Should there be a rule to reduce early transfers?

[Bajan Best]

With all the story lines of Players transferring after their freshman season..
Should the NCAA step in and either;

A) Restrict players from transferring until after their Sophomore Season, or
B) If you transfer as a Freshman you therefore forfeit (2) years of eligibility...

What do you guys think?

 

[huskeynut]

If you can't stop a freshman who is not on an athletic scholarship from transferring after 1 year, you can't stop an athlete on scholarship from trnsferring after 1 year. That's discrimination.

The better question is: why this year is there a seeming rash of transfers? Is this a new trend or a one year anomaly?

For the NCAA to even think about enacting any new rules would be a knee jerk reaction. Leave the NCAA out of it!

 

[Geew1992]

With all the story lines of Players transferring after their freshman season..
Should the NCAA step in and either;

A) Restrict players from transferring until after their Sophomore Season, or
B) If you transfer as a Freshman you therefore forfeit (2) years of eligibility...

What do you guys think?

Like the poster above, what about the students that transfer that aren't on an athletic scholarship? Shoot, I think it's unfair that athletes have to sit out a year period.

 

[greydog]

A) No
B) No
Until there is a rule inhibiting movement of head coaches between college teams...

 

[Bajan Best]

So from the early responses of emphatic NO's
I'm to assume then you all believe that Early transfers are good for basketball,
or perhaps have a better solution to curve it...

 

[chrissaran]

They should be able to play where they want. In the professional world people change jobs all the time. These young women should be able to, also.

 

[Bajan Best]

They should be able to play where they want. In the professional world people change jobs all the time. These young women should be able to, also.

Interesting, in the "Professional world" if you show up for a job with a resume showing that you were not in anyone place for more than 6 months, what is the likely hood of you being hired?

 

[willtalk]

The view as basketball as a career for women changed the entire dynamic for the sport in college. The opportunity to play for pay has increased so much that WCBB can be legitimately seen as preparation for a career. The opportunities are at least as probable as those for the Arts. One thing that makes WCBB even more viable is that the predictability of employment is more consistent. One can be very talented in the Arts but that does not mean you can make a living at it. The level of success in WCBB is usually an indicator at what kind of contract you can expect with those at the WNBA level in the top tier and multiple levels which exist below that. A player can usually get a realistic perception of their options long before they graduate.

High school and college sports used to be totally seen as extra curricular activities. Now high school basketball is often seen as a potential for a college scholarship. The college basketball program is now also seen as a step to professional basketball and then coaching both of which are viable vocations. The present reality and dynamic is such that the previous total emphasis on the relative value of an academic degree has changed. While a degree still has value, it is not as much a guarantee as it once was. To many young people running around with degree's and diminishing options for employment. While it is certainly smart to expand and keep options open via getting that degree and not just relying on sports, the same holds true for many other vocational aspirations.

I believe that the present climate of transfers is probably influenced by the expanded professional options made available in the sport. More female collegians have Pro dreams. If you are not at the level of being drafted or invited to a WNBA camp, your opportunity for an over seas contract will be dictated by your performance in college. So it is important for players to showcase themselves. So naturally players will want to play for teams they feel allows them that opportunity.

I don't know if this change in dynamics is a good or bad thing, but it seems to be our new reality. You can not just make rules that are geared to conditions that existed in the past. If you deny these players the right to showcase and develop their skills you are deny them the opportunity to make a living in their chosen vocation via restrictive eligibility rules. Anyone who does so might be setting themselves up for a law suite.

 

[huskeynut]

So from the early responses of emphatic NO's
I'm to assume then you all believe that Early transfers are good for basketball,
or perhaps have a better solution to curve it...

Assumptions can be dangerous!

No one has stated that transfers are good or bad. They just are. This year's lot of transfers may be an anomoly and not a trend. We really don't know.

How do you curve (curb) it? That is a whole different discussion. Unrealistic expectations of athletes, unrealistic expectations of parents, bad coaching, unfulfilled promises made by coaches, The list goes on and on.

As with many things, there is no quick fix. And I don't see college presidents and AD's taking any interest in this either.

 

[VAUConnFan]

No, scholarship athletes are already heavily restricted beyond the bounds of fairness. If anything, a number of restrictions imposed upon athletes should be rescinded.

