Grad transfer thread

[tower912]

Don't muck up the recruiting thread.  Grad transfers.  I like them.  Easing transfer restrictions, I am for it.  Now.......go.

[brewcity77]

I am fine with them being restricted in-conference. I think it's very rare that a player couldn't find a good fit outside his current conference when there are at least 335+ other options no matter what conference you are in. Even if the school is comfortable with it, I could see simply banning them unilaterally so as not to create issues like how Bo was made to be a jackass by blocking Uthoff from 263 different schools they might play in the next 3 years.

I do, however, like the graduate transfer rule. However insincere it may be at times, we still live under the auspices that education matters and student athletes are students first. Rewarding those that complete their education in less time than it takes to complete their athletic eligibility seems perfectly fair to me. As it more often than not ends up being a benefit for guys that are transferring down rather than up, it feels that much more suiting that kids that put in the work can go to a school where they can play a larger role.

If it sometimes benefits the bigger schools, so be it. No matter what the rules are, in this game, someone will exploit them and figure out loopholes. At least this one is a loophole that rewards academics.

[MU82]

OK ...

Anyone who wants to can take all the crapola I said in the other thread and paste it in here! I'm WAAAAAY too lazy to do it!!!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Personally, I think it is silly to allow grad transfers to be immediately eligible but make regular transfers sit out a year. The way things are currently set up, I would give them an extra year on their clock but make them sit the year. If they truly want a grad degree, then they'll appreciate that extra year.

HOWEVER, I think making transfers sit out a year at all is dumb. They are students first and if they want to continue their academic career elsewhere they should be allowed to do so without having to sit. Yes, it will lead to more transfers. Yes it essentially creates a second recruiting season. Yes it would take an adjustment, but I am fine with all that. Basketball has weathered other similar culture shifts and it would weather this one as well.

I do think there is some legitimacy to limiting intraconference transfers. If the mandatory year off for transfers was taken away, I would be comfortable with making intraconference transfers sit a year as a deterrent.

I would also say midseason transfers have to sit out the rest of the season. No playing the fall semester at one schools and the spring semester at another. Even in Jameel McKay type situations.

[MU82]

Personally, I think it is silly to allow grad transfers to be immediately eligible but make regular transfers sit out a year. The way things are currently set up, I would give them an extra year on their clock but make them sit the year. If they truly want a grad degree, then they'll appreciate that extra year.

HOWEVER, I think making transfers sit out a year at all is dumb. They are students first and if they want to continue their academic career elsewhere they should be allowed to do so without having to sit. Yes, it will lead to more transfers. Yes it essentially creates a second recruiting season. Yes it would take an adjustment, but I am fine with all that. Basketball has weathered other similar culture shifts and it would weather this one as well.

I do think there is some legitimacy to limiting intraconference transfers. If the mandatory year off for transfers was taken away, I would be comfortable with making intraconference transfers sit a year as a deterrent.

I would also say midseason transfers have to sit out the rest of the season. No playing the fall semester at one schools and the spring semester at another. Even in Jameel McKay type situations.

This.

Those who want to protect the schools and coaches at all cost will conveniently forget that a coach can pull a scholarship for any reason. They are not 4-year contracts.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This.

Those who want to protect the schools and coaches at all cost will conveniently forget that a coach can pull a scholarship for any reason. They are not 4-year contracts.

If a student does leave a 2, 3, or 4 year scholarship early, then I would also be ok with making him sit a year as a penalty. But very few D1 programs actually offer multi-year scholarships in basketball. Some have the ability to. Very few actually do it.

[Jay Bee]

Personally, I think it is silly to allow grad transfers to be immediately eligible but make regular transfers sit out a year. The way things are currently set up, I would give them an extra year on their clock but make them sit the year. If they truly want a grad degree, then they'll appreciate that extra year.

HOWEVER, I think making transfers sit out a year at all is dumb. They are students first and if they want to continue their academic career elsewhere they should be allowed to do so without having to sit. Yes, it will lead to more transfers. Yes it essentially creates a second recruiting season. Yes it would take an adjustment, but I am fine with all that. Basketball has weathered other similar culture shifts and it would weather this one as well.

Your first paragraph -- that is my view.

Your second paragraph, things really go to crap.

If they are students first, the one-year in residence rule HELPS them. Data shows transfers struggle more in the classroom. A year in residence to get situated will help the STUDENT.

Allowing transfers to compete immediately would cause harm to the STUDENT.

Grad transfers being an exception where they are immediately eligible is ridiculous. Most (Trent being an uncommon example) are guys that graduated in four years. Big flippin deal. If you'd like to attend a different school AND play there for a year, great. We'll add a year on your five-year clock as the reward. Sit out a year and play the next.

