Jim Calhoun on transfers | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Jim Calhoun on transfers

Status
Not open for further replies.
cohenzone said:
. The graduate transfer rule is sort of the mirror image of the one and done, and even when it might make my favorite team better for a year, it sure doesn't add up to me to what a "program" used to be. .
Expand ...
I see it as the polar opposite of the one and done. A kid who completed 4 years of coursework, earned his degree and earned the right to pursue their masters degree and basketball future wherever they want. If they can come in and add to the UCONN legacy I see them as every bit as much a part of the UCONN family as anyone else. Am I less of a part of the UCONN family because I only spent 3 semesters there? No way. The transfers either.
 
Jim has his personal view but if he was coaching today he would do what was needed to compete.
 
I think coaches are a bit hypocritical on this subject. They don't want their talent to transfer, but what about when they recruit over kids and religate them to the bench for the rest of their college career? That is fine? Or are lower talent transfers just fine (Rock, Bradley,etc.) but higher talent transfers are bad ( Larrier, AO)?

Reminds me of MLB. It was better for the sport when teams owned the players because the roster was much more consistent. In less, of course, the owner didn't want the player and shipped him wherever he wanted.

What if they decided the game was better if the coaches had to stay at one college? That would certainly help the sport with branding and viewership. But you can't do that because coaces are human beings with rights. But, the students...
 
At his core this is just who Calhoun is. It is all about LOYALTY. It's big in his worldview. That is why he went at BC hard and was particularly offended when Sir Charles called our conference the big least in 2011.

This man is a hero to me but I strongly disagree with him here. It is a new era in cbb and even a h.o.f. coach like Pitino had to get 2 transfers to make his roster competitive. Hell....the main reason Donovan gave for wanting to move on...is recruiting! It's dog eat dog in the Calipari/CR era. The haves and the have not. The sport has already changed and it will take everything to stay relevant. Not to mention this is a win for the players which is always good.
 
.-.
I think his stance on this is likely due to the fact that he is a hard coach. He is the type of coach that works to build a bond with his players that blossoms into a beautiful symbiotic relationship at year 2-4, but to create that he has to in essence break the guy down first. I kind of feel like his stance is because he needs to be able to affect a kid when he is fresh, build his confidence in odd ways, and with today's college kid psyche of moving on rather than sticking it out, he wouldn't really have the chance because a lot of guys would transfer out after their freshman year and not get the benefit of his coaching
 
8893 said:
Love the man and usually agree with him, but he's wrong here imo.

Miller had no choice because of the Ivy League rules. Gibbs graduated, too. I struggle to see how one-and-dones are better, when attending college was merely a charade until they can jump to the NBA. Better for the coach? Yes. Better for the student-athlete? No.

I don't even see why Larrier is in the conversation. He has to sit a year, just like Calhoun says he wants. So did Purvis.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that his view is 100% slanted to sympathize with the the coach who lost a good player, but I don't like the servitude/property connotations that necessarily follow from his point of view. And it's really bad for the players.

He's delusional if he doesn't think he'd be the king of transfers under the same circumstances.
Expand ...

As it's been said, KO is the perfect bb coach for transfers/adoptees - 5th year guys or underclassman who have the mustard to play at the next level. Playing for 14 Pro teams and knowing what it feels like to be the new guy having to acclimate to new surroundings/relationships ever year and playing for so many different coaching styles. These kids also need a solid Father figure/roll model (I don't care what Barkley says) away from home to mold them not only for their future pro careers but into manhood. Sometimes it's not all about the good of the game but more importantly for the good of the individual. I believe all three transfers, Miller, Gibbs and Larrier will benefit in many ways by transferring to UCONN under KO's tutelage. Most important, transferring to UCONN gives these kids a legitimate shot at winning a National Championship! That wasn't happening at Cornell, Seton Hall or VCU.
 
I just dont get the line of thinking on this 5th year transfers sitting out. First off its the perfect offset to the 1 and done epidemic. So unless the NCAA is going to do something about that at the same time i dont think you touch 5th year transfers. Secondly, its being suggested that they sit out a year.... Ok so how does that work? If you are in a masters program that is 2 years I guess thats not a big deal. If its a 1 year program, what do you do? Make sure you only take a few classes so that you can still be full time for next season? Delay school for a year? Furthermore, if they do sit out for a year, now you are a 5th year senior that when he becomes eligible is now a 6th year senior! So people will complain that they are too old and physically more developed than younger kids. Its just not a good solution.


I think alot of this goes back to coaches feeling like these kids owe them something.... They dont! You promise them the world to come and play at your school. Then things dont shake out the way you said they would or the kid just doesnt like how things are going. they should be able to leave. Sit out a year and transfer. They deserve to put themselves in the best situation for them and their families if you ask me. Just like i can leave one job and go to another if i feel another job is a better fit for me or benefits me more.
 
UconnFanNVa said:
I just dont get the line of thinking on this 5th year transfers sitting out. First off its the perfect offset to the 1 and done epidemic. So unless the NCAA is going to do something about that at the same time i dont think you touch 5th year transfers. Secondly, its being suggested that they sit out a year.... Ok so how does that work? If you are in a masters program that is 2 years I guess thats not a big deal. If its a 1 year program, what do you do? Make sure you only take a few classes so that you can still be full time for next season? Delay school for a year? Furthermore, if they do sit out for a year, now you are a 5th year senior that when he becomes eligible is now a 6th year senior! So people will complain that they are too old and physically more developed than younger kids. Its just not a good solution. I think alot of this goes back to coaches feeling like these kids owe them something.... They dont! You promise them the world to come and play at your school. Then things dont shake out the way you said they would or the kid just doesnt like how things are going. they should be able to leave. Sit out a year and transfer. They deserve to put themselves in the best situation for them and their families if you ask me. Just like i can leave one job and go to another if i feel another job is a better fit for me or benefits me more.
Expand ...

