NCAA Transfer Rules changing?

[methodology]

@Guapo

The biggest basketball star in the world is LeBron not Steph. If Steph was at Kansas you don't think they would have gone further? Steph was overlooked because of his size and stature coming out of high school #256 composite coming out of high school

 

[intlzncster]

I think you are the one underestimating those forces and I think you're overestimating how the desire to get to the NBA plays in all this.

You can make an argument that you can make a better case for the NBA playing at a school below the Kentucky or Kansas tier because of playing time, the spot light only being on you etc.

Someone earlier brought up Steph Curry. Why would he have needed to transfer? He went deeper into the tournament than Kansas did, became a college star and is now the biggest basketball star in the world.

Dunno if I'm underestimating the pull of the League. I mean, you've got 3 and 4 star guys committing to coaches or programs because they think it'll give them a better chance to go pro. You here that often in interviews. Could be observation bias, idk.

You are correct that starring at a school, where you are the man, is another way to do it. And some players are definitely driven by the desire to be the man. So that's a factor that plays in.

I gotta think Steph Curry is an outlier in all this haha. He's such a rarity. What a story. His high school offers: Davidson, Winthrop and Virginia Commonwealth. Amazing.

I think under the table money could become more interesting. As in a player going into his senior year, maybe not a likely pro, but a booster gives the kid $10k to come to his school--plugging a hole. Doesn't have the deterrent of sitting. No idea how common it would be, but it's still an interesting dynamic.

 

[Guapo]

Dunno if I'm underestimating the pull of the League. I mean, you've got 3 and 4 star guys committing to coaches or programs because they think it'll give them a better chance to go pro. You here that often in interviews. Could be observation bias, idk.

You are correct that starring at a school, where you are the man, is another way to do it. And some players are definitely driven by the desire to be the man. So that's a factor that plays in.

I gotta think Steph Curry is an outlier in all this haha. He's such a rarity. What a story. His high school offers: Davidson, Winthrop and Virginia Commonwealth. Amazing.

I think under the table money could become more interesting. As in a player going into his senior year, maybe not a likely pro, but a booster gives the kid $10k to come to his school--plugging a hole. Doesn't have the deterrent of sitting. No idea how common it would be, but it's still an interesting dynamic.

Yup, it will be interesting for sure!

(If they even do it)

 

[intlzncster]

How many players is this? There are 60 players drafted each year. How many players in college think they have an opportunity to make it. 1000? How many are actually right (and would be wanted by top schools?) 400? How many are already not on a power conference team? 100? How many of them want to leave their current situation and how many scholarships are available at the top schools?

Those are my guesses and you might disagree with the numbers, but I don't think that less than 200 "transfers up" out of 4500 players is going to do anything to harm the sport.

That's just it, who cares about overall transfer numbers? In the big picture of MCBB, the only players that matter are the top 500 or whatever line you want to draw. The 1000s of other guys are irrelevant and can come and go as they please.

I'm not saying this would happen (it wouldn't), but just for the sake of illustration, having guys ranking #100-#200 all transfer, has far more impact than the bottom 3,000 guys transferring every year.

Again, that was simply to illustrate that it's only the guys near the top tier who matter.

 

[intlzncster]

Yup, it will be interesting for sure!

(If they even do it)

Guapo, what did I tell you about human nature? If it can be done, humans will do it.

 

[auror]

That's just it, who cares about overall transfer numbers? In the big picture of MCBB, the only players that matter are the top 500 or whatever line you want to draw. The 1000s of other guys are irrelevant and can come and go as they please.

I'm not saying this would happen (it wouldn't), but just for the sake of illustration, having guys ranking #100-#200 all transfer, has far more impact than the bottom 3,000 guys transferring every year.

Again, that was simply to illustrate that it's only the guys near the top tier who matter.

The guys at the top are already at power conference schools. Those players will only jump to an ELITE school, since their situations are already great, and if they're that good they're already getting playing time and exposure in a major league. There just aren't that many spots available at elite schools.

Some number of the guys not in major conferences that are ranked that highly will transfer, yes, absolutely. There's not enough of them to make it a big deal.

 

[auror]

A D1 basketball players currency is tv exposure, nba scout exposure, and the opportunity to play on the big stage. With the new rule change, I certainly think its realistic for the Duke, Kentucky's, UNCs, and Kansas's of the world to poach the best players from the A-10, American, Big East, etc to fill spots vacated by early entries. And yes, I think many college players will jump at this opportunity. Objectively speaking, would Jalen Adams help himself more by playing on this years UConn team or starting for Kentucky? Fast forward, lets say Adams in this situation does transfer out, there is no way UConn would fill his scholarship with a player of similar ability. Hence, the cycle starts. The best programs strengthen, the middle tier programs weaken, and the bottom tier no one cares about anyway.

Jalen is definitely the archetype for a player that might have transferred in this hypothetical system but not in the current. Clearly our situation is not making people want to stick around (we had 3 transfers out last year after all). Most programs in our current state don't have players as talented as Jalen or with such obvious pro aspirations. Do you think you could name 50 players in similar situations?