[MarquetteDano]

If a student does leave a 2, 3, or 4 year scholarship early, then I would also be ok with making him sit a year as a penalty. But very few D1 programs actually offer multi-year scholarships in basketball. Some have the ability to. Very few actually do it.

I have never thought of it this way and I find it intriguing.  I am not a fan of transfers and it will happen more if you don't make them sit a year.  However,  if a program is only  offering a 1 year scholarship and that player decides to transfer,  I think I would be okay for them to be immediately eligible.  Fair is fair.

[forgetful]

OK ...

Anyone who wants to can take all the crapola I said in the other thread and paste it in here! I'm WAAAAAY too lazy to do it!!!

The violin player on full scholarship also gets this. So does the genius.

Either is free to transfer to another school without penalty ... even within the same conference. Either also can graduate early and go to any grad school on scholarship.

The "value of the scholarship" argument is a strawman.

This will be my last comment on this subject in this thread, so anybody else can have the last word here. glow is right ... this thread isn't the right forum for this discussion.

I copied this one over because I wanted to comment on it earlier, but didn't want to contaminate that thread. 

I understand your point and to some extents think it is valid.  Where I think it is invalid is in regards to the purpose of the transfer. 

The violin player or the genius are transferring for academic reasons.  The basketball player is more often than not transferring for basketball reasons only.

It is much more difficult (read higher requirements) to transfer into a school than to be admitted to begin with.  Few athletes would have sufficient grades to actually compete for transfer spots that are available.

Instead they are being admitted solely due to their abilities in athletics.

For the violin player and genius.  If they did not meet the competitive academic transfer requirements they would not be admitted, regardless of their intelligence or violin playing abilities. 

So these situations can not be compared. 

[wadesworld]

They aren't students first, so there's the first problem here.

Graduating in 4 years while also being a full time athlete is a fairly big deal, so good for them, be rewarded.

[Jay Bee]

They aren't students first, so there's the first problem here.

Graduating in 4 years while also being a full time athlete is a fairly big deal, so good for them, be rewarded.

If you're going to go with the 'it's a student thing' claim, then you have to stick with it.. I think a lot of people waiver and try to play both sides.

Nonetheless, I'm in favor of rewarding them -- by adding a year onto their eligibility clock. Sit for a year, though.

[wadesworld]

If you're going to go with the 'it's a student thing' claim, then you have to stick with it.. I think a lot of people waiver and try to play both sides.

Nonetheless, I'm in favor of rewarding them -- by adding a year onto their eligibility clock. Sit for a year, though.

They are a student.  They aren't a student first.

[Jay Bee]

They are a student.  They aren't a student first.

We're talking about NCAA rules here. Accordingly to the NCAA, they are students first, athletes second. Very clear.

So, if you're going to play within the confines of this being an NCAA decision, then any rules should be aligned with it.



So, if they're students first.. need to take care of the student part first. Let the transfers sit out a year to get acclimated. It's about being a student first.

[wadesworld]

We're talking about NCAA rules here. Accordingly to the NCAA, they are students first, athletes second. Very clear.

So, if you're going to play within the confines of this being an NCAA decision, then any rules should be aligned with it.



So, if they're students first.. need to take care of the student part first. Let the transfers sit out a year to get acclimated. It's about being a student first.

Are they on scholarship for their academics?

Also, seems to me if they graduated they did take care of the student part.  Not sure what they'd need to get acclimated to.  They're 22-23 year old adults who have been in college for 4 years already.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If they are students first, the one-year in residence rule HELPS them. Data shows transfers struggle more in the classroom. A year in residence to get situated will help the STUDENT.

Allowing transfers to compete immediately would cause harm to the STUDENT.

The NCAA does not currently require transfers to sit out a year because it will help them academically. If that was the case, it would require ALL student athletes to do this (which they actually used to do). The only reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring. Normal students are able to transfer without sacrificing a year of student organizations or internships, why should student athletes?

If schools want to deter students from transferring, the right thing to do would be to offer them multi-year scholarships and make kids who leave early sit out a year for breaking the "contract." To me that would be the just thing.

But why would they when they can keep the status quo? Players can get cut at any time with no repercussions for the school but players are forced to sit out a year.

[MU82]

The NCAA does not currently require transfers to sit out a year because it will help them academically. If that was the case, it would require ALL student athletes to do this (which they actually used to do). The only reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring. Normal students are able to transfer without sacrificing a year of student organizations or internships, why should student athletes?

If schools want to deter students from transferring, the right thing to do would be to offer them multi-year scholarships and make kids who leave early sit out a year for breaking the "contract." To me that would be the just thing.

But why would they when they can keep the status quo? Players can get cut at any time with no repercussions for the school but players are forced to sit out a year.

Exactly.

If schools want to kindly give these graduate transfers a year off to "get acclimated," they should go back to making freshmen ineligible. After all, 18-year-olds need acclimation a hell of a lot more than 22-year-olds do.

