Big Ten Proposes Free Transfer

[HooperScooper]

It's the same pool of players, they shift around. All teams will be able to fill their roster. Players have a chance to get out of bad situations faster. Coaches have more ability to fill roster holes quickly.

All the games will be played. It's not like the ocean will swallow NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis or anything.

I'm not sure what is not fine about that.

Can you name a single problem that this would likely cause that is serious at all?

I could write a long post giving my side of the argument about how it would hurt team sports at the college level. But I don't feel like it.

 

[navery12]

Well this is just so obvious it’s ludicrous. E.g. Akok and Bouknight have breakout freshman years. Decide they want up their game a notch and transfer next year. Hurley is screwed and by the way Jackson decides there are better options. The program building is back to square one. Seems like this may be a problem for somebody.

But this is only half of the rule and the other half helps teams. It's like saying it hurts players because coaches will be more willing to force them out and ignoring the fact they can leave too

 

[pj]

Definitely would create more of a meritocracy for the players, better players would prosper, the injured and underperforming would be more likely to be driven out since they can be easily replaced. Good part of it for all players would be the opportunity to fix a mismatch / poor choice of school.

Definitely would be a "the rich get richer, the poor poorer" change for the schools. Freshman year might become a year to show-off talent and then musical chairs with weak players driven out of the top schools and top players moving up a level. I could see a lot of the weaker schools cutting coaching salaries and recruiting budgets. Why invest in recruiting if the good players are going to leave after 1 year, the weak players stay for 4? No coach has a 100% hit rate, especially at mid-majors.

For the low-to-mid majors, this would help the coaches who are great at game coaching, hurt those good at recruiting, with mixed effects on those good at player development.

Overall, I could see this acting as a transitional step to a P5 separation, with the rest of D1 and D2 becoming a feeder system for P5 athletics. Maybe Big East basketball wins too due to the big northern markets it brings.

For me as a fan, my interest in college sports would be lessened. It would become more pro-like. I think in the end the NCAA may end up shooting itself in the foot, losing its distinctiveness and losing the good sides of amateurism.

 

[bmayuc]

I could write a long post giving my side of the argument about how it would hurt team sports at the college level. But I don't feel like it.

Ah the refuge of anyone with a bad argument. Take your ball and go home. Cool man!

 

[bmayuc]

Well this is just so obvious it’s ludicrous. E.g. Akok and Bouknight have breakout freshman years. Decide they want up their game a notch and transfer next year. Hurley is screwed and by the way Jackson decides there are better options. The program building is back to square one. Seems like this may be a problem for somebody.

I always love the posts that wildly assert that a slightly more free labor market would lead to chaos despite the fact that we literally have an entire worldwide economy and all of the data in recorded history AND other sports leagues that prove this is not the case.

You know what will happen? Economics tell us that workers will be able to demand better compensation and protections and the market will operate more efficiently.

I also love how people get so myopic and only consider downside risks. UCONN MIGHT LOSE PLAYERS!!!! AHHHHHH!!!!

**whispers** yes and after a coaching change you can turnover your roster with players more easily too!

**Whispers** maybe this will mean that working conditions improve for the players so that programs try and retain their best workers.... Like in every other business in the world.

Lol at all of you

 

[Kenny11]

I would be ok with this if poaching players from other teams during the season from a coach or assistant, even indirectly, carried a huge penalty like a one year suspension or even a termination of the head coach regardless of who on staff was involved. Kids should be able to transfer without penalty but coaches shouldn’t have to worry about their players being recruited during the season.

 

[HooperScooper]

Ah the refuge of anyone with a bad argument. Take your ball and go home. Cool man!

Well because I don't really care to argue on a message board. It's pointless. I have an opinion and other people have opinions. I don't mind stating mine and I don't mind reading the opinions of others. But I hate arguing on here. There's enough of that already and I just don't care to do it any more.

And don't be a jerk about it just because I won't engage you in an argument. If you have to feel like you won, then you won. Feel better?

