Jeff Jacobs: Transfer debate of vital importance to UConn

[huskymedic]

As discussed by Randy Edsall in his press conference yesterday:

Jeff Jacobs: Transfer debate of vital importance to UConn

 

[DoctorWho85]

My take is schools should not be allowed to block transfer to any other school, especially if they are a grad student eligible for immediate playing time.

I don't think the immediate transfer rule should apply to coaches that leave for another job. That further would help the P4 schools decimate any school they're poaching a coach from.

 

[jbdphi]

My take is schools should not be allowed to block transfer to any other school, especially if they are a grad student eligible for immediate playing time.

I don't think the immediate transfer rule should apply to coaches that leave for another job. That further would help the P4 schools decimate any school they're poaching a coach from.

The proposal includes a caveat saying that the players would not be allowed to follow the coach to his next destination which makes a lot of sense.

If the coach you committed to ends up leaving, why should you be penalized? Instead, allow the student to re-open their recruiting process in effect and let them choose a new coach / program which might fit their abilities better.

That being said, I agree that the net effect of the Big 12 proposal would be that the rich get richer. When an AAC coach gets poached away because they did so well, all of a sudden, all their best players are effectively fair game.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

My take is schools should not be allowed to block transfer to any other school, especially if they are a grad student eligible for immediate playing time.

I don't think the immediate transfer rule should apply to coaches that leave for another job. That further would help the P4 schools decimate any school they're poaching a coach from.

This whole thing is designed to help P5 schools. Oh we all missed on this kid? No problem come right in without sitting out a year.

 

[jbdphi]

This whole thing is designed to help P5 schools. Oh we all missed on this kid? No problem come right in without sitting out a year.

To play devil's advocate (and to argue against what I just said before as well), you could also look at the universe of kids who went to a P5 school that struggled or didn't get to see the field. Let's say their coach gets canned as well - all of a sudden they have the opportunity to re-evaluate where they belong and they might drop down to the G5 and get more playing time? Imagine Chandler Whitmer without having to take the JC route - saves him at least one, potentially two years off the existing system.

I still think the P5 nets out way ahead with this - the G5 becomes an unaffiliated D League equivalent but I still think for the kids it turns out much better.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

To play devil's advocate (and to argue against what I just said before as well), you could also look at the universe of kids who went to a P5 school that struggled or didn't get to see the field. Let's say their coach gets canned as well - all of a sudden they have the opportunity to re-evaluate where they belong and they might drop down to the G5 and get more playing time? Imagine Chandler Whitmer without having to take the JC route - saves him at least one, potentially two years off the existing system.

I still think the P5 nets out way ahead with this - the G5 becomes an unaffiliated D League equivalent but I still think for the kids it turns out much better.

Yeah so the G5 schools get the overrated kids who can’t play and the P5 schools get the underrated kids who can play. If this happens RIP UConn athletics.

 

[jbdphi]

Yeah so the G5 schools get the overrated kids who can’t play and the P5 schools get the underrated kids who can play. If this happens RIP UConn athletics.

You can't argue that it isn't better for the kids. They end up where they probably were supposed to be - it just kills the concept of Cinderella.

 

[UConnJim]

If the final rule is that kids can freely transfer after a coach leaves, when they are a grad transfer, or if the school is banned for the post season, I think that is fine and it shouldn't hurt UConn. That said, you could paint a scenario that a coach leaving could decimate a roster. Imagine if 40 kids transferred from a football team. The school would not be able to field a team the next year.

As for P5 vs G5 impact, I think the impact could be just as bad for P5 schools as for G5 schools. Why? In football, so many kids are buried on P5 depth charts that they would probably consider transferring if they were a free agent. In basketball, the same is true. Look at a kid like Semi Ojeleye at SMU last year. Top recruit and was buried on the bench at Duke, so he transferred to SMU, but he had to sit out a year. Ended up as AAC player of the year.