I wouldn't mind if some pr advocate stood up for these players and said stop calling them transfers - they finished their degree. They are grad school prospects/recruits. The word transfer implies that they are leaving midstream, which basically implies that their education is secondary to their athletic career. Their academic work is done, it's just their athletic career isn't.

With this rule change, coaches will also be much less likely to use up a scholarship for two years to get one year of competition. We'd still take Gibbs, I'm sure - but maybe not Kromah or Evans. Those scholarships would be more likely to go unused, which denies educational opportunity.

At the lower levels of DI, many, many players aren't thinking about pro careers, so the extra year of education is very valuable. Many take a ga position at the same school their second year to finish off a two-year degree. A lot of them may not even play much - but they serve as practice bodies/depth, which is the sort of player who would not be taken for two years. These are all kids who deserve the right to look elsewhere for grad school scholarships by getting their degrees, and they will be hurt because a couple coaches are in a snit because their rivals got key grad players to come.
 
There are real problems in college basketball but this is not one of them. How about funneling most of the best talent to just a few teams year after year? If a school is to be restricted for a transfer, then how about a penalty for a one and done?
 
.-.
Brochacho said:
I agree with him from a purity of a sport standpoint. Yes, they graduate and have a year to use where they choose. But for a coach to have a player he expects to have for 4 years play 3 and then use the last one as basically a mercenary year for another program, that has to be frustrating. Don't counter this with Shonn Miller. I don't think that is the way college sports are supposed to be, but its the way they are currently, and its not necessarily something negative.
Expand ...

I know what you mean. Say a college accepts a kid. They expect him or her to stay at least four years. But some SOB goes to summer school has AP credits and what not and graduates in 3 years and then applies to another school for his masters? That would never be allowed...oh wait yeah it would.

You can debate "transfers" all you want but graduates are graduates. They have no continuing relationship with the university except as alumni.

You might want to take a quick glance at the 13th Amendment.
 
Seems that Coach's comments are Coach and Institution (or program) centered and that is how it was before. You could pretty much count on what you had and work at building, molding and changing without wondering what the parts were going to be. No question he loved and excelled at that aspect of coaching. He was a Moses type coach who came into a very weak program and made believers of everyone that what he envisioned and set out to do was going to happen. And happen it did. Today it is much more fluid so there needs to be a much more adaptive building approach with specialization in recruiting as well as training. I believe he too would have adapted had this been in place when he arrived. His desire to win would have forced him to and denial has never been part of his makeup. I remember his comments about giving too much power to recruiters (TM) when he got a crop of physically talented but discipline lacking recruits a few years back. He took full responsibility for it but vowed it would never happen again. The real tail wagging the dog today though, IMO, is TV money which has everyone doing things that threaten to corrupt, if it hasn't already, all college sports.
 
Excalibur said:
It seems that many are misinterpreting his comments in the very manner he predicted when making them . . .
Expand ...
I disagree. Where is the misinterpretation? He made comments critical of fifth year transfers and transfers in general, specifically referenced UConn, its current transfers and percentages, and then tried to avoid the only logical conclusion one could possibly draw from his comments. If he didn't want them to be applied to UConn, he should have kept his mouth shut (fat chance, I know).

Whatever one thinks about transfers, there is no question that we are presently Exhibit A for how they can be used effectively to bolster a roster that is lacking for whatever reason. It was foolish of him, to put it mildly, to think he could discuss it in the abstract, specifically reference UConn and its players, and then avoid connecting the dots.

I still don't get the outrage or epidemic. We all know the man has a long history of being reckless with numbers, but his 44% number is misleading because the vast majority of them are normal transfers who have to sit out a year, which is exactly what he says should be done. Where's the problem? I believe I read that the number of graduate transfers is an average of 50 athletes per year--hardly an epidemic. Penalizing these students--and I mean that word, because that's what you deserve to be called if you have earned a degree--just seems nonsensical and unfair to me on many levels. They held up their end of the bargain and should be free to go to wherever the best situation is for them. I agree with a point someone made above that they shouldn't even be called "transfers." Does anyone ever call that "transferring" in any other context, i.e., when someone attends grad school at a different institution than where they attended undergrad? If so, I've never heard that.

I will repeat that I love the man and would take a bullet for him, but he doesn't get immunity when he talks out his ass. He's about as old school as they come and it's a different landscape now. Coach K talked at length about how he has been forced to adapt, specifically targeting one-and-dones, learning to text, etc. Calhoun would have had to adapt somehow too, and for him to suggest that he's not a transfer guy is disingenuous imo. And I'm not too wild about the way he refers to this "kid" and that "kid" like they're commodities, but heaven forbid we forget about the poor coaches who are having good players "taken away from them." I guess I missed the part of the deal where the coach owns the players.
 
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 will say it again, the kid graduated as promised and now he can do with his life what he wants. And if there's a specific reason he doesn't want to stay, whether it's a change of coaching, an Ivy League ruling, a major they don't offer or just the mere fact that program didn't deliver any excitement or postseason which I sure was promised to him during the recruiting period, then it's an adult decision to what's best of him as a student/athlete. It's really simple (especially this year as a UConn fan LOL)
 
Mazhude said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Ts5034 said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
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.
 
.-.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
champs99and04 said:
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.
Expand ...

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?
 
UconnFanNVa said:
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?
Expand ...
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.
 
Mazhude said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,205
Messages
4,556,825
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom