Long Article on Rising Transfers

[RockyMTblue2]

I finished it and didn't know if I'd learned anything, but someone put in a lot of work.

http://womenshoopsworld.com/2017/05...ge-basketball-transfers-numerous-and-complex/

 

[DefenseBB]

I finished it and didn't know if I'd learned anything, but someone put in a lot of work.

http://womenshoopsworld.com/2017/05...ge-basketball-transfers-numerous-and-complex/

Actually I found it listed the many reasons why transfers happen in a measured way and not a trivial fluff piece that is too often the case (Andy Landers typical non-value comments aside). I do think it's ok for transfers to exist at rate below the non athlete rate (which it is) as individual needs change and we, as focused sports aficionados tend to get too worked up about reasoning. I thought the point on Academic success was poignant and in the non-Men's hoop/football world a very fair comment. We tend to be cynical on alterior motives.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I agree DefenseBB, it is no fluff piece. I was most surprised by the insider comments about players and parents not doing enough homework on potential school choices. I'd think they'd overwork it.

 

[Teacherdeb]

Good article- lots of opinions to draw your own conclusions. I like the part about Staley's assistant coach telling her to back off- reinforces my opinion that Dawn is smart. Actually, as a public school teacher, most of what is being said here is true in teaching as well. I started teaching 20 plus years ago as a second career. I have often reflected on my own experience as a student(in the 50's) where you were expected to respect an authority figure and do as they said. How much easier it would be today if you could just teach the material, and not have to spend a month building trust and relationships with your students so you might have a shot at their learning anything. Yeah, it would be easier, but ultimately, those efforts were rewarded a hundredfold by the joy I found in teaching.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I agree DefenseBB, it is no fluff piece. I was most surprised by the insider comments about players and parents not doing enough homework on potential school choices. I'd think they'd overwork it.

v
Why are more Women transferring---because they can! Previously, top schools were reluctant to pick up transfers. And the Parents who were in the original school discussion--offered staying advice.
On home work and visits---you can read, and google, you can ask people about specific schools---coaches and schools are typically on their best behavior while recruiting (like the Army) and when you are there--you see a whole different world---it is hard to tell about situations until you live them---unless your sister was Big Maybrey or something of the same--like a Samuelson (who came to Uconn).

 

[tomcat]

Tha article did go on...and on... but it was well done and covered some ground I had not seen previously. Thoughtful piece of reporting.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

But most of this article is from the coaches' perspective: the kids who transferred just had a bad work ethic; the kids who transferred were too soft; the kids who transferred had bad attitudes.

Even the kids who transferred seem to have been cherrypicked. The article almost entirely avoids dealing with the raft of transfers from specific programs (Maryland's coach just says it's because of poor work ethic). Kentucky? Rutgers? Only passing reference to UNC's scandals.

The author should have talked to more kids who bailed out. Seems overly protective of the coaches.

 

[OldAlum]

The way it is written, it seems like Frese is saying that the players who transferred out couldn't take constructive criticism. Don't know if that was her intent.
At this point, I don't see a real issue with transfers. There is that year out that is a disincentive for a player to thoughtlessly change schools. Cant see how it helps anyone to make an unhappy or misplaced student-athlete stay.

The article pointed out a number of legitimate reasons why it might be beneficial for a player to transfer. And of course, sometimes having a player who is not fitting into a program leave also helps the school by opening that slot for another player who might fit better.

I can actually see transferring used as a good strategy for an academically-inclined player. Say, you are a player who is borderline good enough for a top program. You have a strong academic background and career aspirations outside of basketball. I can see going to a school with a top program and a coach you greatly admire with the transfer option in the back of your mind. Maybe you blossom under that program and have a great career. Or maybe you learn a lot and improve, but by your sophomore year it is apparent that you will not be a starter or even one of the first off the bench. You have learned a lot and improved but would like to play more games. Now you can transfer to a top academic school with a lesser basketball program. You can take your important major courses and earn your degree at the more prestigious school (and maybe start towards a masters) and get more playing time using your more developed skills.

 

[Dillon77]

But most of this article is from the coaches' perspective: the kids who transferred just had a bad work ethic; the kids who transferred were too soft; the kids who transferred had bad attitudes.

Even the kids who transferred seem to have been cherrypicked. The article almost entirely avoids dealing with the raft of transfers from specific programs (Maryland's coach just says it's because of poor work ethic). Kentucky? Rutgers? Only passing reference to UNC's scandals.

The author should have talked to more kids who bailed out. Seems overly protective of the coaches.

I read the piece yesterday over on McGraw's Bench and was thinking about it because, as most know, we've had two recent transfers.
As a former writer/editor, I agree that the piece was a tad too long and probably could've cut down on the numerous examples in each area.

As for taking the side of the coaches vs. transfers, I noticed that to a degree, but was quickly hit by this thought: what recent transfer is going to bad mouth a coach/program? It's not just one coach or program you're addressing, but zounds of connections that stem from those people/ institutions. Tough position to put anyone in, let along a young adult who felt compelled to transfer.

As a former coach, the segments about adapting your communication style is always a good reminder. There is certainly not a blanket way to address all players effectively and the quote on Dawn Staley turning down the volume was a good example. While I'm a huge believer in consistency, individuals are just that and react differently to (hopefully) constructive criticism.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

There is a suggestion in the article that club coaches, out of self interest, may influence a kid to go to a school which is a reach for her. While that may well happen, ultimately it is for the college staff to make that evaluation. Were a club coach to do this regularly I would think that would catch up to them, but ,again, maybe no one is paying that much attention.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

I read the piece yesterday over on McGraw's Bench and was thinking about it because, as most know, we've had two recent transfers.
As a former writer/editor, I agree that the piece was a tad too long and probably could've cut down on the numerous examples in each area.

As for taking the side of the coaches vs. transfers, I noticed that to a degree, but was quickly hit by this thought: what recent transfer is going to bad mouth a coach/program? It's not just one coach or program you're addressing, but zounds of connections that stem from those people/ institutions. Tough position to put anyone in, let along a young adult who felt compelled to transfer.

As a former coach, the segments about adapting your communication style is always a good reminder. There is certainly not a blanket way to address all players effectively and the quote on Dawn Staley turning down the volume was a good example. While I'm a huge believer in consistency, individuals are just that and react differently to (hopefully) constructive criticism.

Was going to write that the author would have had to keep the identities of the kids who transferred confidential. But this is an example of journalism in which anonymous sources would have been justified. Without kids coming forward to talk about what really happened, and why they bailed, it's left to the coaches to essentially bad-mouth transfers from their programs.

Lots of unanswered questions. And the addition of an extra year of eligibility as a reason for the jump in transfers just doesn't ring true.

 

[huskeynut]

While being a little long, a very good and thoughtful article.

Being a retired educator, I agree with many things said about communicating with students. Its the "buy in" to the program. Also liked the points about coaches making promises to get kids to sign up and then not follow through.

 

[chrissaran]

Geno never promises playing time to any player and yet there are still transfers. Some can't hack the hard work it takes, and others want more playing time. No program is perfect. Teenagers are not predictable in what they will do and never will be.

 

[UcMiami]

Thanks for posting this - I find it interesting that we get a lot of comments about the length of the piece (including the OP) which is in fact part of the issue I see in the transfer question. This is a very complex issue and an article that tries to be more than a surface response needs a volume of words to begin to address it. That people comment on that fact is revealing - we are more comfortable with sound bites and short definitive articles, and that translates to the evaluation processes for coaches and recruits. We can now Google our research, but in doing so, we often lose out the depth and breadth of discovery that a slower and more painstaking research process delivered.

On to the substance - I thought the first point about the recruiting process was important - most recruiting in the 90s was local - very few programs recruited 'nationally' and even if they did, the national recruits on a team made up a small percentage of the team - everyone else was 'local' or at least 'regional' which allowed for more frequent unofficial visits and a better understanding of the choices for both recruits and coaches. The number of teams (including Uconn) who are recruiting nationally and the balance on teams between national recruits and locals has changed dramatically. Fewer off court common experiences/more cultural differences may lead to less unity.

I also think the national recruiting process leads to more disruption in the evolution of individuals within the team over 4 years - more displacement in the pecking order on a team as highly talented 'outsiders' arrive and leapfrog players already on the team.

The percentage of transfers is not that big an issue - it remains at under 10% and the increase over the course of the graphs is 2% - if the scale on the graph was 0-100, the increase would be hardly noticeable. What stands out more to me anecdotally is that court time seems to be less of a factor in recent years and the high profile transfer rate might actually represent the majority of the overall increase - starters/major contributors transferring seems to be increasing.

 

[Waquoit]

There is nothing wrong with a player transferring. They only get one crack at this thing and if it's not working out at one place they owe it to themselves to reassess their options. What bothers me here is coaches badmouthing those that choose to move on. Screw them.

 

[JordyG]

Frankly there wasn't a single bullet point I disagreed with. Some points I considered more salient than others (coaches adapting to the "New Normal", 17 and 18 year old's attempting to take control of their careers, parental involvement and the subsequent stunting of the growth of these young athletes), but I'm sure some will find other points more important. I called it the new normal 2 years ago. It ain't new now.