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

[Herman Cain]

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

This is one of the few rules that actually benefit a student athlete so I think it is a good thing. Most evidence points in the opposite direction of the article.

[ChicosBailBonds]

For a guy who doesn't like paying for "entitlements" for others, you sure have strong expectations that others will pay for your entitlements.

I said many times, I'm 100% socialist when it comes to sports.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They still benefit from the year the kid spent at the high-major school. And thinking that all transfers are "a very disciplined decision" is massive overstatement. The transfer list is over 460, my guess is not all of these are marginally disciplined, much less very disciplined.

Further, there have been quite a few mentions on Twitter that of these transfers, more than half are not the student-athlete's decision. For whatever reason, the staff doesn't want them. So the staffs can force the kids out, but the kids can't make the decision to move on of their own accord?

Everyone knows the system. When you take a player that sits out a year, you know there is the chance he will be eligible to move on as a graduate transfer. No one is being blindsided by this. If you don't want this to happen to your program, don't take transfers, don't use redshirts. Problem solved.

Let's put it another way, that transfer list of 460 would be 3X that if they didn't have to sit out a year, thus it is disciplined to the point they have to understand what it means, what the ramifications are.

[Babybluejeans]

Because regular students are paying to be developed, not the other way around.  Your comparison is silly. Scholarship athletes are being developed on the university's dime.  They are putting significant resources into these kids, I don't find it ludicrous at all that they want to protect that investment of time, money, etc. 

I care because of the tampering issue. It's only going to make the underbelly even seedier. 

By your logic, scholarship students should be penalized for transferring to a different school. At least with an athlete that performs well and leaves, the school got a tangible return on the investment. A student, hardly. Yet no reasonable person would argue a student should be limited from a transfer.

In virtually every other facet of life people can trade up or down as they choose. It's often the motivation and reward for good performance. But college athletes should be subjected to a different standard? Because universities may lose money otherwise? It's illogical and, time will demonstrate, untenable.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Everyone knows the system. When you take a player that sits out a year, you know there is the chance he will be eligible to move on as a graduate transfer. No one is being blindsided by this. If you don't want this to happen to your program, don't take transfers, don't use redshirts. Problem solved.

Someone can correct me, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to be in your 4th year to do this and you also don't have to be redshirted previously either.  Players have done this after 3 years, no sitting.  If you have completed your degree and "graduated" and your school doesn't have that graduate program, you can change.  I think.  Feel free to correct me.

FCS coaches weigh in    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/12/fcs-coach-montana-state-rob-ash-lobbies-to-end-ncaas-graduate-transfer-rule/


Coach K certainly doesn't like it, calls it a farce....clearly Wojo as pupil doesn't agree.  Alford and a few others weigh in as well. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/29/sports/la-sp-0130-college-basketball-graduates-20140130  


I find it rather interesting that the Michigan State, Duke, UCLA coaches are against this.  It's not like they would lose a player late in the game to another school to a graduate transfer.  Doesn't really impact them IMO.

[Jay Bee]

Someone can correct me, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to be in your 4th year to do this and you also don't have to be redshirted previously either.  Players have done this after 3 years, no sitting.  If you have completed your degree and "graduated" and your school doesn't have that graduate program, you can change.  I think.  Feel free to correct me.

You are almost correct, but it's less restrictive than you think: the "your school doesn't have that graduate program" isn't a requirement. Under a scenario (Trent Lockett is an example) where a kid has met all degree requirements for graduation (but prior not have to have received a degree is OK, interestingly), he qualifies for the graduate transfer exception. Whether he did it in 4 years, didn't play a year, did it in 2 years, 3, etc.. doesn't matter.




FCS coaches weigh in    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/12/fcs-coach-montana-state-rob-ash-lobbies-to-end-ncaas-graduate-transfer-rule/

Coach K certainly doesn't like it, calls it a farce....clearly Wojo as pupil doesn't agree.  Alford and a few others weigh in as well. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/29/sports/la-sp-0130-college-basketball-graduates-20140130  

I find it rather interesting that the Michigan State, Duke, UCLA coaches are against this.  It's not like they would lose a player late in the game to another school to a graduate transfer.  Doesn't really impact them IMO.

I think you're confused or just playing around - you know better than to take what a coach says at face value and word-for-word truth. Think of many Americans - they don't like many laws and are disturbed by them... but they may still utilize them when advantageous to themselves. No different for some of these coaches. Think back to last offseason.. Octeus and UCLA.

I am "against the rules" of graduate transfers (especially the waiver), but as long as it's there I'm fine with teams taking advantage of it.

Now, the thing to remember is that there are two different things - a graduate transfer EXCEPTION and a graduate transfer WAIVER. Many times the traditional media will report on a graduate transfer who previously made a 4-4 transfer and therefore is not eligible for the EXCEPTION as a "done deal" to be immediately eligible. This is not true - with a few exceptions, these types have ultimately been granted a graduate transfer WAIVER to be immediately eligible, but an exception and waiver are different things with different requirements.

