NCAA Transfer Rules changing?

[Guapo]

The amount of stupid in this thread is mind boggling

This will destroy the game . And more importantly bring the death rattle of UConn specifically. If people don't understand why that is we can't help them

Wow you're right, the amount of stupid in this thread is mind boggling.

 

[August_West]

Wow you're right, the amount of stupid in this thread is mind boggling.

You're not that handsome

 

[methodology]

The amount of stupid in this thread is mind boggling

This will destroy the game . And more importantly bring the death rattle of UConn specifically. If people don't understand why that is we can't help them

Some people are clueless its mind boggling. Even if coaches can't have "contact" the back channels will be in full swing and players who are more or less all friends and know each other will be recruiting good players on bad teams to join their super squad

It will become the wild west. Some schools will even close down their programs or go to a lower level because it's not in their interest to spend state money and school resources for the benefit of the elite

 

[Guapo]

You're not that handsome

 

[August_West]

Some people are clueless its mind boggling. Even if coaches can't have "contact" the back channels will be in full swing and players who are more or less all friends and know each other will be recruiting good players on bad teams to join their super squad

It will become the wild west. Some schools will even close down their programs or go to a lower level because it's not in their interest to spend state money and school resources for the benefit of the elite

I have to assume the supporters are instant gratification millennials. They ruin everything baby boomers already haven't ruined. Why not college hoops too?

 

[polycom]

I have to assume the supporters are instant gratification millennials. They ruin everything baby boomers already haven't ruined. Why not college hoops too?

I was waiting for this to be mentioned. I hope you get ketchup, in your next burger and I hope you don't notice till after your first bite.

 

[August_West]

I was waiting for this to be matched. I hope you get ketchup, in your next burger and I hope you don't notice till after your first bite.

Can I tell you about the Arby's pork belly I had last night?

Incredible.

 

[Captbluefin]

This will be horrible. Groom guys for 2 or 3 years when they hit their prime POOF.. They go to a “super” team and audition for the NBA..

What a joke this will be... And good bye tobany chance of being back to where we were.

If anyone thinks we are going to make out in this. You are a FOOL !!

 

[Guapo]

I want everyone to take a deep breath and really think about this.

I am, like a lot people, an "at will" employee. I can leave whenever I want for a new job. However, I haven't. Why? Because I like my job. Generally speaking I like my coworkers and I know the quality of work I can expect from them and they the same from me. I know where I stand with the power structure of my firm and I'm happy with my work-life balance.

Stability. People, whether they know it or not, crave stability.

Players are not just going to transfer for the hell of it.

These players in their times at their respective schools have developed a routine. They've made friends, girlfriends etc. They have a developed a social network.

Furthermore, they know their teammates and they know the coaching staff. They know the expectations of the staff, the rules, the plays, what to expect at practice, what is expected of them in the classroom etc etc.

Will a rule change such as this cause increase in transfers? Yes, definitely. Will it become the Wild West where entire rosters switch over every single year (more so than what one and dones do already)? No. Because players are human.

Will this rule change, if it happened to today, negatively affect UConn? Probably. Especially in the short term. I can't really say I blame players for not wanting to play for this coaching staff in this league (not to turn into yet another thread on either of those subjects).

This rule will have an impact, maybe a significant one, but not on a scale that will bring ruin to the sport. If this rule goes into affect, it could seem staggering at first but we will recalibrate how we follow transfers, recruiting etc.

 

[The Funster]

I think there are a lot of ramifications to this rule and it can't be seperated from any exploitation of it's student athletes by the NCAA. These are some rough thoughts that I really haven't fully thought through yet:

What is a "student-athlete"? The majority of them fall into the category that are grateful to get an education because they know they aren't good enough to play at the pro level. They compete and likely take courses that lead to a meaningful degree. Then there are the student athlete that falls into the minority category that are elite athletes and re very good bets to get offers to play at the pro level. They attend classes, oftentimes classes or degree tracks that don't really lend themselves to building a post college career. These athletes take classes that make it easier for them to be eligible for their sport and as soon as they can, they drop classes to prepare for the draft. So for these players, what is the value of that education? Surew, some graduate or return at some point and graduate but most of them are gone and replaced by the next group of players who are there to hone their athletics skills, not academic skills.

