- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 50,299
- Reaction Score
- 177,151
Do you think NIL intended for college sports to be pay to play with kids transferring to the highest bidder?I don't think this is an issue that is changing the face of college basketball, I just don't think NIL intended to provide an additional mechanism for schools to turnover rosters, and wouldn't mind seeing it nipped in the bud. I'm a big fan of the new transfer rules specifically because they allow players to have more control over their future. I am not a fan of this situation because I think it creates additional uncertainty around kids' futures too late in the portal process, specifically when you look at multiple de-commitments directly related to programs doing this happening in the last few weeks. I'm okay if you don't think it's a big issue, I can even admit I might be overthinking it, but I still don't like it.
St. John's, in my opinion, is actually looking like a really solid example of using that extra roster flexibility to their advantage. They landed a former top 50 recruit, and a guy who averaged 19ppg last year, who can hopefully re-stabilize their program, as their 14th and 15th guy at the time. If they have a successful year, they won't need all the roster turnover, and all is well again next year.
Given all of the advantages that NIL provides to schools, I don't personally think it should also be dictating the amount of roster flexibility programs have moving forward, even if it doesn't dramatically shift the competitive landscape. If a mid-major isn't capable of offering a potential transfer because they're at the scholarship limit, I don't think it's right that a team from a major conference could theoretically circumvent that limit so easily.
Seems to be a strange thing you're focusing on.