Fixing the 5th year transfer rule....coaches say must do it

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is exactly what would happen if you didn't make regular transfers sit out a year.....it ends up killing other programs as players "trade up" to other programs.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2015/04/ncaa_college_fifth-year_transf.html

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is exactly what would happen if you didn't make regular transfers sit out a year.....it ends up killing other programs as players "trade up" to other programs.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2015/04/ncaa_college_fifth-year_transf.html

There are maybe 20-40 kids on the list every year who use the rule to "move up" as the coach says. Most 5th years actually move down or sideways looking for more playing time. I know this contradicts the article but I tracked every grad transfer last year and this year. The article is wrong. With such a low number "abusing" the rule, I am ok with it.

[WarriorInNYC]

There are maybe 20-40 kids on the list every year who use the rule to "move up" as the coach says. Most 5th years actually move down or sideways looking for more playing time. I know this contradicts the article but I tracked every grad transfer last year and this year. The article is wrong. With such a low number "abusing" the rule, I am ok with it.

But I think to Chico's point, you would have a ton more players looking to "move up" if there was no requirement to sit out a year.  You would probably have just as many "moving down" to either get more playing time, especially as spots are taken up by those "moving up".

Ipso facto, transferring would be even more out of control than it is today.

[GGGG]

It's a rule that rewards players for playing well and graduating in four years.  But of course mid-major coaches view that as "bad business." 

My heart weeps. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

But I think to Chico's point, you would have a ton more players looking to "move up" if there was no requirement to sit out a year.  You would probably have just as many "moving down" to either get more playing time, especially as spots are taken up by those "moving up".

Ipso facto, transferring would be even more out of control than it is today.

I'm not talking about regular transfers. Just the the graduate transfer rule

[speri]

It bugs me that people call this a transfer. It is really transferring if you GRADUATE and then enroll at another institution to pursue your master's degree?

Everyone should be proud that the student-athlete graduated and they should be able to enroll at whatever school they want to as their reward.

[jsglow]

It bugs me that people call this a transfer. It is really transferring if you GRADUATE and then enroll at another institution to pursue your master's degree?

Everyone should be proud that the student-athlete graduated and they should be able to enroll at whatever school they want to as their reward.

Great point.  I also transferred after graduating from Marquette, four year of eligibility still intact.  Funny, U of C somehow never asked about it or utilized them.  Crazy, I know.

[MU82]

It's a rule that rewards players for playing well and graduating in four years.  But of course mid-major coaches view that as "bad business." 

My heart weeps. 

Yep. Exactly one class of student-athletes -- those smart and dedicated enough to graduate early -- has the upper hand. Nevertheless, the poor, abused, multimillionaire coaches want to rein them in.

I'd laugh, but it's actually too pathetic to laugh about.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

A lot of redundant heavy breathing in that piece, without much reasoning.

[chapman]

With all the noise around early entries, poor graduation rates, and poor academic progress, this rule is great as a reward those who not only graduate, but have eligibility remaining.  It's about them as students, not about the schools gaining or losing the player. 

Only part I'm not a fan of - I don't think it should apply to those who have already transferred.  Realize we had the benefit with Carlino.  Just don't like a Villanova providing a scholarship to Ennis for three years to get two years of playing time, while that year of sitting out is leveraged into graduating with eligibility remaining to transfer again.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's a rule that rewards players for playing well and graduating in four years.  But of course mid-major coaches view that as "bad business." 

My heart weeps. 

Tom Izzo is not a mid major coach....he hates the rule, says it needs to be changed.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not sure why so many think this is just a midmajor thing.  We took two of our last 5th year students from Arizona State and BYU.  I guess you can argue BYU is in a midmajor league, but I wouldn't say they are a midmajor program.

TAMU, I'd love to see your data.


Point in my mind is this proves out what would happen in full free agency if kids didn't have to sit out a year...it disrupts teams, the very programs that took a chance on these kids in the first place, developed them, etc and then they are left high and dry.

What a coach makes, is so utterly irrelevent to the discussion I have no idea why it is mentioned at all.  The poster will have to explain that.  All kinds of things in life some people get to do that others can't....that's part of life.

[GGGG]

Tom Izzo is not a mid major coach....he hates the rule, says it needs to be changed.

Why do you think I care about Tom Izzo's opinion on the matter?

[GGGG]

Point in my mind is this proves out what would happen in full free agency if kids didn't have to sit out a year...it disrupts teams, the very programs that took a chance on these kids in the first place, developed them, etc and then they are left high and dry.

And if they don't develop, it can be "suggested" that they look elsewhere. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why do you think I care about Tom Izzo's opinion on the matter?

Because he is one of those "multi-millionaire" coaches, as successful as any in the country, widely viewed to at least try and do the right thing. 

He isn't a midmajor coach or even a coach of a team that is losing kids to this rule.

