Jim Calhoun on transfers

[Ts5034]

In the Courant article on this, Dickenman comments: "If you spend four years at a school, and you have another year, you should spend the extra year at that school. Why change? The school gave you a scholarship, serviced you for four years, I think you owe it to that school. That's my opinion..." Having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that somehow the player owes the school an extra year of their life.

PS - the use of the term "serviced you" is just plain awkward. Just saying.

I could see Howie's point, but I thought the whole point of the graduate transfers was they can play right away at another school IF their current school does not offer the graduate program they want to enroll in and they still have a year of eligibility remaining.

 

[Rocklander]

Given the current situation of transfers to UConn he should not vocal about this issue.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

I could see Howie's point, but I thought the whole point of the graduate transfers was they can play right away at another school IF their current school does not offer the graduate program they want to enroll in and they still have a year of eligibility remaining.

Well sure, that was the intention of the grad transfer rule. But very few kids take advantage of the rule for that reason. Sterling Gibbs and Lasan Kromah didn't cite any of our graduate programs as a reason why they transferred.

But either way, I think people are blowing the transfer "problem" way out of proportion.

 

[breezy]

Crazy how many people are saying JC would indulge in transfers if he were still coaching. Ya, he concedes that multiple times in the article. That doesn't mean he likes the trend.

 

[champs99and04]

I still think people are misrepresenting what he is saying.

As a fan, I dislike the fact that transfers are as prevalent as they are, notwithstanding the fact that it has obviously helped UConn recently. But my dislike of the transfer in high volume does not mean I do not support the rights of players, or that there are not many instances in which a transfer is beneficial to both parties. I don't think any less of a kid like Samuel or Lubin, nor do I think less of the multiple transfers we have brought in. I don't think JC does, either, but that doesn't mean it is a positive development for the game when player-coach relationships are as fickle as they currently are.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Nobody likes the fact that 750 kids transfer each year. I just don't see it as something that needs to be "fixed," nor do I see a reasonable way to "fix" it.

We shouldn't act surprised that lots of kids transfer. Regular students transfer all the time. Head coaches change jobs all the time. These kids don't sign their life away when they commit to a school. They only have 4 years of eligibility. If they don't play much in their first 1-2 years and the writing on the wall indicates that this isn't likely to change, who can blame a kid for leaving? It's a simple math equation: every program gets 13 scholarships but no program has a 13 (or 12, or 11...) man rotation. Not every 12th and 13th man is going to transfer, but it makes plenty of sense to me that a lot of them do.

So how do you fix it? They've done away with the "sick grandma" waivers, which I think is a good thing. What else is there to do? They aren't going to reduce the number of scholarships. They can't hold a kid hostage at his current school. Making a kid sit for 2 years is cruel and unusual. I think it's just something the sport has to live with. And if you want to give the grad transfers (the kids who actually earned their degrees) a hard time by making them sit a year, congratulations...you've reduced the number of transfers to 700 per year.

 

[ctchamps]

Borges blog vs. Borges article: Did Borges rush the blog resulting in disjointed JC quotes or were the quotes accurate and Borges, being familiar with JC speak, translated it properly in the article? The article changes a lot of what was stated by JC in the blog.

I'm with the crowd that doesn't like transfers, particularly to the degree that is taking place. I prefer getting to know players and even four years is too short a time.

But players should have the option of leaving and the rule in play for undergraduates, sitting out one year, is more than punishing enough for a student athlete. Anything more would open the NCAA to a lawsuit. A player can contend a coach offered a certain set of conditions in the recruitment process and failed to meet those conditions. Of course the coach could argue those conditions were met and the player failed his responsibility but that is the can of worms being opened up if stronger attempts were made to stop transfers. IMO, if a coach leaves an institution (fired, dismissed, move to better program, that change would be a break of a contract and a player should be able to transfer to any school he prefers and play immediately.

As stated over and over, grad students are not transferring. They have met their academic qualifications. Any restrictions should open the NCAA to a class action suit.

 

[UconnFanNVa]

I still think people are misrepresenting what he is saying.

As a fan, I dislike the fact that transfers are as prevalent as they are, notwithstanding the fact that it has obviously helped UConn recently. But my dislike of the transfer in high volume does not mean I do not support the rights of players, or that there are not many instances in which a transfer is beneficial to both parties. I don't think any less of a kid like Samuel or Lubin, nor do I think less of the multiple transfers we have brought in. I don't think JC does, either, but that doesn't mean it is a positive development for the game when player-coach relationships are as fickle as they currently are.

You gotta ask why they are so fickle? Honestly for a kid that isnt a grad student (5th year transfer) and you have to sit out a year, why would you put yourself through that? You have to really think that coach and or school's situation isnt a good fit for you and your future. If they are willing to take a 1 year hit just to switch schools, and its not just a few kids its a lot. What is going on?