 

[Hurleyman216]

Another thing this would do is de-value recruiting. If you have a coaching staff that can identify under the radar guys and you aren’t a blue blood then you’re just setting yourself up for losing guys. I guess with Hurley as our coach I would like our chances of keeping recruits because guys generally seem to respect coach and want to play for him. One thing about college sports that I like more than professional is that there is some loyalty to a school or program (even if it is slightly forced by the transfer rules). If this gets pushed through they might as well make it the NBA, pay the players and allow trades as well. Most of the schools will end up not having b-ball programs as only the top 30-40 schools will have enough $$ to thrive and sustain their programs. Like most “free markets” the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer and there will be not much in the middle.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Another thing this would do is de-value recruiting. If you have a coaching staff that can identify under the radar guys and you aren’t a blue blood then you’re just setting yourself up for losing guys. I guess with Hurley as our coach I would like our chances of keeping recruits because guys generally seem to respect coach and want to play for him. One thing about college sports that I like more than professional is that there is some loyalty to a school or program (even if it is slightly forced by the transfer rules). If this gets pushed through they might as well make it the NBA, pay the players and allow trades as well. Most of the schools will end up not having b-ball programs as only the top 30-40 schools will have enough $$ to thrive and sustain their programs. Like most “free markets” the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer and there will be not much in the middle.

This is picking up steam again. It's all over Twitter. Rothstein and others talking about it.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This is picking up steam again. It's all over Twitter. Rothstein and others talking about it.

More. ACC joins B1G in supporting this. "The current system is unsustainable".

Inside the NCAA on Twitter

“Division I student-athletes in all sports could have the opportunity to compete immediately after transferring one time if a proposed change to waiver guidelines is adopted by the Division I Council this spring. https://post original url/Es7MfhHLj4”

twitter.com

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Free agency will be good for about 10-20% of the players, and really bad for the rest of them. It will be a lot easier for a coach to pull scholarships for players that he thinks are underperforming, if he can just grab an experienced transfer that will be eligible the next season. Every player will be looking over his shoulder the whole season. Which will quickly turn into no one being committed to anything because they can leave whenever they want. Players don't just commit to a school and a coach, they commit to their teammates. But that will be impossible in a free agency system.

Also, there will be intense pressure to cheat in a free agency system. A coach on the hot seat will have to get top talent in free agency, which means he will have to pay up, getting the talent by whatever means necessary. How many Enoch's will there be around the country in that environment?

I am in favor of making transfer rules more player friendly. Remove the "4 in 5" requirement. Make more exceptions for immediate eligibility. For example, I would be in favor of a minutes requirement or a player can change schools immediately. If a school isn't going to play a kid, then that kid should be allowed to leave without penalty.

I am not in favor of open free agency.

 

[BlueMAB]

A one time transfer without a punishment isn't open free agency.

 

[intlzncster]

I'll repeat what I said on the football version of this post.
I don't like it. In my cynical view, this is so the big dogs can pick the cherries off the lower teams and send their own cherry pits back. Rich get richer with no penalty and the smaller school likely loses out in the exchange.
Great for the student athletes, absolutely awful for "G5" schools.

To piggy back on this. All this does is make a free developmental system for top schools. Lesser schools can take lesser talent, with the diamonds in the rough and/or developmental guys, put in the work, and when it comes time to reap the benefit, lose those kids to marquee teams.

Great for the kids yes, but bad for the sport. Gotta balance the two somehow

 

[HuskyHawk]

Free agency will be good for about 10-20% of the players, and really bad for the rest of them. It will be a lot easier for a coach to pull scholarships for players that he thinks are underperforming, if he can just grab an experienced transfer that will be eligible the next season. Every player will be looking over his shoulder the whole season. Which will quickly turn into no one being committed to anything because they can leave whenever they want. Players don't just commit to a school and a coach, they commit to their teammates. But that will be impossible in a free agency system.

Also, there will be intense pressure to cheat in a free agency system. A coach on the hot seat will have to get top talent in free agency, which means he will have to pay up, getting the talent by whatever means necessary. How many Enoch's will there be around the country in that environment?

I am in favor of making transfer rules more player friendly. Remove the "4 in 5" requirement. Make more exceptions for immediate eligibility. For example, I would be in favor of a minutes requirement or a player can change schools immediately. If a school isn't going to play a kid, then that kid should be allowed to leave without penalty.

I am not in favor of open free agency.

It will suck in some ways, but it is only one time and the alternative is the NCAA micromanaging and making judgment calls. If a kid makes a mistake and isn't happy (Sid Wilson) making him sit out is just stupid.

So yes, not idea for the reasons listed, but the current system is awful.