a place.

But for the hundreds of kids who put up bad numbers at low and mid-majors who are in portal, where on earth are they all going to end up?

 

[MakingPlays]

Initially I was against it, but I just don't think it's right to force someone to sit out if they think there is a better situation. 

Sadly some of these kids who transfer (by their own choice or being pushed out) may find themselves without a scholarship / team next season.  

Coaches don't sit out for taking a better job.  They make over promises and some cases lie to get kids to sign and then that's it until the next kid comes along who is potentially better. The mid major coaches will survive or just take the talent from the high majors that didn't live up to expecttations. Like a big game of musical chairs.

So much money involved by everyone and the alums/fans really don't care so much either as long as their school colors come out better when then music stops.

 

How many coaches leave for a different job every year?  10-15?  We're talking thousands of transfers here.  It's not comparable.

And as far as the mid-majors, no it's not the same.  They'll be losing their best players to high majors, guys that help make their programs relevant and help them make the tournament that can play at any level, and they'll be getting the Josh Roberts type of players who averaged 2 PPG at the high major level in return, that's not an even trade for them.  The high majors are going to scoop up any type of productive players in the portal, guys that have had success aren't getting in the portal to take a step down they are trying to move up. 

Also, this new rule heavily encourages tampering.  Just using an example here... let's say that 17 point game Stef Smith (our newest recruit) had against St. John's happened this year rather than last year, how easy would it had been for one of our assistants to reach out to his AAU coach or high school coach after the game and throw a hint that we'd be interested in him if he entered portal.  While I'm sure that's breaking rules, that would be extremely hard to prove and track down so a lot of coaches are going to do that, especially if they have a good relationship with some of the AAU or high school programs, those schools aren't going to risk telling the NCAA and getting their players in trouble.  Heck, I'm sure some of the AAU/High School coaches might be reaching out to the college coaches during the season now if their kid is unhappy asking would they have a spot available for them in the off-season. 

The rule just has so many holes in that people can take advantage of.  Even at the NBA level they have rules for tampering and have steep fines if a team is caught because they know how it can seriously affect things. And the thing about that is the NBA has trouble keeping up with all the tampering with just 30 teams, and you're talking about the NCAA trying to successfully manage it with 352 teams.  They are just asking for a disaster.

 

[gman]

I’m a hypocrite because I don’t like it yet I transferred colleges. I don’t have a problem with the sit out 1 transfer. It makes you question. If your motives are right. This years free for all is just ridiculous. Rosters all over are going to see 50% turnover.  

 

[monte]

I’m happy for them. They already play for free at least you can allow them to dictate their happiness. All I hope is that we can get our own in the transfer pot and keep it moving. When it comes to ST. John’s I’m always going to root for it regardless of the players. 

They don't play for free. They are compensated in education, room and board, meals, trainers, etc etc etc . Granted you can argue that the compensation isn't sufficient, but they don't play for free. 

 

[MakingPlays]

I’ve always been a big proponent of it. The covid year is making it seem worse. Give it two years for others to see you can’t just leave on a whim. More often that not it will backfire. Then the rule will be used more appropriately for the serious situations when a player needs to leave. 

Even before this Covid year things were getting out of hand with all the transfers.  There's literally coaches, like Musselman at Arkansas that have been making a living off the transfer market for years, he refers to it as free agency, and he checks the portal several times a day.  The number of transfers were growing each year, even before the Covid year. 

Listen to Frank Martin's most recent interview talking about the transfer market.  He's been pretty vocal about how hard it is to build a program since they've been making a lot of exceptions the past few years and kids have been manipulating the free grad transfer system.  Tubby Smith also had an interview a couple years ago talking about it when he was at Memphis.  Old school coaches that have systems, develop players, and build programs over time are going to struggle as you can see.  There's not really a place for them anymore,  because now if you're not a coach consistently landing 4 or 5 star recruits or a coach that's not landing 15 - 20 PPG transfers, you're at a huge disadvantage, because the players you recruit to develop if they aren't ready in the first year or 2, they are now transferring out.

 

[MakingPlays]

I’m happy for them. They already play for free at least you can allow them to dictate their happiness. All I hope is that we can get our own in the transfer pot and keep it moving. When it comes to ST. John’s I’m always going to root for it regardless of the players. 

They don't play for free. They are compensated in education, room and board, meals, trainers, etc etc etc . Granted you can argue that the compensation isn't sufficient, but they don't play for free. 

People always say that, but have no idea.  Most players get a stipends, get financial aid (FASFA), and some even get a work study job that pays them as well. My best friend was a D2 football player, and his refund checks he got use to be like 3k a semester and he wasn't even that good, and this was 10 years ago.  They also hooked the football players up with like work study jobs in the library, cafeteria, workout gym, etc. places they would be hanging out at anyways and they got money from that as well.  I'm not saying they are rich or anything, but all these people that be like oh they play for free or don't get any money, they have no clue.  I'm sure most D1 high major players are probably getting around 5k+ a semester in stipends and aids, and then I'm sure some that have decent grades the coaches get them local scholarships and stuff and they get money back from that as well.

 

[MarkRedman]

While I am an advocate of the new transfer rule, I feel badly for the mid major schools in this process.

They take kids who don't have high major offers, work hard to develop their skills, have them become really good players and them lose them to transfer to high major programs who now want them.

It reminds me of MLB, where the small market teams (ie: Marlins, Rays, etc and in the "old days", the Expos, etc) would develop young talent into potential star players and then have to trade them before they enter free agency due to an inability to pay them market value.