 

[OldAlum]

Transfers may not be best for the sport, but they may be best for the players involved. I cannot see restricting individual freedoms to help a game. The "sit out" rule is already problematic for me (though I see the problems of not having it).
I don't think you can ask a student who made a choice they now regret to stay in a situation they don't like. So they have to play a year someplace they don't want to be? And then transfer and sit out another year? Nope, don't see it.

 

[Plebe]

So from the early responses of emphatic NO's
I'm to assume then you all believe that Early transfers are good for basketball,
or perhaps have a better solution to curve it...

I'm not saying they're good for basketball. But just because something isn't demonstrably "good" doesn't mean you have to outlaw it or suppress it.

And why would "early" transfers be any worse for the sport than any other type of transfer?

 

[iamcbs]

The NCAA already has draconian Transfer rules and so do individual conferences. A college student who isn't an athlete can transfer from school without penalty, their only issue is acceptance of credits and classes. Coaches can leave programs for other programs without penalty and often do. The only people in this scenario that are penalized for transferring is the athlete, why? Isn't a college athlete allowed to change his or her mind about where they attend school and what program they want to compete in? Why should they have to sit out a year for essentially changing their mind? Athlete's transfer for a plethora of reasons and we should speculate, but we often do. If Mike Neighbors can leave UW and coach at Arkansas the next season, then why can't Tori McCoy transfer from tOSU and play at the school of her choice the next season. No speculated as to why Neighbors left UW and he suffers no penalty.

 

[UcMiami]

Athletic scholarships already have special rules so 'discrimination' doesn't come into it - the LOI is a contract separate from anything non-athletes enter into. That said ...
NO
Just a bad idea to further restrict player movement - it is already a bit restricted with coaches and schools having a little too much power to curtail transfers.

 

[ricky]

You would punish a student who doesn't desire to be raped or punched in the face by a coach?

 

[j66kicker]

So from the early responses of emphatic NO's
I'm to assume then you all believe that Early transfers are good for basketball,
or perhaps have a better solution to curve it...

I'm not sure I can come up with a reason transfers are 'bad' for CBB. Something doesn't "feel right" about all the transfers, but not sure that's rational. In the business world companies keep their superstars by making it a place they want to stay (they can pay them more too, but some competitor is always gonna come along and offer more). Basketball programs should have make it a program where athletes want to stay. That includes playing time, so you're not going to be able to recruit #1, 2, & 3 at a position and expect #3 to stay as a practice player.

So most have said there are already too many restrictions. What about opening it up further and allowing schools to recruit active players from other schools? (This - "tampering" - is against the rules even in pro sports, but those players are under contract and getting paid).

 

[Centerstream]

I find it odd that the sit out rules only apply to the major college sports. The reason for this rule is so that the student athletes can adjust to the academics at the new school. Well, how come softball players don't have to adjust but women b-ball players do?

 

[EricLA]

So from the early responses of emphatic NO's
I'm to assume then you all believe that Early transfers are good for basketball,
or perhaps have a better solution to curve it...

IMHO... there is no reason to curb it. It is completely irrelevant whether the transfers are good for college hoops or not. The decision to attend college, for most teenagers, is the biggest decision in their young lives thus far. Add to it the pressure of being a student athlete, and it's a daunting task. Not every kid is up for the challenge. Not every kid is up for what is required/demanded at UCONN (or whatever school they first chose).

So if a kid spends a year at a program (or even a half year, or even in EDD/Wright's situations, never attends a single class), they have every right to leave and attend the university they want. Once a player has COMMITTED (signed their LOI), my understanding is if they choose to leave, they need to sit out a whole year. That's 2 full semesters of no hoops on their new team.

That certainly seems like a harsh enough penalty for leaving a school. I see absolutely nothing good in making it more punitive, trying to "force" kids to stay at said school a minute longer than they want to.

 

[Wally East]

You're talking about putting in place a rule that affects about 3,000 people because of your perception that about 0.1% of them are doing something that might or might not be good for the sport as a whole?

No thank you

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

With all the story lines of Players transferring after their freshman season..
Should the NCAA step in and either;

A) Restrict players from transferring until after their Sophomore Season, or
B) If you transfer as a Freshman you therefore forfeit (2) years of eligibility...

What do you guys think?

No
No

Coaches, however, should have to sit out a year if they take a new position and leave recruited players hanging.