Potential NCAA Transfer Policy Change

[Wolfie]

Terrible idea. Merely enriches the bigger programs, incentivizes bad practices among more unscrupulous programs, juices kids to jump at the slightest grievance--valid or not, and potentially destabilizes teams--mid-major or high-major--with a key player who might jump to a more visible program.
And proving 'tampering'--already difficult, will become nigh impossible.
This is the NCAA--again acceding to the elite programs in ALL major sports.

 

[MarkRedman]

I think that, in general, this is a very bad idea. With the rate of transfers increasing each year at an alarming rate even with players having to sit out a season, I can only imagine how many more kids would transfer if they could play at their new school right away. "Free agency" would cause havoc and make recruiting and roster development extremely difficult and challenging. Imagine losing key players during the summer and not having the time/ability to replace them for the next season.

One situation under which I would support a transfer with immediate play would be the case in which a coach leaves a school. While purists say that players should pick a school for other reasons, the reality is that the majority of kids largely base their decision on wanting to play for the coach that recruited and developed a relationship with them.

like I said, the concerns may be valid but the real question is why should the NCAA be allowed to have any say over an adult student's choices? If they want to treat them as being under contract then they need fair compensation and an actual contract (equitable if not equal).

That, of course, is a real and completely valid issue. The NBA won't draft kids out of HS. Could you imagine if a recording artist was told he could not sign a record deal until he is a sophomore in college and instead sing for his school? Of course it's a ludicrous comparison, but in the current NCAA system rife with competitive imbalances where the rich get richer in all ways, this will only hurt the less competitive programs IMO.

The high major programs are already raiding the mid majors for kids when they become "graduate transfers". . Now they'll just raid them as soon as the kid shows promise. The mid major programs will merely become farm teams for the high major programs. This is the NCAA way - the rich get richer and the poorer..

The guy who thought of this is as smart as Craig Carton!!

 

[Red.Fans]

I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment that the NCAA is looking out for more powerful programs but that is only one part of the picture. The transfers are not always from smaller to bigger schools. As often as not it is about kids who are getting recruited over or just not getting the PT they want or some other fit issue. So if I'm a major prospect and I could have been the star player on just about any school and I commit to a major program like say AZ. Then AZ decides to open up their purse strings and is shelling out big bucks to load up their team, why do I have to sit out a year because I was essentially lied to to get me to come to AZ and now I need a better opportunity (hypothetically)?

 

[austour]

I think that, in general, this is a very bad idea. With the rate of transfers increasing each year at an alarming rate even with players having to sit out a season, I can only imagine how many more kids would transfer if they could play at their new school right away. "Free agency" would cause havoc and make recruiting and roster development extremely difficult and challenging. Imagine losing key players during the summer and not having the time/ability to replace them for the next season.

One situation under which I would support a transfer with immediate play would be the case in which a coach leaves a school. While purists say that players should pick a school for other reasons, the reality is that the majority of kids largely base their decision on wanting to play for the coach that recruited and developed a relationship with them.

I agree, Between the players leaving early for the pros and the high rate of transfers already. There will be no continuity of a team. The LOI will be meaningless. I think this sounds good on paper , but, as said, would lead to chaos. Even though Matt is good at the transfer game, for every transfer he will get us, we will have a player leaving SJU and transferring to another school.

The continuity issue will also likely have a deleterious affect on the quality of play, and the quality of play has dropped far enough IMVHO so I hope this rule change is laughed out of committee as it should be.

 

[RedStormRising]

Finally the NCAA does something that benefits the people that are making they money and keeping them in cushy jobs.

It has been a long time coming, I hope they institute it as soon as possible.

 

[beast of the east]

I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment that the NCAA is looking out for more powerful programs but that is only one part of the picture. The transfers are not always from smaller to bigger schools. As often as not it is about kids who are getting recruited over or just not getting the PT they want or some other fit issue. So if I'm a major prospect and I could have been the star player on just about any school and I commit to a major program like say AZ. Then AZ decides to open up their purse strings and is shelling out big bucks to load up their team, why do I have to sit out a year because I was essentially lied to to get me to come to AZ and now I need a better opportunity (hypothetically)?