 

[MainMan]

While I am an advocate of the new transfer rule, I feel badly for the mid major schools in this process.

They take kids who don't have high major offers, work hard to develop their skills, have them become really good players and them lose them to transfer to high major programs who now want them.

It reminds me of MLB, where the small market teams (ie: Marlins, Rays, etc and in the "old days", the Expos, etc) would develop young talent into potential star players and then have to trade them before they enter free agency due to an inability to pay them market value.

You mean like benefitting from the Vermont staff's molding of Stef Smith and getting a finished product without having to go through the growing pains of his underclassman years?
Yep.
But he gave them four great years and will be in their record books for years to come.

 

 

[Amaseinyourface]

While I am an advocate of the new transfer rule, I feel badly for the mid major schools in this process.

They take kids who don't have high major offers, work hard to develop their skills, have them become really good players and them lose them to transfer to high major programs who now want them.

It reminds me of MLB, where the small market teams (ie: Marlins, Rays, etc and in the "old days", the Expos, etc) would develop young talent into potential star players and then have to trade them before they enter free agency due to an inability to pay them market value.

You mean like benefitting from the Vermont staff's molding of Stef Smith and getting a finished product without having to go through the growing pains of his underclassman years?
Yep.
But he gave them four great years and will be in their record books for years to come.


 

Right but he graduated from Vermont, I think that’s a little different. I’m all for the players getting one chance to leave without sitting, but markredmen has a point. Just like a hot coach from a small school getting hot at the right time and turning it into a bigger job, players like Max Abmas will probably be tugged at like never before because they had such success in the tournament. That will now be one potential downside of these small schools playing well in March.

 

[Moose]

I’ve always been a big proponent of it. The covid year is making it seem worse. Give it two years for others to see you can’t just leave on a whim. More often that not it will backfire. Then the rule will be used more appropriately for the serious situations when a player needs to leave. 

Even before this Covid year things were getting out of hand with all the transfers.  There's literally coaches, like Musselman at Arkansas that have been making a living off the transfer market for years, he refers to it as free agency, and he checks the portal several times a day.  The number of transfers were growing each year, even before the Covid year. 

Listen to Frank Martin's most recent interview talking about the transfer market.  He's been pretty vocal about how hard it is to build a program since they've been making a lot of exceptions the past few years and kids have been manipulating the free grad transfer system.  Tubby Smith also had an interview a couple years ago talking about it when he was at Memphis.  Old school coaches that have systems, develop players, and build programs over time are going to struggle as you can see.  There's not really a place for them anymore,  because now if you're not a coach consistently landing 4 or 5 star recruits or a coach that's not landing 15 - 20 PPG transfers, you're at a huge disadvantage, because the players you recruit to develop if they aren't ready in the first year or 2, they are now transferring out.

I'm so sorry Frank Martin's job just got harder.  /media/kunena/emoticons/whistling.png Him and his brethren can promise the world to a kid then go back on that word and/or pick up and leave for another job without penalty.

Why are so many people scared of change.  That goes for coaches, that goes for fans too.  College basketball and football are the only sports where transfers had to sit out.  And we saw in recent years how they started to play the game of giving waivers.  Making a kid stay at a school and making the lives of the other kids is just as bad of a punishment including for the coaches who have to deal with it.  

I'll never sit here and defend the NCAA.  They are corrupt as they come.  But they tried to do the right thing with the waivers.  It quickly got out of hand.  They rightfully so started floating the one year transfer.  Then they screwed themselves with the Covid year extension.  Just give it time.  In 2-3 years I strongly feel it will level off.  There is a lot of dynamics at play here.  Maybe it will make the game even more exciting leveling the field.  Teams won't have 1-12 of 4 star kids where 4 of them are unhappy.  It's just wayyy to soon to judge it IMO.

By the way its ironic the rule isn't even official yet which is scary because the NCAA is so backwards I can easily see them changing course under 'pressure'

 

[lawmanfan]

Two ways to look at it:

1.  Free transfer for (a) coach quits/gets fired; (b) hardship; or (c) graduation.  This rule essentially tethers the player to the school unless they either have a good reason to leave or they've "earned" departure via graduation (i.e. the fiction that high D1 players are "student-athletes").  It perpetuates the existing system which provides a level of predictability and continuity for fans, schools and coaches, empowers coaches to discipline players, and arguably helps coaches develop players (since younger people often don't like (at least at the time) things that turn out to be good for them in the long run).

2.  Free transfers for all!  This rule upends the existing dynamic, and empowers the players at the expense of the schools, fans, and coaches.  It would require good coaches and programs to adapt and to find new tools to assist in player retention, but even the best coaches would certainly see their retention rates drop significantly.  There are definitely benefits for the players - they can leave any situation that they perceive isn't right for them, move closer or farther from home, move up or down to an appropriate level without losing a year, maybe find a system that fits them better or who will develop them better.  Of course, to benefit from the rule change, players would have to be sophisticated consumers, which is sometimes true and sometimes isn't.

I think where you fall on this probably depends to some extent on your view of the role market forces should play versus regulation, or perhaps what constitutes reasonable regulation versus unreasonable regulation.

I don't think either solution is a perfect world, and it's hard to see where a middle ground could be found (maybe some more criteria for qualification for an immediate transfer?), so a hard choice will have to be made one way or the other in view of the competing interests.