New Transfer Rule Discussion

[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.

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'

It's not about being scared of change, it's legit concerns about tampering and people taking advantage of the rules.  College basketball is already got enough shady characters taking advantage of the rules and getting away with it like Sean Miller, Will Wade, Bruce Pearl etc.  This new rule is just helping guys like that out even more and hurting the coaches that do things the right way.  You can't put together a legit argument that more tampering won't be going on and how the NCAA can control it.  Because they won't be able to control it and probably won't even try to.  A kid that a school wanted and lost in a recruiting battle, the first time they see him get benched or look unhappy, they can easily just reach out to a handler and tell them we got a spot for him, and the kid can then just shut down on the team in the middle of the season and enter the transfer portal with no consequences, that's just not right.  You seen kids this year with the rule just leave before the season was over.

Also, If you know anything about Frank Martin he loves his players and would do anything for them, he's a players coach.  He has a great reputation as a developer and is a final 4 coach, he'll be a college basketball coach as long as he wants to be, so you saying he's just bringing up concerns because he's only worried about his job is being disingenuous and not doing your research on the person.  He's old school tough like Nolan Richardson, John Thompson II, etc.  Those guys build relationship with the kids being tough and that's how they build/built their successful programs, those guys know sometimes kids have to get tougher rather than just run at the first sign of adversity and that rule just encourages quitting on your team soon as things don't go your way.

 

[Delaware]

Feels like this has gotten out of control.  I'm willing to see how things work out after this year, but my initial reaction is it's not good for college basketball.  For me, as I've gotten older, I tend to follow a lesser number of schools and conferences.  With all these impending transfers, it's going to be almost impossible to follow or stay on top of many teams and conferences.

 

[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'

It's not about being scared of change, it's legit concerns about tampering and people taking advantage of the rules.  College basketball is already got enough shady characters taking advantage of the rules and getting away with it like Sean Miller, Will Wade, Bruce Pearl etc.  This new rule is just helping guys like that out even more and hurting the coaches that do things the right way.  You can't put together a legit argument that more tampering won't be going on and how the NCAA can control it.  Because they won't be able to control it and probably won't even try to.  A kid that a school wanted and lost in a recruiting battle, the first time they see him get benched or look unhappy, they can easily just reach out to a handler and tell them we got a spot for him, and the kid can then just shut down on the team in the middle of the season and enter the transfer portal with no consequences, that's just not right.  You seen kids this year with the rule just leave before the season was over.

Also, If you know anything about Frank Martin he loves his players and would do anything for them, he's a players coach.  He has a great reputation as a developer and is a final 4 coach, he'll be a college basketball coach as long as he wants to be, so you saying he's just bringing up concerns because he's only worried about his job is being disingenuous and not doing your research on the person.  He's old school tough like Nolan Richardson, John Thompson II, etc.  Those guys build relationship with the kids being tough and that's how they build/built their successful programs, those guys know sometimes kids have to get tougher rather than just run at the first sign of adversity and that rule just encourages quitting on your team soon as things don't go your way.

I never brought up tampering.  But tampering has always happened.  Cheating has always happened.  If you think it doesn't then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn too.  Put parameters around it to avoid tampering.  Put deadlines where kids can only leave after season and before a certain date next season.  Go for it but rules have always and will always be circumvented.  Not condoning it but saying its a fact.  Sounds like thats a bigger issue than the actual free movement of a kid.

I have nothing against Frank Martin.  You brought his name up.  I would say that for any coach you mentioned.  It is funny how his name always seems to come up linked to other jobs.  Yet in his 9 years at SC he has made one tournament.  I chalk that up to a really good agent.

I respect kids having to toughen up.  Sadly that isn't the makeup of most kids who play college ball.

 

[Knight]

I think some restrictions need to be placed on colleges.  Limit the number of transfers into a school thus making them recruit from incoming freshmen.  Schools need to have a goal of retaining kids for 4 years.

 

[Mean Gene]

I agree with Lawman, you allow free transfer when a coach is either fired or leaves, for a hardship situation or if they are a graduate transfer. Anything outside of those three situations and the player has to sit out a year. 

 

[Moose]

I agree with Lawman, you allow free transfer when a coach is either fired or leaves, for a hardship situation or if they are a graduate transfer. Anything outside of those three situations and the player has to sit out a year. 

1. Many players have affinity for the assistant coaches who were lead in their recruitment.  Playing devils advocate- What about if that assistant leaves?

2. The hardship waiver is what got us into this mess in the first place.  Some were approved some weren't.  There was no rhyme or reason.  There was way too much uncertain ground.

 

[fuchsia]

I agree with Lawman, you allow free transfer when a coach is either fired or leaves, for a hardship situation or if they are a graduate transfer. Anything outside of those three situations and the player has to sit out a year. 

Hardship would need to include "conflict" situations within current school.  Think Phil Ford or the star center getting rough with your kid sister.

 

[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.
 

