NCAA Transfer Rules changing?

[Travelman6]

My point is that they ARE paid. What more should they get? Money? For real (again, while a majority of non athletic students continue to struggle to pay and/or go into massive debt to pay for UNI)? Is there any precedent to American UNI athletes getting paid?

 

[freescooter]

This is good. They are amateurs and students first, they should go wherever they can get the best education.

LOLOLO! Funny!

 

[intlzncster]

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...

Why bother associating them with the school at all? Just create minor leagues and be done with it. Pretty much solves most of the problems and the vast majority of schools would save money.

 

[The Funster]

And I mean, really, can we ever trust the NCAA to do anything right?

 

[intlzncster]

Nope, that's not what's going to happen.

At least not on the scale that you're implying it will.

If there's one thing I know about human beings, it's that, given an opportunity to exploit a situation, they will take it every time. Human's are opportunists at heart.

Whatever edge the new system allows, kids/coaches/programs are going to leverage it to the highest degree possible. Too much money involved to do otherwise.

 

[intlzncster]

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

Incredible.

I'm not sure there's anyone alive who enjoys the phrase 'Meat Craft' more than August.

 

[Rico444]

Arby's: We have the MEAT SWEATS!

 

[Guapo]

If there's one thing I know about human beings, it's that, given an opportunity to exploit a situation, they will take it every time. Human's are opportunists at heart.

Whatever edge the new system allows, kids/coaches/programs are going to leverage it to the highest degree possible. Too much money involved to do otherwise.

I'd also argue that there's too much money at stake for the powers that be to allow the entire sport to collapse, as some are suggesting it will.

 

[auror]

There will be a new tier. The Super Teams.

There will be even less competition.

And like all monopolies, the top tier will get smaller and smaller

If the top gets smaller, then there are fewer scholarships impacted by those transferring to the top and the transfer "epidemic" doesn't exist.

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.

One big thing you're missing: College athletes can't transfer to a higher paying position, which is the #1 reason in the real life people change jobs. There will always be less transfers in the college sports world than job changes because of this.

A majority of college transfers do not transfer up for a shot at the pros. They leave their situations because they are untenable for them, and that's often down or out of division 1.

The most apt comparison because of the lack of waiting period are graduate transfers. These are mature, ready to contribute players who don't clog up scholarships. They're among the most likely candidates to transfer up because they fill in roster gaps and are transitioning their life anyways (finished degree). There were like 80 grad transfers last year.

The slots to transfer up just aren't there like you think there are. There are maybe 60 relevant "power" programs that someone might transfer up to. That's like 750 scholarships total. 50 will leave for the draft early, 180ish will graduate. Plus however many transfer down for normal reasons (6% previous transfer rate of the 560 non-graduating scholarships is 34). That leaves 264 open scholarships. The top 150 or so freshmen will still end up at those programs, so you're looking at around 115 transfers up. If you think there will be substantially more, that means you think coaches will be pushing out players happy at the program (otherwise they'd be in the current transfer number). I just don't see that happening.

 

[Guapo]

If the top gets smaller, then there are fewer scholarships impacted by those transferring to the top and the transfer "epidemic" doesn't exist.



One big thing you're missing: College athletes can't transfer to a higher paying position, which is the #1 reason in the real life people change jobs. There will always be less transfers in the college sports world than job changes because of this.

A majority of college transfers do not transfer up for a shot at the pros. They leave their situations because they are untenable for them, and that's often down or out of division 1.

The most apt comparison because of the lack of waiting period are graduate transfers. These are mature, ready to contribute players who don't clog up scholarships. They're among the most likely candidates to transfer up because they fill in roster gaps and are transitioning their life anyways (finished degree). There were like 80 grad transfers last year.

The slots to transfer up just aren't there like you think there are. There are maybe 60 relevant "power" programs that someone might transfer up to. That's like 750 scholarships total. 50 will leave for the draft early, 180ish will graduate. Plus however many transfer down for normal reasons (6% previous transfer rate of the 560 non-graduating scholarships is 34). That leaves 264 open scholarships. The top 150 or so freshmen will still end up at those programs, so you're looking at around 115 transfers up. If you think there will be substantially more, that means you think coaches will be pushing out players happy at the program (otherwise they'd be in the current transfer number). I just don't see that happening.