But that's moot because they aren't turning back the clock on freshman eligibility, so the "acclimation" argument is just for show. As is pretty much any argument that would try to keep somebody who earned his degree in three years from going elsewhere and playing a fourth year without sitting out.

I know why the multimillionaire coaches hate the rule -- because they are control freaks and it's the one thing their multimillionaire arses can't control, the one area in which the athlete actually has the upper hand. They can't stand that!

I'm a little surprised so many Scoopers are against it.

[Herman Cain]

I have never felt the system on transfers was fair to the student athlete. Most kids who play D 1 sports are not stars and they should be freely enabled to changes schools if they find a better situation. Coaches are more than willing to cut a kid loose if he or she doesn't meet their needs. They can do so with no repercussion.  We have our own recent case of that has been discussed quite a bit on this board.

The grad transfer rule is the one rule  that actually can benefit a kid.  Sometimes a kid grows as a player and wants one chance to play in a better league. I find nothing wrong with that. As long as everyone involved knows what the deal is going in things should work out. Coaches obviously,have to be aware of the kids who are just trying to showcase themselves . Sometimes the kids themselves grow as players in that grad transfer year. Look at Lockett, he found a role for himself as our glue guy and we had a great year. Carlino came in with a reputation as chucker and used his year with us to reform his reputation to the point where he has actually found his way onto a d league roster.

[brewcity77]

I know why the multimillionaire coaches hate the rule -- because they are control freaks and it's the one thing their multimillionaire arses can't control, the one area in which the athlete actually has the upper hand. They can't stand that!

The only time I can have any sympathy is the argument of the player that works hard for a small school, like the Cleveland State or Drexel kids, then transfer to play for Pitino at Louisville or some other monster program. You put time and effort in, why should someone else get the reward?

However, that's where I think the restricting in-conference transfers does enough. No, that player that you put blood, sweat, and tears into shouldn't come back and kick your ass, but if this is for the good of the future of the students and the players, how could anyone deny them? If it's a kid transferring up, hasn't his hard work to excel in the classroom and on the court earned him that shot? If it's the kid transferring on the same level but closer to home, hasn't he earned the right to play where he wants and play in front of his family as he ends his career? And if it's the kid transferring down (which is most of these), shouldn't they get the chance to start or maybe simply play a bit instead of toiling behind guys that have passed them by moving into their final year?

In every grad transfer case, the kid did the work and being able to have some modicum of control over his destiny is the reward. Not only will I not cry for the multi-millionaire coaches, I have a hard time crying for the hundred-thousandaire coaches that probably just as surely would have cut that player if they were #13 on the bench instead of #1 in the starting lineup. And if you continually produce kids that are wanted by high-majors, that's probably an indicator that some high major will realize you deserve a shot.

For all those guys, it's a business, yet we're supposed to get all weepy for them when the kids treat it like a business too. Yeah...you put the work in, someone else is reaping the reward. That sucks. But welcome to big time college basketball. You wanted to be a coach, now suck up the difficult parts and go recruit a replacement.

[MU82]

I copied this one over because I wanted to comment on it earlier, but didn't want to contaminate that thread. 

I understand your point and to some extents think it is valid.  Where I think it is invalid is in regards to the purpose of the transfer. 

The violin player or the genius are transferring for academic reasons.  The basketball player is more often than not transferring for basketball reasons only.

It is much more difficult (read higher requirements) to transfer into a school than to be admitted to begin with.  Few athletes would have sufficient grades to actually compete for transfer spots that are available.

Instead they are being admitted solely due to their abilities in athletics.

For the violin player and genius.  If they did not meet the competitive academic transfer requirements they would not be admitted, regardless of their intelligence or violin playing abilities. 

So these situations can not be compared.

OK. I freely admit I'm not an expert on who does and doesn't get into various schools for various majors.

Again though, as others say, are the athletes "students first" or not? If so, they should have the same freedoms as others. If not, get 'em out of college and let 'em play semi-pro ball somewhere.

[forgetful]

OK. I freely admit I'm not an expert on who does and doesn't get into various schools for various majors.

Again though, as others say, are the athletes "students first" or not? If so, they should have the same freedoms as others. If not, get 'em out of college and let 'em play semi-pro ball somewhere.

They are not students first in football and basketball.  I agree with you largely; if they do not want to focus on academics and be real college students, they shouldn't be on a campus.  They should be playing some sort of professional ball somewhere. 

For those that do want to go the college route.  Hold them to the same standards as normal students.  If they want to transfer, fine.  They are held to the same standards as other transfer students as far as grades.  If their grades are sufficient (and majors sufficient) to compete against other transfer students and be admitted then they do not sit out a year.

If they are transferring and are being granted a waiver (based on transfer admission standards) they sit out a year to focus on academics.