To be clear, I didn't take a position in favor of either option.  I think they both have their drawbacks.  There is a lot of merit to Moose's position that it would require coaches and programs to adapt, and that the giving the kids more freedom of choice is worth the costs that would be associated with that (assuming I understand his POV correctly). 

There's also a lot of merit to the position that kids who commit should be held to that commitment unless there is some significant change of circumstances, not only for the good of the game but sometimes for the good of the kids as well.

I think some middle ground could perhaps be found, but it would require a lot of thought to come up with a set of criteria for transfer that is fair, transparent and consistent (which as Moose pointed out the current one is not so much).

It's a tough problem to solve.

 

[GardenCity62]

I agree with all of layman’s points but the coaches have to look at the rule as a means of improving their team as Anderson did with the signing of Smith or they will be out a job. Fans who became attached to certain players and who enjoyed watching them progress year to year now have to realize that may no longer work out.
For SJU this rule change only means they have a chance of adding one or two big men who actually improve the team which has been a sore point for years and perhaps another outside shooter.

 

[SJU85]

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.

 

Rules for D2 and D1 are different starting with the fact most D2 players don't get full scholarships and definitely can get more between no repayable grants, academic scholarships and school aid.  It is why is the none revenue D1 sports with no real pro links, it is better for some to go D2 or even D3 and get more money for school.

As for the stipends, the "housing stipends" are only given to players who live off campus at schools where school sponsored housing falls below a certain percentage of the overall student enrollment figures.  St. John's I believe still qualifies.  Off course, the school still doesn't have to provide those stipends (while St. John's in the past provided them for basketball, they did not for the other sports).  Those stipends were a nice piece of change for those who lived at home or in an apartment splitting living expenses (and paying under market value in some cases as the apartment building owners or management went through the school and the school made payments directly taking money out of the stipend.  School received a cheaper rent as the owners knew payment would come in full on-time guaranteed).

There is also meal money you receive under certain circumstances when traveling that you can save and other things.
 

 

[WillyDilly]

Whatever the NCAA decides, it needs to be an all or nothing approach. If they want to eliminate the sit out rule for athletes, then no one has to sit out a year. But if they want to implement a requirement for transfers to sit out a year, then every athlete must sit out a year, regardless of the reasoning behind it. The NCAA got themselves into a pickle by allowing all of these special 'exceptions'....which ultimately turned it into a very arbitrary process.

A very simple solution would be to eliminate the sit out rule, but also have the following condition: If the season has already started, transfers are not eligible to participate in any sport related activities until the current season is officially complete. The student would have to transfer prior to the start of the season, or wait until the following year to play at their new school.
 

 

[SJU85]

Whatever the NCAA decides, it needs to be an all or nothing approach. If they want to eliminate the sit out rule for athletes, then no one has to sit out a year. But if they want to implement a requirement for transfers to sit out a year, then every athlete must sit out a year, regardless of the reasoning behind it. The NCAA got themselves into a pickle by allowing all of these special 'exceptions'....which ultimately turned it into a very arbitrary process.

A very simple solution would be to eliminate the sit out rule, but also have the following condition: If the season has already started, transfers are not eligible to participate in any sport related activities until the current season is officially complete. The student would have to transfer prior to the start of the season, or wait until the following year to play at their new school.

 

I respectfully disagree that it has to be one or the other (all or nothing).  My take has always been in favor for a player not having to sit out a year if they transfer from a school where the coach left (fired, resigned or whatever reason), was told by the school their scholarship was not being renewed (unless it due to academic ineligibility) or there is a legitimate hardship reason as specifically defined by the NCAA (death or serious illness of a parent, spouse, sibling or guardian).  If none of these applies, they should have to sit a year.   The problem really arose as you said was the "special 'exceptions'....which ultimately turned it into a very arbitrary process."  Define specifically what the exceptions are and don't leave it up to interpretation where it then becomes an arbitrary process.

 

[IDRAFT]

I think its perfectly reasonable and fair that college students can transfer whenever and wherever they want. Now if those students happen to be Division I college basketball players they are not only students but some sort of employee of a University who run a revenue producing business related to basketball. We can argue about if the current compensation is enough, but it's not zero. It also varies greatly by school. So if the employees and the employer want to allow free transfers that's up to them to decide and work out. Same for paying players more, etc.

On the other hand the games are the product the schools sell. And if anyone doesn't feel interested in buying the new product that's fair too. I'm going to observe and see where things go, but as the customer I'm not feeling this at all. We'll see I guess.

Whether colleges should be involved in the sports business is an excellent question but right now they are. A big business. If they want to keep that business humming they are going to have to work out an agreement with their employees that the customers find satisfactory. Because if they can't the whole thing falls apart. 

 

[Redmen88]

The rules need to be black and white with no grey areas like "hardship cases".  If you transfer then you must sit out a year unless your coach leaves.  Only in that instance are you able to transfer and play right away.  When you sign with a coach/school then it is a commitment that you should live with.  It is unfair to schools, coaches and fans for half the team to transfer in any given year with no repercussions to the player.  