I find it hard to believe that the NCAA could come up with a plan that is still restrictive to the student athlete. To say they can only do it once or twice instead of every year is still artificially restrictive, IMO. What is the rationale for that? If they could tell me a reason why not being able to switch each year is in the best interests of the student athlete, I'd love to hear it.

Parity was brought up and I think there is a healthy parity in basketball, not so much in football. Whatever parity each sport shas would be further damaged by this rule. Sure, kids will always want to move closer to home, switch because they don't like the coach, etc. but now you could have kids switching because they had a couple of good seasons and draw interest from other schools or will have an opprotunity to switch to school X to have a great chance to get a ring or how many coaches will say to a kid, "Go play for XYZ and in two years, I'll bring you in." You know that will happen.

I see this as another crossroads for the NCAA and the wrong decision will push then closer to making a decision between true amateurism and semi-professionalism.

 

[Guapo]

This will be horrible. Groom guys for 2 or 3 years when they hit their prime POOF.. They go to a “super” team and audition for the NBA..

What a joke this will be... And good bye tobany chance of being back to where we were.

If anyone thinks we are going to make out in this. You are a FOOL !!

Just a quick thought, since I've seen this idea come up in other posts:

If you're grooming kids for 2 to 3 years that are good enough to "jump" to the "blue bloods", won't you be doing a whole lot of winning during those 2 to 3 years, thus making yourself attractive to other transfers or convincing those stars to stay?

 

[nomar]

I do think that if a coach quits for any reason, any player who wants to leave as a result of the coaching change should be able to transfer without penalty.

On principle, I'm in favor of players doing whatever they want. In reality, allowing this kind of free transfer would lead to crazy tampering. Regardless of whether that would be within or against the rules, it would be very unseemly.

 

[KingAG]

So a player comes to UConn has a great freshman year and then can transfer to Duke for his sophomore year.

In effect the entire NCAA becomes a farm league for Duke, UNC, Kentucky and Kansas. Sounds great.

If UConn returns to being a national brand this won’t happen to us, the opposite will. The high major non blue bloods like UConn, Cuse, Zona, Texas, Florida will benefit the most. We will get the mid major stars and the disgruntled talented bench players from the blue bloods. Perfect situation for us if we get our damn act together

 

[Guapo]

I do think that if a coach quits for any reason, any player who wants to leave as a result of the coaching change should be able to transfer without penalty.

On principle, I'm in favor of players doing whatever they want. In reality, allowing this kind of free transfer would lead to crazy tampering. Regardless of whether that would be within or against the rules, it would be very unseemly.

I hear you, but I think the fact that the the NCAA puts these draconian restrictions on players they make billions off of is more unseemly

 

[djct1999]

I want everyone to take a deep breath and really think about this.

I am, like a lot people, an "at will" employee. I can leave whenever I want for a new job. However, I haven't. Why? Because I like my job. Generally speaking I like my coworkers and I know the quality of work I can expect from them and they the same from me. I know where I stand with the power structure of my firm and I'm happy with my work-life balance.

Stability. People, whether they know it or not, crave stability.

Players are not just going to transfer for the hell of it.

These players in their times at their respective schools have developed a routine. They've made friends, girlfriends etc. They have a developed a social network.

Furthermore, they know their teammates and they know the coaching staff. They know the expectations of the staff, the rules, the plays, what to expect at practice, what is expected of them in the classroom etc etc.

Will a rule change such as this cause increase in transfers? Yes, definitely. Will it become the Wild West where entire rosters switch over every single year (more so than what one and dones do already)? No. Because players are human.

Will this rule change, if it happened to today, negatively affect UConn? Probably. Especially in the short term. I can't really say I blame players for not wanting to play for this coaching staff in this league (not to turn into yet another thread on either of those subjects).

This rule will have an impact, maybe a significant one, but not on a scale that will bring ruin to the sport. If this rule goes into affect, it could seem staggering at first but we will recalibrate how we follow transfers, recruiting etc.