[Lennys Tap]

[quote author=forgetful link=topic=52071.msg848810#msg848810 date=1467333227

The violin player or the genius are transferring for academic reasons.  The basketball player is more often than not transferring for basketball reasons only.



Instead they are being admitted solely due to their abilities in athletics.


[/quote]

Wrong. The violin player is not transferring for academic reasons. He or she is transferring for artistic reasons. Many "geniuses" (actors, artists, etc.) also fit this profile. An athlete is also an artist. There's certainly a parallel.

[Jay Bee]

The NCAA does not currently require transfers to sit out a year because it will help them academically. If that was the case, it would require ALL student athletes to do this (which they actually used to do). The only reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring. Normal students are able to transfer without sacrificing a year of student organizations or internships, why should student athletes?

Already explained - the NCAA says clearly that it's STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND. That is the order.

In a sport like DI basketball, there is a concern that kids will transfer because they are thinking as an ATHLETE FIRST, STUDENT SECOND (or further down the list).

Indeed, the reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring... FOR REASONS THAT DON'T PUT THE "STUDENT FIRST".

You're trying to compare the major time commitments of a DI basketball player, who is receiving value in exchange for athletic performance, to a nerd that wants to join science club because it's fun.. no binding agreement... ??? That's silly.

The reason for the year in residence requirement is largely because the NCAA wants this STUDENT FIRST concept, that fits in with amateurism. Fine. I get it. But, why give an exception to grad transfers who usually in DI basketball are motivated NOT by the STUDENT FIRST concept? I can see no compelling reason.

The reward should be an extra year on their eligibility clock. But don't let them be treated so differently just because they graduated in 4 years. Should SA's at School A get different benefits than those at School B, because School A is superior? Or should we treat SA's differently based on "difficulty of major, adjusted for that particular school"?.. or based on GPA?

No.

If you're going to yell "STUDENT FIRST!!!" then do it consistently. An NCAA student-athlete is an NCAA student-athlete. Stop treating them so differently.

ncaa.org:

[GGGG]

The NCAA is slinging around a bunch of bullsh*t with that statement right there.  There are so many examples of how the schools don't really treat them as students first so it is hard to take them seriously.

One free transfer per student without sitting.  If they are having trouble getting acclimated academically, they can redshirt.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Already explained - the NCAA says clearly that it's STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND. That is the order.

In a sport like DI basketball, there is a concern that kids will transfer because they are thinking as an ATHLETE FIRST, STUDENT SECOND (or further down the list).

Indeed, the reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring... FOR REASONS THAT DON'T PUT THE "STUDENT FIRST".

The student-athlete is under no obligation to think of him/herself as a student first/athlete second. They are free to make whatever priorities they want for their student experience. The NCAA is the only one under that obligation. The NCAA does not have a responsibility to make student-athletes think they are students first, they only have a responsibility to treat student-athletes as students first.

Trying to say the NCAA is motivated to require a year in residence for transfers by concerns that student-athletes aren't seeing themselves as students first is complete bull crap and you know it. Their motivation is purely to deter athletes from transferring.

If the NCAA feels that an extra year of residence is important for student-athletes to be successful students, why are we limiting it to just transfers? Lets make all athletes take a year in residence to make sure they are given that opportunity to be successful. Just limiting it to transfer shows what the true purpose is.

We do however, agree on the grad transfer rule. I see no reason why they should be treated differently than regular transfers. Extra year on the clock and a year in residence makes more sense with the current structure. However, rather than changing the grad transfer rule, I would rather change the undergraduate transfer rule.

I will also say that selfishly, I like the required year in residence for transfers. I do think it deters a lot of transfers and without it, we would see the number of transfers grow exponentially. I think the product of college basketball would be diminished because there would be less continuity on the teams. So as a fan, I'm glad the rule is there.

But I can still see that while it helps college basketball, it is a very Fed up system where a player could not have his scholarship renewed, be forced to transfer because he can no longer afford the school, and then he still has to sit out a year, even though he had no choice but to transfer. That's seriously Fed up. The JUST solution, is allowing students to transfer immediately once their scholarship expires. If a player leaves before their scholarship expires, they must sit a year in residence. If the NCAA wants student-athletes to make multi-year commitments to their schools, than the schools should be required to make multi-year commitments to their student-athletes.

But again, what motivation does the NCAA have to change the status quo? None.

[Badgerhater]

A kid who busts his hump and graduates and has eligibility left has put the student before athlete.  The kid has earned the right to showcase their hoops talents where they want.   I have zero concern about a program/coach.

The NCAA is criminally laughable with its statement on the amateurism of the athletes who generate billions of dollars for the organization and the schools.

Also, the grad transfer rule is used be so few people that it isn't a problem at all.