[MUsoxfan]

This is exactly what would happen if you didn't make regular transfers sit out a year.....it ends up killing other programs as players "trade up" to other programs.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2015/04/ncaa_college_fifth-year_transf.html

When do we make coaches start sitting out a year after taking a new job?

[GGGG]

Because he is one of those "multi-millionaire" coaches, as successful as any in the country, widely viewed to at least try and do the right thing.  

He isn't a midmajor coach or even a coach of a team that is losing kids to this rule.

I guess I should be more clear.  I never brought up his contract.  I only brought up mid-major coaches because they quoted one in the article.

I don't care what *any* coach thinks of the rule.  They are biased against it for a reason.  Since it is a rule that benefits solid academic and athletic performance, I think it should be kept.

[ChicosBailBonds]

When do we make coaches start sitting out a year after taking a new job?

Non-sequitor.  Has nothing to do with it.  An employee has a contract with a university that grants him rights of movement or forced to pay to get out of the contract.  Student athlete signs their own contract with grant in aid.  Don't like the terms, change it.

Tell you what, if a player wants to move, fine....player should have to reimburse original university for development work they put into him, room and board, tuition.  US military academies do this if you bail out on them since they are paying your freight.

I'm all for that.  You want full freedom, pay back the school.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I guess I should be more clear.  I never brought up his contract.  I only brought up mid-major coaches because they quoted one in the article.

I don't care what *any* coach thinks of the rule.  They are biased against it for a reason.  Since it is a rule that benefits solid academic and athletic performance, I think it should be kept.

Never said you did bring up his contract, I was adding MU82's comments.  What a coach makes has nothing to do with this.

People are always biased one way or another around any rules, that's a given. 

[Pakuni]

Non-sequitor.  Has nothing to do with it.  An employee has a contract with a university that grants him rights of movement or forced to pay to get out of the contract.  Student athlete signs their own contract with grant in aid.  Don't like the terms, change it.

Tell you what, if a player wants to move, fine....player should have to reimburse original university for development work they put into him, room and board, tuition.  US military academies do this if you bail out on them since they are paying your freight.

I'm all for that.  You want full freedom, pay back the school.

Huh .... so a player shouldn't be compensated for the revenue he helps a school produce, but the school should be compensated for allowing the student to produce revenue for it?
That's not bass ackwards at all.

Last I checked, 100,000+ people never paid $100+ each to fill a stadium to see a West Point cadet take a class.

[Galway Eagle]

People graduate from small unknown schools and go to big prestigious grad schools all the time. I don't think it should be different in basketball. Those who actually helped the ncaa maintain its claim that it's about academics deserve to move up. I definitely agree with the transfer rule unless there's a coaching change.  

[bilsu]

This is the problem I have with the article. The premise is that the 5Th year transfers are generally hurting the mid-major programs and I have no problem with that statement. Further on it talks about regular transfers. The majority of which are transferring down in competition. So the lower level programs are benefiting from these transfers and than whining about the players that transfer up. 

[mu03eng]

Non-sequitor.  Has nothing to do with it.  An employee has a contract with a university that grants him rights of movement or forced to pay to get out of the contract.  Student athlete signs their own contract with grant in aid.  Don't like the terms, change it.

Tell you what, if a player wants to move, fine....player should have to reimburse original university for development work they put into him, room and board, tuition.  US military academies do this if you bail out on them since they are paying your freight.

I'm all for that.  You want full freedom, pay back the school.

How exactly would you like the student athlete to change the terms of the contract, and with what funds shall they use to do the negotiation?  The NCAA and the universities should be looking out for the students but they are really looking at revenue generation and they have a captive work force they can exploit.  It's in the schools best interest to allow coaches to move freely and players to remain captive....how would you propose the players get a better deal?

I support sitting out one year on a regular transfer....with the exception of a coaching change.  If the coach leaves, so can the players(I'd be fine with a provision banning transfer to the coaches new school).  The grad transfer is one of the most common sense reforms the NCAA has deployed.  It rewards academic achievement and allows a player to better themselves.

As far as your payback for development, do coaches have to payback schools for their promotional opportunities or exposure to better opportunities?  And even the academies give you a "free year"  if you drop prior to your sophomore year you don't owe anything.

[GooooMarquette]

With all the noise around early entries, poor graduation rates, and poor academic progress, this rule is great as a reward those who not only graduate, but have eligibility remaining.  It's about them as students, not about the schools gaining or losing the player. 

Agree 100%.

I don't see it as a mid-major/high-major thing.  I see it as an additional option for that very small percentage of student-athletes who somehow manage to play college hoops and still graduate with eligibility remaining.  

[Coleman]

The graduate transfer rule is a good rule. Shouldn't be changed. If you have done things the right way and graduated from your institution, you should be free to move to another without waiting a year. Its that simple.