Comparing the college transfer epidemic to your real life work situation shows just how out of touch you are with the college game. While all your points ring true to real life and most normal employees, the disconnect to the college athlete, especially a ranked one with pro aspirations, is enormous. This rule change will indeed be the wild wild west all over again. Lesser programs have already been impacted by transfers, this will simply be the nail in the coffin. In no way, will it have the trickle down effect you claim. Good players will rarely transfer to lesser programs. It will encourage more corruption. It will reward a select few and hurt everyone else. It will leave most programs defenseless while walking on continuous egg shells.

 

[djct1999]

If UConn returns to being a national brand this won’t happen to us, the opposite will. The high major non blue bloods like UConn, Cuse, Zona, Texas, Florida will benefit the most. We will get the mid major stars and the disgruntled talented bench players from the blue bloods. Perfect situation for us if we get our damn act together

This could both help and hurt UConn. Although I give the probability of it hurting us much higher than helping. Part of the reason why we are where we are was due to three transfers. One would have to think that if this rule was already in place, only Vital would have stayed. If this hypothetical ran true, we would be the worst team in the American.

 

[Guapo]

Comparing the college transfer epidemic to your real life work situation shows just how out of touch you are with the college game. While all your points ring true to real life and most normal employees, the disconnect to the college athlete, especially a ranked one with pro aspirations, is enormous. This rule change will indeed be the wild wild west all over again. Lesser programs have already been impacted by transfers, this will simply be the nail in the coffin. In no way, will it have the trickle down effect you claim. Good players will rarely transfer to lesser programs. It will encourage more corruption. It will reward a select few and hurt everyone else. It will leave most programs defenseless while walking on continuous egg shells.

I understand the fear, however there are a finite number of D1 teams, a finite number of roster spots and a finite number of scholarships. Any transfer will have a ripple effect.

 

[nomar]

I hear you, but I think the fact that the the NCAA puts these draconian restrictions on players they make billions off of is more unseemly

I'm not going to say anything nice about the NCAA. But I appreciate that some rules should be in place to prevent a reshake of 3,000 players every year.

There should be a list of reasons why players should be allowed to transfer without penalty, and that list should be long.

 

[Guapo]

I'm not going to say anything nice about the NCAA. But I appreciate that some rules should be in place to prevent a reshake of 3,000 players every year.

There should be a list of reasons why players should be allowed to transfer without penalty, and that list should be long.

That's fair, I suppose.

And as I've said before, this rule would have to have a coinciding rule limiting the number of transfers a single school could take per year.

 

[GemParty]

Side Question. If this rule was in place since the 1990's, which UConn players would have never seen multiple years for Coach Calhoun?

I hate the idea. It will be the Wild West, in an already filthy business. No more Stef Curry style Cinderella, if they're plucked from a mid major yearly.

 

[methodology]

Another hypothetical...

What if after 1st semester a kid transfers from a crap team to a top 10 team who just lost a kid to injury for the year

@Guapo and @polycom are firmly in the belief they should be treated like transferring students and not have to sit. Does this hypothetical change that stance and if so why?

 

[polycom]

Another hypothetical...

What if after 1st semester a kid transfers from a crap team to a top 10 team who just lost a kid to injury for the year

@Guapo and @polycom are firmly in the belief they should be treated like transferring students and not have to sit. Does this hypothetical change that stance and if so why?

I don't believe they should be treated as everyone else because I think they should be paid, so in this situation I would have all the players contracted... But if we are treating them like students then yeah this is fine for me. If the school has enough scholarships and the player who was injured didn't lose their scholarship to bring on another player from another school in the same season. However, I don't think this wouldn't work because scholarships are yearly contracts I believe not by semester but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Guapo]

Another hypothetical...

What if after 1st semester a kid transfers from a crap team to a top 10 team who just lost a kid to injury for the year

@Guapo and @polycom are firmly in the belief they should be treated like transferring students and not have to sit. Does this hypothetical change that stance and if so why?

Without thinking too deeply about how scholarships work, if the school with the injured player had a scholarship to give and existing or potential in season tampering rules, I guess this would be ok.

It would obvious suck from a fan perspective but something as inane and rare and silly as this hypothetical is not a reason to not support this rule change.

 

[methodology]

I don't believe they should be treated as everyone else because I think they should be paid, so in this situation I would have all the players contracted... But if we are treating them like students then yeah this is fine for me. If the school has enough scholarships and the player who was injured didn't lose their scholarship to bring on another player from another school in the same season. However, I don't think this wouldn't work because scholarships are yearly contracts I believe not by semester but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

So how much do you think they will/ should be paid? Are they responsible for paying tuition/ room/ board/ books/ meal plan/ the free gear and sneakers?