In basketball, UConn pays at the high end of college basketball, so if we are successful, coaches leaving voluntarily is probably not a concern.

 

[upstater]

The proposal includes a caveat saying that the players would not be allowed to follow the coach to his next destination which makes a lot of sense.

If the coach you committed to ends up leaving, why should you be penalized? Instead, allow the student to re-open their recruiting process in effect and let them choose a new coach / program which might fit their abilities better.

That being said, I agree that the net effect of the Big 12 proposal would be that the rich get richer. When an AAC coach gets poached away because they did so well, all of a sudden, all their best players are effectively fair game.

You commit to a school, not a coach.

This would destroy the G5, essentially. How many good football schools in the AAC lose coaches regularly? So every 5 years a coach leaves for elsewhere and everyone descends on the school to take the best players? NO.

 

[jbdphi]

You commit to a school, not a coach.

Unfortunately this isn't true and even HCRE acknowledged it in the article.

 

[DoctorWho85]

This whole thing is designed to help P5 schools. Oh we all missed on this kid? No problem come right in without sitting out a year.

That's exactly how this whole thing feels like it's designed to work. UCF had one of the best teams in the country last year and Frost got poached by Nebraska. If this rule was in affect now, what's to say Frost doesn't take all of his play makers to Nebraska with him basically destroying UCF's team next year? Unless the new coach is a genius of course

 

[TheDrifter75]

That's exactly how this whole thing feels like it's designed to work. UCF had one of the best teams in the country last year and Frost got poached by Nebraska. If this rule was in affect now, what's to say Frost doesn't take all of his play makers to Nebraska with him basically destroying UCF's team next year? Unless the new coach is a genius of course

Because..... It states that the coach can't take players with him. The player can leave if the coach does, just can't follow the coach to the new destination.

 

[J187Money]

Kids with NFL talent want to play in the NFL. I still believe if they are a standout at a G5 school with a clear path to the league they aren't just going to bolt at the first opportunity. We put guys in the league every year even though we stink.

A 3 star kid that blows up and decides to leave for Alabama still faces enormous risk that there will be some 5 star freshman that will put him back on the bench, and effectively kill his NFL dreams.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this will be net neutral or positive for the G5. Time will tell.

 

[upstater]

Unfortunately this isn't true and even HCRE acknowledged it in the article.

If you're committing to a coach, it is with the full knowledge that there is a good chance he won't be there your entire stay. Edsall also said the students are totally free to move to other schools (that's what these places are, schools) but not as one of the 13 scholarships. Further, he said schools need to commit to 4 years to each recruit to seal the idea in them that there is an implicit agreement between them, and then the players will show loyalty.

 

[whaler11]

Here is a shocker - I disagree.

The current rules essentially apply a non-compete clause on student-athletes. Do you have a non-compete at work? What did you get in return for it...

How about having a non-compete without compensation professionally if the entire potential length of your employment was 5 years.

Kids should be able to transfer just like any other student - like Upstater said these are 'schools'.

You want to know how to have these rules be a net positive for your program? Build a program that is attractive to good football players. Hire losers like Bob Diaco and Paul Pasqualoni and you get what you deserve.

 

[jbdphi]

Here is a shocker - I disagree.

The current rules essentially apply a non-compete clause on student-athletes. Do you have a non-compete at work? What did you get in return for it...

How about having a non-compete without compensation professionally if the entire potential length of your employment was 5 years.

Kids should be able to transfer just like any other student - like Upstater said these are 'schools'.

You want to know how to have these rules be a net positive for your program? Build a program that is attractive to good football players. Hire losers like Bob Diaco and Paul Pasqualoni and you get what you deserve.

I don't think you can have unrestricted free agency for all players - it would incentivize all sorts of horrific poaching behavior from all teams. That's the reason I prefer the Big 12 proposal even though it likely does hurt teams like UConn.

 

[noeynox]

I like how Randy talked about the old " committable" offer