The new legislation carved out graduate transfers... they are not affected is my understanding.

However, the NCAA will continue to look at transfer "issues" and my hope is that at least the graduate transfer WAIVER is the next to fall - but would be fine with the EXCEPTION going away too. Give the graduate transfers an extra year on their clock. In a scenario where a kid goes to grad school at a new school, give 'em two years to complete the degree - one sitting out, one playing.

Otherwise, you've just got a bunch of kids taking 6 credits in grad per semester, then dropping out of the program after a year (or a little less than a year). It's about the education, right? If true, then change the damn rule. But it's more about perception/numbers... so until the masses start talking about the crappy graduate transfer dropout rate, it's not as important to address.

[MU82]

Once a kid gives a verbal commitment, even if he's only in 9th grade, he should be bound to that school forever. Even if the coach leaves, even if there's a series of deaths in his family, even if the school drops sports, whatever, he can never leave. Because it's about protecting the integrity of the system.

And then, after his eligibility is up, he must tithe 40% of whatever he makes to the school -- regardless of whether he becomes a pro athlete or a guy who hands out the fries (at $10.10 an effen hour; talk about ruining America!).

Oh, and he needs to tithe another 40% to the coach because, well, how is a poor schlub of a coach supposed to get by on the $4 million he got from School A, the $8 million he got from School B and the $17.5 million he got from School C over a five-year span?

Sure the coach jumped around a little, but nobody ever said the system was supposed to be "fair." I mean, what is "fair," anyway? And besides, it's not as if the coach ever preached loyalty and brotherhood and "team" to his players.

Because, see, coaches can say anything and nobody really needs to take what they say at face value. Unless they're discussing how the grad transfer rule must go. That we should take at face value.

[brewcity77]

Once a kid gives a verbal commitment, even if he's only in 9th grade, he should be bound to that school forever. Even if the coach leaves, even if there's a series of deaths in his family, even if the school drops sports, whatever, he can never leave. Because it's about protecting the integrity of the system.

And then, after his eligibility is up, he must tithe 40% of whatever he makes to the school -- regardless of whether he becomes a pro athlete or a guy who hands out the fries (at $10.10 an effen hour; talk about ruining America!).

Oh, and he needs to tithe another 40% to the coach because, well, how is a poor schlub of a coach supposed to get by on the $4 million he got from School A, the $8 million he got from School B and the $17.5 million he got from School C over a five-year span?

Sure the coach jumped around a little, but nobody ever said the system was supposed to be "fair." I mean, what is "fair," anyway? And besides, it's not as if the coach ever preached loyalty and brotherhood and "team" to his players.

Because, see, coaches can say anything and nobody really needs to take what they say at face value. Unless they're discussing how the grad transfer rule must go. That we should take at face value.

Hear, hear.

Kids make a decision that looks like it's in their best interest when they are 17 years old. They go to school for (usually) four years, graduate, and want to play one year somewhere else and should be penalized? Whether it's to improve their draft stock, overseas options, or just to get playing time at a lower level school, they did what they were supposed to do. They got their degree and should be given options on how they wish to further their careers, whether that is their academic or athletic career.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time feeling bad for these coaches that for the most part use these kids as stepping stones to bigger and better jobs. If Bill Self took the OKC job and for some reason Kansas offered their job to Gary Waters, he would climb over a pile of writhing college kids to get to Lawrence and no one would bat an eye, yet we're supposed to bleed our hearts for him because his best players applied themselves in the classroom and on the court to better their own situation?

Give me a break. The kids worked for the chance to better their situation. You benefited from that work. Let them make their own decisions, don't handcuff them to a school they already graduated from.

[GGGG]

I said many times, I'm 100% socialist when it comes to sports.

No, you are an oligarchist.

Anytime there is an issue that pits those with power versus those without power, you land on the side of the former pretty much every time.

[mu03eng]

No, you are an oligarchist.

Anytime there is an issue that pits those with power versus those without power, you land on the side of the former pretty much every time.

[Boozemon Barro]

Pay for play would fix this issue right up.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I know a lot of you aren't going to like it.......

It's coming.  Izzo, Coach K, small  program coaches, etc, support the change


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/division-chief-puts-transfer-rules-priority-list-185137288--ncaab.html

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I know a lot of you aren't going to like it.......

It's coming.  Izzo, Coach K, small  program coaches, etc, support the change


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/division-chief-puts-transfer-rules-priority-list-185137288--ncaab.html

''No one is happy with the transfer rate, particularly in the sport of men's basketball,'' Lennon said. ''When 40 percent of your students are leaving after their second year, that's a signal something's wrong.''

But obviously, nothing is wrong with the universities or administrations, something is wrong with those gosh darn students who don't know what's best for themselves.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No, you are an oligarchist.

Anytime there is an issue that pits those with power versus those without power, you land on the side of the former pretty much every time.

