Big Ten Proposes Free Transfer | The Boneyard

Big Ten Proposes Free Transfer

Saw that. Interesting.
 
Free agency. Good for the kids but would be an absolute disaster for team sports like basketball.

Note: I edited out "schools" and replaced that with "team sports like basketball." That's more what I meant.
 
Last edited:
This most definitely benefits the power 5 schools...if we think paying players is bad now, just wait until UK, Dook and UNC can pay players from other teams to switch to their team. It would be chaos and would to some extent make coaching of 2nd hand importance as guys wouldn't stay at one school for 4 years.
 
.-.
I actually think this will be beneficial for schools and they'll get behind this
 
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.
 
It may not be good for some student athletes. Coaches often take a multi-year approach to teaching physical and mental skills, and some coaches may be reluctant to put that investment into a kid who they think will just jump to a bigger school the following year.
 
.-.
Fairfield_1st said:
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.
Expand ...
Agree with this AND agree that its good from a student-athlete perspective. Its also the end of viable college sports.
 
Fairfield_1st said:
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.
Expand ...
Another angle:

This potential move could players who barely played in bigger schools the benefit of transferring to a smaller school and finishing their college careers playing more ball (because it's more fun to play a larger role for a team), possibly showcase their talents to the pros and then graduate in four years.

For example, over the offseason Iowa reserve wing Maishe Dailey transferred from Iowa to Akron. Played three seasons for Iowa, averaging between 7 and 16 minutes per game each season. Akron picked him up, so even though he's already played for three years, he has to sit out a year before being eligible to play for Akron in 20/21. With one more year of college, would it make more sense to just let him play this year and then have him graduate from Akron in May?
 
Good. Coaches can leave and take a new job with no penalty. Why shouldn’t players be able to leave for a better situation for themselves?
 
Fairfield_1st said:
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.
Expand ...
Yep, just like the Rising Star G5 coaches. They leave or get picked off and go on to P5 success hurting the players he recruited and the G5 school.
 
.-.
I'm not sure how this would work, but I'd be in favor of it if UConn could transfer to the Big 10 for free.
 
HooperScooper said:
Free agency. Good for the kids but would be an absolute disaster for schools.
Expand ...

People always assert this with no justification or reason it is true.

It's just nonsense. The schools will be fine.
 
borninansonia said:
It may not be good for some student athletes. Coaches often take a multi-year approach to teaching physical and mental skills, and some coaches may be reluctant to put that investment into a kid who they think will just jump to a bigger school the following year.
Expand ...

Uh, no. Freedom of choice is better than... Checks watch... A multi year training program?

God the reasons to be against transfers just continually get dumber.

And this is one of those posts that, if you think on it, continually gets worse.

So think about what real world situation this "negative consequence" would actually impact. No one. What is the idea, that small schools will stop recruiting good players out of fear they will transfer? Uh, no. That coaches would not invest time in player development? Uh, no.

cmon guys
 
Last edited:
bmayuc said:
People always assert this with no justification or reason it is true.

It's just nonsense. The schools will be fine.
Expand ...
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. You also have no justification or reason that schools will be fine. Well the schools will be fine, but I can't see how most basketball teams would.
 
HooperScooper said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. You also have no justification or reason that schools will be fine. Well the schools will be fine, but I can't see how most basketball teams would.
Expand ...

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?
 
bmayuc said:
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?
Expand ...
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 know a kid playing division 2 soccer who is stuck because of the whacky transfer rules. You get to a school and what the coach pitched to you isn't exactly what is taking place. You feel like you aren't getting a fair shot or you are being overlooked, currently there isn't much you can do. You cannot legally be recruited by other teams. You can't get a feel for if another team wants you or not. You could enter your name into the transfer portal but at that point your current team could and probably would pull your scholarship and could also take away all pt. Then you have to hope that another team is even interested it else you may not have a team to play for. Oh yea and then even if you find another team most likely you end up sitting out an entire season because of the transfer rules. Seeing it first hand it's really hard on the students.

I think giving them more freedom if movement and allowing them to gauge interest some how before leaving would be great for everyone. Imagine a work world where you couldn't find a new job before quitting your current one. Most people would be stuck in 1 job for their entire career. Think about how different the companies are that we have worked for throughout our careers. I think the same applies to college sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj
bmayuc said:
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?
Expand ...
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.
 
Bulldog said:
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.
Expand ...
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
HooperScooper said:
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.
Expand ...

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

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
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,557
Messages
4,583,012
Members
10,493
Latest member
Mwil1032


Top Bottom