 

[dennismenace]

You gotta ask why they are so fickle? Honestly for a kid that isnt a grad student (5th year transfer) and you have to sit out a year, why would you put yourself through that? You have to really think that coach and or school's situation isnt a good fit for you and your future. If they are willing to take a 1 year hit just to switch schools, and its not just a few kids its a lot. What is going on?

Couple of things come to mind but the big thing from players point of view must be playing time or
quality of team/opponents. For most players these years are the make or break for any possibility of playing overseas or the NBA. Pretty hard to find a job in the work force for that kind of $$. I can fully understand that driving point. This is THE opportunity for that career.

 

[2Husky]

In the Courant article on this, Dickenman comments: "If you spend four years at a school, and you have another year, you should spend the extra year at that school. Why change? The school gave you a scholarship, serviced you for four years, I think you owe it to that school. That's my opinion..." Having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that somehow the player owes the school an extra year of their life.

PS - the use of the term "serviced you" is just plain awkward. Just saying.

The school "gave" you a scholarship out of the kindness of its heart not asking for anything in return and only you received any benefits from the arrangement. If only there was some way a univer$ity could in someway benefit from student athletes. Its like saying we gave you a bunch of free coaching. No, you coached the kids because you wanted to win. Pretty sure pro teams don't highlight all the coaching available to players in their contracts. The coaching is provided because it benefits the organization, it also benefits the kids which is good.

 

[David 76]

What bull!
First of all the kids don't get a four year scholarship. They get one at a time.
And all the coaches (including JC) have made it clear to certain players that their future is dim if they stay at Coach's college. So, forced out transfers are OK and it is only bad when it hurts the poor coach.
Let's compromise and make 4 year scholarships mandatory for player and coach. And neither can leave.
Sheesh!

 

[Gringo]

Crazy how many people are saying JC would indulge in transfers if he were still coaching. Ya, he concedes that multiple times in the article. That doesn't mean he likes the trend.

You managed to contradict yourself in consecutive sentences. Not easy to do. I think it's your Rick James moment.

 

[DogMania]

yeah disagree... two of our transfers have a 5th year and are continuing their education... another one the coach he committed to left and he didnt want to follow him... it's a huge decision for kids out of high school and maybe it turns out that it's a bad choice after a year it's understandable to leave...

Add to that...though someone might have already brought this up...Miller would have liked to stay at Cornell but Ivy league rules prohibit such. UConn simply provided a nice new home for him so that he could take advantage of playing that 4th season of college hoops. As for Gibbs, he's getting out of what seems to be a serious dysfunctional environment at SH. I can understand that this 5th year transfer thing being completely appropriate for some legit student athletes that want to go to grad school but also take advantage of that 4th season that they deserve. I'm sort of on the shelf about the ones that simply want greener pastures so are taking advantage of the rule at the expense of the program that recruited them and the fans that have rooted for them. I really don't know what changes they could make. To make them sit out a season when they already have had to sit out due to taking some sort of red-shirt year may it have been medical or otherwise, just doesn't seem fair either. Making the stay at that program or forfeit that 4th season if they go elsewhere doesn't seem fair either, especially if the current school is not the best grad program situation for them.

IMO, this is one of those it is what it is and let's just make the most of it. I really don't see all that much down side other than a program losing a player that they gave a non-medical red-shirt season and then not being able to take advantage of that decision. Maybe simply changing the rule that if the 5th year is the result of a non-medical red-shirt year, then make them sit out a year to take that 5th where they are, but if it's a medical red-shirt situation, not make them sit out. What do you think about that idea?

 

[DogMania]

Dom Amore did a more thorough job than Borges from the same event.
http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-franciscan-banquet-0603-20150602-story.html

Calhoun (and Howie D) were commenting on transfers in general, and the fact that there were 750 of them last year. That is a big number.

750 is a surprisingly huge number. I know there are a lot of programs and a lot of players at those programs but to have 750 who sat out a season as a medical or non-medical red-shirt is an eye popping number. Is this an anomaly or a growing trend? As I noted in my other post, one change they could do is make the non-medical red-shirted 5th year players sit out a year since the program gave them that red-shirt year, may it be voluntarily or mandatory in the case of an undergraduate transfer. That program has invested time and money into that student athlete in those two cases and it would seem right for the player to reward that program with that 5th year. Now if that school doesn't have the grad program they want, they can go elsewhere but have to sit out a year before getting to play that 4th season.