Even if you could, how many spots are there? Not as many as you think considering the elite freshmen also vying for places at these top schools. If Duke or UNC takes Jalen, then where does the elite freshman they didn't recruit go instead? Rosters and playing time are capped resources and the best schools already literally get whatever players they want. We saw this with Diallo. This system doesn't change anything about that.

 

[djct1999]

Jalen is definitely the archetype for a player that might have transferred in this hypothetical system but not in the current. Clearly our situation is not making people want to stick around (we had 3 transfers out last year after all). Most programs in our current state don't have players as talented as Jalen or with such obvious pro aspirations. Do you think you could name 50 players in similar situations?

Even if you could, but how many spots are there? Not as many as you think considering the elite freshmen. If Duke or UNC takes Jalen, then where does the elite freshman they didn't recruit go instead? The best schools already literally get whatever players they want. We saw this with Diallo. This system doesn't change anything about that.

That elite freshman will never enroll. The NBA is talking about eliminating the age requirement to bolster up the g-league. The fact remains, UConn will lose a talent like Jalen and never replace him.

 

[auror]

That elite freshman will never enroll. The NBA is talking about eliminating the age requirement to bolster up the g-league. The fact remains, UConn will lose a talent like Jalen and never replace him.

Then the overall talent pool in college will be lessened, but the relative talent levels will be the same. The elite freshman will just be worse than they were before, but still elite compared to the rest. It changes nothing about the roster math.

 

[Guapo]

That elite freshman will never enroll. The NBA is talking about eliminating the age requirement to bolster up the g-league. The fact remains, UConn will lose a talent like Jalen and never replace him.

It's difficult to make a pro or con argument about a potential rule change around one specific player that is here for a finite amount of time.

 

[intlzncster]

Then the overall talent pool in college will be lessened, but the relative talent levels will be the same. The elite freshman will just be worse than they were before, but still elite compared to the rest. It changes nothing about the roster math.

Not that it matters a lick, but for the hell of it, I'd argue that the relative talent levels would 'shrink'. There's such a wide margin between the top guys and everyone else, that you are cutting off the head of a distribution. You'd be replacing them with kids very similar to what's already in the low end of D1 ball. Kids talent level towards the bottom is much more common, so you'd be letting more of the same type of below average D1 player in.

 

[djct1999]

Then the overall talent pool in college will be lessened, but the relative talent levels will be the same. The elite freshman will just be worse than they were before, but still elite compared to the rest. It changes nothing about the roster math.

It doesn't change the math but it changes everything about the quality of a mid tier program and their ability to compete with the top.

 

[djct1999]

It's difficult to make a pro or con argument about a potential rule change around one specific player that is here for a finite amount of time.

The specific player was a hypothetical however that pattern will consistently repeat itself. The player changes but the problem will persist.

 

[Guapo]

The specific player was a hypothetical however that pattern will consistently repeat itself. The player changes but the problem will persist.

I think UConn can still be an attractive destination for talent, but this highlights the urgency for our coaching and conference situation to get figured out.

 

[David 76]

The university can cut the kid's scholarship each year. They rake in millions.
The coach can go pretty much anywhere he wants. He makes 6 or 7 figures.
And the kid should be loyal because we don't want our pastime messed up?
If we offer the kid's such a great deal, why are we begging them to come here and not vice versa?

 

[Guapo]

The university can cut the kid's scholarship each year. They rake in millions.
The coach can go pretty much anywhere he wants. He makes 6 or 7 figures.
And the kid should be loyal because we don't want our pastime messed up?
If we offer the kid's such a great deal, why are we begging them to come here and not vice versa?

Preach it brother Dave

 

[djct1999]

The university can cut the kid's scholarship each year. They rake in millions.
The coach can go pretty much anywhere he wants. He makes 6 or 7 figures.
And the kid should be loyal because we don't want our pastime messed up?
If we offer the kid's such a great deal, why are we begging them to come here and not vice versa?

No one is arguing that what is in place now is fair but that doesn't mean the new proposal is either. Extremes are never good. That being said, if a coach decides to leave or a kid needs to move home to be near a sick parent, they should be able to transfer without penalty. If nothing changes fundamentally, they should have to sit out a year. Other wise, its simply free agency and reeks of professionalism.

 

[polycom]

No one is arguing that what is in place now is fair but that doesn't mean the new proposal is either. Extremes are never good. That being said, if a coach decides to leave or a kid needs to move home to be near a sick parent, they should be able to transfer without penalty. If nothing changes fundamentally, they should have to sit out a year. Other wise, its simply free agency and reeks of professionalism.

Just because we call it amatuerism doesn’t mean that it is.

 

[David 76]

No one is arguing that what is in place now is fair but that doesn't mean the new proposal is either. Extremes are never good. That being said, if a coach decides to leave or a kid needs to move home to be near a sick parent, they should be able to transfer without penalty. If nothing changes fundamentally, they should have to sit out a year. Other wise, its simply free agency and reeks of professionalism.

I don't know the right answer. Just find posts that essentially say "that would ruin my entertainment" stupid. They built a multi-billion dollar industry off the backs of these kids. But we enjoy it, so they should have less rights than I do.