I believe someone else mentioned this is the same reason I don't watch pro ball any more.  I dislike the fact that players move around so much and form "super teams".  I enjoyed seeing a team grow and get better vs bringing in 4 all stars for a few years (See Nets, Warriors, Heat, Lakers).  Teams don't grow up anymore like the Jordan Bulls, Ewing Knicks, etc.  This is where College ball is heading.

 

[Moose]

Just did a bit of googling.  Seems like 30-40% of all college students transfer.  Just some food for thought.

 

[IDRAFT]

Just did a bit of googlin
g.  Seems like 30-40% of all college students transfer.  Just some food for thought.

I agree. My question is are these students or semi-professional basketball players? I saw more than a few posts mentioning how Myles Powell made a big mistake returning to Seton Hall for his senior year of classes and getting his degree. I will say -  none from you. But that is a strange comment for anyone to make about a college student. Also - who is saying they can't transfer? The only thing being discussed is can they play basketball immediately or have to wait to do so. 

When my son was a junior in college my wife was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer.  Radical surgery and chemo was to be involved and he made the decision that he needed to transfer home to help the family. He had received close to a full academic scholarship, and when we told the school he needed to transfer we were advised that the scholarship was contingent on him graduating in four years - from that school - and so we had to repay all the back tuition. 

So yes - always read the fine print!  But also if these kids are students they are not being hurt by sitting a year. Do they ever get asked to repay the financial aid they have received?  I'm not aware that they are and I'm not aware that they are not allowed to take classes while sitting out. In fact I thought the transfer rules were designed to make it easier for the students to acclimate to a new school.

Now if the idea is let's be real these kids are not students they are already professional basketball players that seems reasonable to me. But then how much real students transfer has nothing to do with any of this.


 

 

[Moose]

Just did a bit of googlin
g.  Seems like 30-40% of all college students transfer.  Just some food for thought.

I agree. My question is are these students or semi-professional basketball players? I saw more than a few posts mentioning how Myles Powell made a big mistake returning to Seton Hall for his senior year of classes and getting his degree. I will say -  none from you. But that is a strange comment for anyone to make about a college student. Also - who is saying they can't transfer? The only thing being discussed is can they play basketball immediately or have to wait to do so. 

When my son was a junior in college my wife was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer.  Radical surgery and chemo was to be involved and he made the decision that he needed to transfer home to help the family. He had received close to a full academic scholarship, and when we told the school he needed to transfer we were advised that the scholarship was contingent on him graduating in four years - from that school - and so we had to repay all the back tuition. 

So yes - always read the fine print!  But also if these kids are students they are not being hurt by sitting a year. Do they ever get asked to repay the financial aid they have received?  I'm not aware that they are and I'm not aware that they are not allowed to take classes while sitting out. In fact I thought the transfer rules were designed to make it easier for the students to acclimate to a new school.

Now if the idea is let's be real these kids are not students they are already professional basketball players that seems reasonable to me. But then how much real students transfer has nothing to do with any of this.



 

Clearly they are not regular students.  But also how many times do posters on here talk about how 'they are just kids'.  And kids make mistakes and want to change scenery whether they are biology majors or small forwards.  There is no question its not black and white here.  The scholarships are technically renewable each year.  Kids do get forced out but its often framed as good for the student.  In your example where you were told to re-pay the loan no in the team's instance they take that schollie and give it to another kid.  So suddenly the script is being flipped and everyone is up in arms.

No matter what side of the aisle we can all agree this has not been fully thought out but shouldn't shock anyone when it come to the NCAA.

 

[Ray Morgan]

If you are a player, it's a great idea. If you are a coach, it may be a great idea, depending on who you coach. For fans, it also depends. If St.John's lands a few 4 or 5 star players, then this transfer rule is great. If we lost a few good players, not so much.

Is it good for the game? A lot of people hated the 3 point shot at first, and hated baseball free agency. Players adapt, schools adapt, and fans adapt as well. None of us is going anywhere next season but in front of our TVs, or going to CA if normal life returns. I know that this rule is going to hurt mid-majors. It may hurt some high majors as well, especially us. I'm concerned about losing our better players who just want to experience the dance one time before their careers are over.

I like college basketball because, unlike the NBA, I can watch a young team grow and develop, and reach their NCAA tournament dreams at the same school they started with. With this rule, those days are gone for good.

 

[SJU85]

Just did a bit of googling.  Seems like 30-40% of all college students transfer.  Just some food for thought.
 

As the proud parent of two college graduates, both of whom were transfers (one from a community college to a four year one and the other from one four year school to another), and knowing some of their friends did the same, that percentage doesn't surprise me.

 

[monte]

Just did a bit of googling.  Seems like 30-40% of all college students transfer.  Just some food for thought.

What % play revenue generating sports, and receive the compensation and perks that come with it? Again, we can debate whether or not the compensation is fair, but the average student pays a school for an eduction. That's one kind of business arrangement, but it's a whole  lot different then the business arrangement which takes place between a school and its revenue producing athletes.