Hum...realizing that many of the 750 are probably transferring for a second time...as to how many that would be interesting to find out...that number doesn't seem quite as big as I thought considering how many undergraduates seem to transfer each year. UConn seems to lose 1 or 2 each year. I wonder what the average of undergrad transfers per team is each year. How many D1 teams are there? I just looked up an RPI ranking list and there were 351 ranked programs. I had no idea that there were so many. Let's just say on average it's 1.5 players per team, I'm guessing it might be more than that. That's 421 undergraduate transfers in any given year, leaving just 329 who sat out a season due to injury or voluntary non-medical red-shirt, which still seems like a big number. I know the 5th year rule is relatively new, but doesn't it seem that the number of 5th year transfers went from a small number to a fricken huge one this past year?

 

[2Husky]

750 is a surprisingly huge number.

750 is all transfers. there were only 50 graduate students, its pretty rare and there is no justification for limiting someone who graduates from continuing their education where they see fit, even if their primary reason is basketball. 700 undergrads is a lot would like to see it reduced and i think you do that by changing recruiting. I hope the NCAA is surveying the transfers to try to figure whats really going on. I suspect there are a lot of different factors, but many boil down to it not being a good match. I would also like to know how many are because the coach (or assistants) left.

I'm sort of on the shelf about the ones that simply want greener pastures so are taking advantage of the rule at the expense of the program that recruited them and the fans that have rooted for them. I really don't know what changes they could make. To make them sit out a season when they already have had to sit out due to taking some sort of red-shirt year may it have been medical or otherwise, just doesn't seem fair either. Making the stay at that program or forfeit that 4th season if they go elsewhere doesn't seem fair either, especially if the current school is not the best grad program situation for them.

IMO, this is one of those it is what it is and let's just make the most of it. I really don't see all that much down side other than a program losing a player that they gave a non-medical red-shirt season and then not being able to take advantage of that decision. Maybe simply changing the rule that if the 5th year is the result of a non-medical red-shirt year, then make them sit out a year to take that 5th where they are, but if it's a medical red-shirt situation, not make them sit out. What do you think about that idea?

I don't understand why a student graduating and pursuing another degree elsewhere is somehow at the expense of the original school/fans. The school didn't provide anything they couldn't have gotten anywhere else, otherwise it would be an NCAA violation. Scholarships are 1 year renewable, and coaches often push players out so I don't understand why the student should have a multiyear obligation to the school, when the school has basically no obligation to the student. The student did what they were supposed to on and off the court while they were a student. Both sides satisfied their obligations to each other and if the school is interested in the student continuing after graduation they can make their case. Leaving after graduation is what is supposed to happen. There is nothing stopping fans from continuing to root for that player if they pursue a graduate degree, just like many fans root for former players who are in the NBA.

 

[J187Money]

You'd like it to be less. But what are you going to do? It's like marrying someone after 4 dates under circumstances that aren't real (courtship phase).

When the players choose to leave I'm good with it. I just don't like it when coaches push players out.

 

[2Husky]

You'd like it to be less. But what are you going to do? It's like marrying someone after 4 dates under circumstances that aren't real (courtship phase).

When the players choose to leave I'm good with it. I just don't like it when coaches push players out.

I'm doing all I can, complaining on message boards. I'm also ok with players choosing to leave, I'd like it to be fewer because I feel like players who transfer and sit a year for the most part are worse off, than if they had ended up at the right school in the first place. I also think players develop faster when they can play in real games and not just practices so that redshirt year isn't good for a player, unless they can use it to rehab an injury that would have caused them to miss time anyway.

 

[J187Money]

I'm doing all I can, complaining on message boards. I'm also ok with players choosing to leave, I'd like it to be fewer because I feel like players who transfer and sit a year for the most part are worse off, than if they had ended up at the right school in the first place. I also think players develop faster when they can play in real games and not just practices so that redshirt year isn't good for a player, unless they can use it to rehab an injury that would have caused them to miss time anyway.

Clearly in a lot of these cases players are compounding bad decisions with more bad decisions. But we live in a free country. And these kids are young and a lot of them are immature. I don't like restricting freedom of movement, and agree there should be a penalty for undergrads. I think the year off is fair.

 

[joober jones]

Maybe he's referring to the fan experience as far as us emotionally investing in players and watching them grow for 3-4 years before leaving for the NBA or graduating. Mind you, that isn't my stance and I surely don't think that hurts the sport, I'm just wondering if that's one of the things Coach Calhoun has on his mind.

 

[breezy]

You managed to contradict yourself in consecutive sentences. Not easy to do. I think it's your Rick James moment.

JC: "If I were still coaching I'd take transfers"
The BY: "I disagree, if JC were still coaching he'd take transfers"

 

[David 76]

No
The BY: Kids deserve to be able to leave a bad situation and to move on after graduating

JC should know better than to raise this issue immediately after his protege takes 3 "transfers"