Charles Finley, the outrageous owner of the Oakland A's, proposed a solution to free agency that was driving salaries beyond the reach of small market teams and destroying competituve balance: makes everyone free agents each year by having all players have 1 year contracts.

If players can move freely by transferring, why sjould schools commit to 4 year scholarships? Grant them on a 1 year basis, and schools will be free to determine their roster each season.

All in all the system stinks now and will continue to stink. Thete is something wrong when a coach can make $9 million a year, as coach k reportedly does, where tv revenue and related revenue is in the billions, but the players don't make a dime except for free tuition and board.

 

[Redmenguy]

how about limiting the number of 4 and 5 star players a team can recruit/sign to help balance out teams? Since we're talking about amateur status, this could work. It will help even out teams and increase competition - and thus limit the need for fraud.

 

[L J S A]

how about limiting the number of 4 and 5 star players a team can recruit/sign to help balance out teams? Since we're talking about amateur status, this could work. It will help even out teams and increase competition - and thus limit the need for fraud.

Why stop there? We can let everyone in the tournament and name them all champs as well.

 

[beast of the east]

how about limiting the number of 4 and 5 star players a team can recruit/sign to help balance out teams? Since we're talking about amateur status, this could work. It will help even out teams and increase competition - and thus limit the need for fraud.

Why stop there? We can let everyone in the tournament and name them all champs as well.

I propose caps on the amount of under the table money a college can give a player.

 

[Mean Gene]

I think that, in general, this is a very bad idea. With the rate of transfers increasing each year at an alarming rate even with players having to sit out a season, I can only imagine how many more kids would transfer if they could play at their new school right away. "Free agency" would cause havoc and make recruiting and roster development extremely difficult and challenging. Imagine losing key players during the summer and not having the time/ability to replace them for the next season.

One situation under which I would support a transfer with immediate play would be the case in which a coach leaves a school. While purists say that players should pick a school for other reasons, the reality is that the majority of kids largely base their decision on wanting to play for the coach that recruited and developed a relationship with them.

like I said, the concerns may be valid but the real question is why should the NCAA be allowed to have any say over an adult student's choices? If they want to treat them as being under contract then they need fair compensation and an actual contract (equitable if not equal).

That, of course, is a real and completely valid issue. The NBA won't draft kids out of HS. Could you imagine if a recording artist was told he could not sign a record deal until he is a sophomore in college and instead sing for his school? Of course it's a ludicrous comparison, but in the current NCAA system rife with competitive imbalances where the rich get richer in all ways, this will only hurt the less competitive programs IMO.

The high major programs are already raiding the mid majors for kids when they become "graduate transfers". . Now they'll just raid them as soon as the kid shows promise. The mid major programs will merely become farm teams for the high major programs. This is the NCAA way - the rich get richer and the poorer..

The guy who thought of this is as smart as Craig Carton!!

What you guys say is true, the larger schools will take kids from the mid majors and lesser schools but they will still only have 13 scholarships to give correct?

 

[austour]

I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment that the NCAA is looking out for more powerful programs but that is only one part of the picture. The transfers are not always from smaller to bigger schools. As often as not it is about kids who are getting recruited over or just not getting the PT they want or some other fit issue. So if I'm a major prospect and I could have been the star player on just about any school and I commit to a major program like say AZ. Then AZ decides to open up their purse strings and is shelling out big bucks to load up their team, why do I have to sit out a year because I was essentially lied to to get me to come to AZ and now I need a better opportunity (hypothetically)?

Charles Finley, the outrageous owner of the Oakland A's, proposed a solution to free agency that was driving salaries beyond the reach of small market teams and destroying competituve balance: makes everyone free agents each year by having all players have 1 year contracts.

If players can move freely by transferring, why sjould schools commit to 4 year scholarships? Grant them on a 1 year basis, and schools will be free to determine their roster each season.

All in all the system stinks now and will continue to stink. Thete is something wrong when a coach can make $9 million a year, as coach k reportedly does, where tv revenue and related revenue is in the billions, but the players don't make a dime except for free tuition and board.

I'd much rather see them get paid then get the freedom to transfer freely.