Transfer Sitouts May be Coming to an End

[MU82]

One of the things that many people don't take into consideration in discussions about transfers is the domino effect in the initial recruitment for lack of a better term.

Lets take for example our recent commitment of Jamal Cain. After reading the Michigan Board thread, Cain was ostensibly waiting to receive a commitment from Michigan, however Michigan was holding out to hear from Mohamed Bamba. As Cain saw that MU committed both Ike and Theo and we are hot and heavy for French and Tillman  , he and his family did not want to lose out on a spot with us, so he took it. We are now down to one scholarship and when that is taken the final domino will fall and the next guy whoever that is will go somewhere else.

So what I am saying is when a kid commits to a school and takes a schollie he is in effect somewhere down the line knocking someone out.  Ok so that is life in the big city. In some respects I believe the one year sit out rule in effect is a comprise between saying a kid or school may make a mistake initially, but it also serves as a governor of sort to prevent kids using a school as a proving ground to get a better deal without thinking long and hard about it . After all the schools put a lot of time and expense into making the original commitment with no guarantees the kid will pan out.

For example,  Andrew Rowsey, obviously  had to think long and hard about leaving a good thing at UNC Asheville for the unknown with us. He is taking some of the risk now and I think there is some equity in that.

And what about when the coach over-recruits at a position and tells a kid to take a hike? How is the commitment working out then?

[jsglow]

And what about when the coach over-recruits at a position and tells a kid to take a hike? How is the commitment working out then?

Think I'm back to my earlier suggestion.  If a scholarship is renewed by his team then the one year sit out still applies.  If not (Wally), then he's free to transfer and is immediately eligible.

[MU82]

I understand, glow, and in a perfect world that seems to make sense.

College athletics is quite imperfect, and it favors the school and the coach at every turn. The athlete is treated like a necessary-evil employee who is at the institution/coach's beck and call ... unless he/she wants to be called an employee ... in which case the NCAA/school/coach argues that he/she is not an employee.

I guess what I do in these situations -- not just in sports but in life -- is side with the "little guy" vs the powerful institution.

If I'm gonna err, that's where I'm erring. (Even if I don't think it's an error at all.)

[jsglow]

Gotcha 82.  All good.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I understand, glow, and in a perfect world that seems to make sense.

College athletics is quite imperfect, and it favors the school and the coach at every turn. The athlete is treated like a necessary-evil employee who is at the institution/coach's beck and call ... unless he/she wants to be called an employee ... in which case the NCAA/school/coach argues that he/she is not an employee.

I guess what I do in these situations -- not just in sports but in life -- is side with the "little guy" vs the powerful institution.

If I'm gonna err, that's where I'm erring. (Even if I don't think it's an error at all.)

If unrestricted free agency came to college sports, wouldn't this actually make the powerful institutions more powerful?

The big guys could essentially create an all-star team every year of experienced players looking to be showcased - in turn those in the elite conferences would be benefit.  This could really hurt smaller schools and in turn the product of college basketball. 

I guess I opt for a balanced system (because none is perfect) that benefits the many...Glow's suggestion is one way to try to preserve both.

[MU82]

If unrestricted free agency came to college sports, wouldn't this actually make the powerful institutions more powerful?

The big guys could essentially create an all-star team every year of experienced players looking to be showcased - in turn those in the elite conferences would be benefit.  This could really hurt smaller schools and in turn the product of college basketball. 

I guess I opt for a balanced system (because none is perfect) that benefits the many...Glow's suggestion is one way to try to preserve both.

I dunno. The NFL, in this era of free agency, has had 8 champions in 8 years.

Most of the best players will go where they can get playing time. Many will leave one place for another to get away from a coach who wasn't what they thought he was or a school that wasn't what they were led to believe it was.

Duke and Kentucky already have all-star teams. There are only so many scholarships available, and only so much playing time.

This is all so hypothetical. I'll believe there's massive change when I see it.

Meanwhile, the one and only advantage the athlete has is when he gets his degree and then transfers to play his final season elsewhere without having to sit out. And coaches are screaming bloody murder about that.

If I had to handicap the scenarios, I'd say that would be more likely to disappear than total free agency would have of being instituted.

[bilsu]

And what about when the coach over-recruits at a position and tells a kid to take a hike? How is the commitment working out then?