I only liked this 'cuz there ain't a love option

 

[intlzncster]

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.

You're not wrong about this to some degree, but I think you are underestimating the different dynamic.

#1 - For most people, work is a destination. For players, college basketball is just a short term means to get somewhere else (the destination), whether that be professional ball, or the working world.
#2 - Following on that, and more importantly, most good players' goal is first and foremost is to get to the NBA. They will look at: what gives me the best chance to do this? Maybe they couldn't get to an NBA factory coming out of high school, and now they can. Friends, relationships, loyalty, even winning, takes a back seat to getting to the League. What can increase my draft stock and marketability.

I do think you'll find more situations where rosters will be imbalanced. Unexpected transfers for which you did not recruit enough replacement players.

The regulation of this rule will be the most important thing. Having no more than 2-3 transfers on a team at any one time might be workable.

EOD it's going to be interesting to watch.

 

[intlzncster]

I'd also argue that there's too much money at stake for the powers that be to allow the entire sport to collapse, as some are suggesting it will.

Which comes back to the regulation thing, which some of us are touting. I don't trust the NCAA to get it right. But schools presidents and ADs will hopefully guide the rules.

 

[Guapo]

You're not wrong about this to some degree, but I think you are underestimating the different dynamic.

#1 - For most people, work is a destination. For players, college basketball is just a short term means to get somewhere else (the destination), whether that be professional ball, or the working world.
#2 - Following on that, and more importantly, most good players' goal is first and foremost is to get to the NBA. They will look at: what gives me the best chance to do this? Maybe they couldn't get to an NBA factory coming out of high school, and now they can. Friends, relationships, loyalty, even winning, takes a back seat to getting to the League. What can increase my draft stock and marketability.

I do think you'll find more situations where rosters will be imbalanced. Unexpected transfers for which you did not recruit enough replacement players.

The regulation of this rule will be the most important thing. Having no more than 2-3 transfers on a team at any one time might be workable.

EOD it's going to be interesting to watch.

If I was to re-write that post, I'd spend less time talking about my employment, since it's easy to think I was comparing my situation to college athletes and that wasn't the point.

The point was to show that I have the ability to leave my current location whenever I want and yet I don't because there are a lot of forces keeping me in a place, similar to there being a lot of forces keeping a college athlete at a school.

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.

 

[djct1999]

If the top gets smaller, then there are fewer scholarships impacted by those transferring to the top and the transfer "epidemic" doesn't exist.



One big thing you're missing: College athletes can't transfer to a higher paying position, which is the #1 reason in the real life people change jobs. There will always be less transfers in the college sports world than job changes because of this.

A majority of college transfers do not transfer up for a shot at the pros. They leave their situations because they are untenable for them, and that's often down or out of division 1.

The most apt comparison because of the lack of waiting period are graduate transfers. These are mature, ready to contribute players who don't clog up scholarships. They're among the most likely candidates to transfer up because they fill in roster gaps and are transitioning their life anyways (finished degree). There were like 80 grad transfers last year.

The slots to transfer up just aren't there like you think there are. There are maybe 60 relevant "power" programs that someone might transfer up to. That's like 750 scholarships total. 50 will leave for the draft early, 180ish will graduate. Plus however many transfer down for normal reasons (6% previous transfer rate of the 560 non-graduating scholarships is 34). That leaves 264 open scholarships. The top 150 or so freshmen will still end up at those programs, so you're looking at around 115 transfers up. If you think there will be substantially more, that means you think coaches will be pushing out players happy at the program (otherwise they'd be in the current transfer number). I just don't see that happening.

You simply can't compare college athletes to real paying jobs. 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 JA 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.

 

[auror]

#2 - Following on that, and more importantly, most good players' goal is first and foremost is to get to the NBA. They will look at: what gives me the best chance to do this? Maybe they couldn't get to an NBA factory coming out of high school, and now they can. Friends, relationships, loyalty, even winning, takes a back seat to getting to the League. What can increase my draft stock and marketability.

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.

 

[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?