You understand every athlete in every sport would have to be paid equally. Or do football players and the 100 man roster get more because there more $$ and revenue in football. What about the non revenue sports and female athletes.

Are you seperating from the ncaa to avoid a class action lawsuit from every student athlete who doesn't play football/ basketball?

How big is the pie after operating expenses/travel/medical? How much do you think you can actually pay these student athletes and is that more than the benefits they currently receive?

I've Already stated they should get a cut of merchandising sales or video games. They should be able to profit on their image if they want like that kicker who had the YouTube channel etc.

There are about 460k d1 athletes

17250 approximately playing football and basketball.

 

[methodology]

Without thinking too deeply about how scholarships work, if the school with the injured player had a scholarship to give and existing or potential in season tampering rules, I guess this would be ok.

It would obvious suck from a fan perspective but something as inane and rare and silly as this hypothetical is not a reason to not support this rule change.

Doesn't have to be injury. Any school with open scholarship can poach a senior for half a year for a title run. It's absolutely insane

 

[Guapo]

Doesn't have to be injury. Any school with open scholarship can poach a senior for half a year for a title run. It's absolutely insane

Ok, even if it's not an injury, the other issues re: scholarships, tampering rules etc remain the same.

 

[polycom]

So how much do you think they will/ should be paid? Are they responsible for paying tuition/ room/ board/ books/ meal plan/ the free gear and sneakers?

You understand every athlete in every sport would have to be paid equally. Or do football players and the 100 man roster get more because there more $$ and revenue in football. What about the non revenue sports and female athletes.

Are you seperating from the ncaa to avoid a class action lawsuit from every student athlete who doesn't play football/ basketball?

How big is the pie after operating expenses/travel/medical? How much do you think you can actually pay these student athletes and is that more than the benefits they currently receive?

I've Already stated they should get a cut of merchandising sales or video games. They should be able to profit on their image if they want like that kicker who had the YouTube channel etc.

There are about 460k d1 athletes

17250 approximately playing football and basketball.

Player should be to make the market rate for their likeness. As for the schools paying them additionally on top of that. It's difficult to work through a fair system because college athletics isn't fair. Few athletic departments turn a profit and the ones that do, do so because of their football programs. Nick Saban is worth more money to the state of Alabama than what he is currently paid but so is his QB, so are all the players on the team.

The question becomes should mid-majors have programs they can't afford...

 

[Ewekon]

The top 8 to 12 players aren't transferring anywhere. They are declaring.

 

[Travelman6]

I don't believe they should be treated as everyone else because I think they should be paid

They already are paid with free UNI that, in some cases cost 25,000 or more per year (an exorbitant sum of money), room and board (in some cases special chefs for the athletes), free transit to away games as well as lodging, free exposure on national TV, access to trainers and state of the art training facilities/weight rooms, etc. All while the average American struggles a great deal to pay for UNI, often times going into a lot of debt while their athletic counterparts, in some cases grossly underachieve (coughUconnmencough) without having to pay a dime while @ UNI. Or post grads who don't even earn what these kids get in athletic scholarships per year. How about all of the student non-athletes that also contribute to the schools reputation and academic standings? It is amazing how out of whack and askew priorities are at most UNIs in the states and why other countries continue to surpass the US in academic standings.

 

[polycom]

They already are paid with free UNI that, in some cases cost 25,000 or more per year (an exorbitant sum of money), room and board (in some cases special chefs for the athletes), free transit to away games as well as lodging, free exposure on national TV, access to trainers and state of the art training facilities/weight rooms, etc. All while the average American struggles a great deal to pay for UNI, often times going into a lot of debt while their athletic counterparts, in some cases grossly underachieve (coughUconnmencough) without having to pay a dime. How about all of the student non-athletes that also contribute to the schools reputation and academic standings?

Not sure what argument you are trying to make here? You believe athletes are compensated for their services enough? Then why do they have to go to class? Why do they have to get an education, since as you say "they already are paid." Why not treat them as employees and we can go from there...