Anytime...pretty much every time.  Make up your mind.

You are also incorrect.  Sports has a limited talent pool, unlike the pool that can flip burgers.  You are trying to cross over an economics discussion with a political analogy. 

[GGGG]

I know a lot of you aren't going to like it.......

It's coming.  Izzo, Coach K, small  program coaches, etc, support the change


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/division-chief-puts-transfer-rules-priority-list-185137288--ncaab.html

Yep.  The powerful coaches are going to get their way again, and Chicos is all on board.

''No one is happy with the transfer rate, particularly in the sport of men's basketball,'' Lennon said. ''When 40 percent of your students are leaving after their second year, that's a signal something's wrong.''

But they are doing *nothing* different for students after their second year.  They are talking about limiting the movement of graduate transfers - you know - the guys that actually were successful in school and have a degree to show for it.

Unbelievable.  

[GGGG]

Anytime...pretty much every time.  Make up your mind.

You are also incorrect.  Sports has a limited talent pool, unlike the pool that can flip burgers.  You are trying to cross over an economics discussion with a political analogy. 

Oligarchy is an economics definition as well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oligarchy is an economics definition as well.

Correct, but you are using it incorrectly in this case.

I can't think of a sports league or conference that doesn't have a hierarchy of control.  They set the rules, the guidelines, etc.  It's called order.  Because one supports SOME of the rules or guidelines they are making does not mean one supports ALL of what they are doing.  Nevertheless, that control structure is needed or chaos ensues.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yep.  The powerful coaches are going to get their way again, and Chicos is all on board.



But they are doing *nothing* different for students after their second year.  They are talking about limiting the movement of graduate transfers - you know - the guys that actually were successful in school and have a degree to show for it.

Unbelievable.  

Yes, those powerful mid major coaches that are mentioned in this article and in this thread.  Nothing screams power than the head coach at Drexel that if you gave 100 sports fans 1 minute to name who he was and spotted them the first letter of the coaches name, likely 95% or higher couldn't do it.  Power baby.   Or the coach at Belmont.  So on and so forther.

Unbelievable is that they are trying to prevent the 1% from destroying middle class of college basketball.  You know, trying to prevent an Oligarchy situation.  Ironic.   

[GGGG]

Yes, those powerful mid major coaches that are mentioned in this article and in this thread.  Nothing screams power than the head coach at Drexel that if you gave 100 sports fans 1 minute to name who he was and spotted them the first letter of the coaches name, likely 95% or higher couldn't do it.  Power baby.   Or the coach at Belmont.  So on and so forther.

Unbelievable is that they are trying to prevent the 1% from destroying middle class of college basketball.  You know, trying to prevent an Oligarchy situation.  Ironic.   

The coaches are more powerful than the student athletes.  Period.  And they will get their way.

[GGGG]

Correct, but you are using it incorrectly in this case.

I can't think of a sports league or conference that doesn't have a hierarchy of control.  They set the rules, the guidelines, etc.  It's called order.  Because one supports SOME of the rules or guidelines they are making does not mean one supports ALL of what they are doing.  Nevertheless, that control structure is needed or chaos ensues.   

Actually most sports leagues these days act with both management and players coming to an agreement over their working relationship.  That is why professional athletes get a say in their working limitations, compensation and ability to be placed on the free market.  It is a negotiated arrangement.

Except in the case of the NCAA, the student athlete does not have such representation.  And when they do the right thing (receive undergraduate degree) which allows them more freedom (graduate transfer), those with the power (NCAA and its coaches) fight to restrict it further.

Oligarchy.  Correctly used.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The coaches are more powerful than the student athletes.  Period.  And they will get their way.

Yup, and your boss is more powerful than you.  Just as my boss is.  Oligarchy.


If you want the players to be more powerful than the coaches....I suggest watching the NBA.

[TJ]

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

+1

Until the day when players can't be easily pushed out on a coach's whim - and have to sit out a year at his new school for the privilege - I have no sympathy for coaches in the only situation where the inverse is possible.  Not to mention the fact that it only affects a handful of players.
 

[TJ]

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.

Come on, we all know that the part in bold is not possible for incoming players.  Silly thing to say.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Come on, we all know that the part in bold is not possible for incoming players.  Silly thing to say.

Why is it silly, didn't Northwestern try to unionize two years ago?  Most student athletes are getting a great deal on college scholarships.  440,000 of them.   People here want to focus on the .1%. 

[Lennys Tap]

No, you are an oligarchist.

Anytime there is an issue that pits those with power versus those without power, you land on the side of the former pretty much every time.

His constant name dropping is testimony to his infatuation with the powerful. He's been awarded in his career for sucking up to the powerful and actually believes being their toady is something to brag about.

He despises the powerless, thinks they're trying to steal his money and his kid's acceptance letter to college. Doesn't like jucos, they devalue his degree.

There's no reason for him to be an elitist but he is. Or at least he comes across as one. Likely he's compensating.