I do not expect you guys to agree with me, but I have been thinking for a some time now is to not let coaches use a scholarship for one year, if a player transfers. The reason for this is twofold. First, if you make a commitment to a player than it should be kept. Breaking the commitment on the other end results in that player sitting out  a year. Freezing the scholarship makes the situation equal, because there is a penalty on both sides. Secondly, coaches will have to be more responsible for seeing that players fit in the program. No more signing players just to fill a scholarship. I would also extend this rule to early draft entries. Call it the anti-Kentucky rule.

[#UnleashSean]

to prevent kids using a school as a proving ground to get a better deal without thinking long and hard about it .

People keep bringing this up as an argument, but why? Coaches do this, athletic directors do this, professionals do this, so why can't a kid who wasn't given the time of day do this?

[brandx]

People keep bringing this up as an argument, but why? Coaches do this, athletic directors do this, professionals do this, so why can't a kid who wasn't given the time of day do this?

Exactly. Plus, people not involved in sports do it every day.

Imagine ..... people trying to improve their standing in life. Disgraceful!!

[MU82]

Unleash and brand are so obviously right on this that I almost feel sorry for MFINY for his naivite.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I dunno. The NFL, in this era of free agency, has had 8 champions in 8 years.

Most of the best players will go where they can get playing time. Many will leave one place for another to get away from a coach who wasn't what they thought he was or a school that wasn't what they were led to believe it was.

Duke and Kentucky already have all-star teams. There are only so many scholarships available, and only so much playing time.

This is all so hypothetical. I'll believe there's massive change when I see it.

Meanwhile, the one and only advantage the athlete has is when he gets his degree and then transfers to play his final season elsewhere without having to sit out. And coaches are screaming bloody murder about that.

If I had to handicap the scenarios, I'd say that would be more likely to disappear than total free agency would have of being instituted.

I agree that this is likely to disappear and is very hypothetical.

Not worrying about the implications because of the NFL is not really a comforting example though since revenue sharing, salary caps and a limited & fixed amount of teams are not things that apply to college sports.

By the way, I like the grad transfer rule, but it definitely hurts the mid & low-major schools -- my hypothesis is expanding that privilege would likely hurt more schools/the system.

[GGGG]

I do not expect you guys to agree with me, but I have been thinking for a some time now is to not let coaches use a scholarship for one year, if a player transfers. The reason for this is twofold. First, if you make a commitment to a player than it should be kept. Breaking the commitment on the other end results in that player sitting out  a year. Freezing the scholarship makes the situation equal, because there is a penalty on both sides. Secondly, coaches will have to be more responsible for seeing that players fit in the program. No more signing players just to fill a scholarship. I would also extend this rule to early draft entries. Call it the anti-Kentucky rule.

If you don't allow a coach to use the scholarship on someone else, they are basically going to do all they can to prevent a transfer even if a kid wants to transfer.  That makes the situation worse.

And freezing a scholarship for NBA entrants is non-sensical.  Why punish the school because a player wants to make a living?

Both these ideas are bad.

[CTWarrior]

Seems to me that there should be a simple solution that all basketball/football scholarships should be four year scholarships (or if accepting a transfer from another school, however many years of eligibility the incoming transfer has plus one or if accepting a transfer from a JC 3 years or graduation, whichever comes first) and kids should have to sit out a year if they transfer.  You are not being punished by being forced to sit out a year for transferring, as you are gaining an additional year of free education.

This way both the school and the athlete have protection.

[bilsu]

If you don't allow a coach to use the scholarship on someone else, they are basically going to do all they can to prevent a transfer even if a kid wants to transfer.  That makes the situation worse.

And freezing a scholarship for NBA entrants is non-sensical.  Why punish the school because a player wants to make a living?

Both these ideas are bad.

It gives a school less incentive to rely on taking only one & dones. Even if in Kentucky's case assuming they have four one & dones every year it results in them having 9 scholarships instead of 13 and they would have enough walk ons to practice.  They still would survive. In MU's case Henry leaving would of resulted in them having 12 scholarships for this year or 11 if they still would of cut Wally. The team will not play all 13 players, so losing a scholarship for a year is not much of a penalty. Wojo would still of recruited Henry under this scenario. They ended up with one unfilled, so they would of only of been able to sign one of Howard or Reinhardt. I am assuming they would of signed Howard and kept Wally. The result being we have the same team, except we have Wally instead of Reinhardt. We would be able to go back to 13 scholarships the next year. It would prevent over signing as you would not be able to over recruit with the plan of having someone transfer, because you could not use the transferring players scholarship for one year. As far as a player transferring, I would add that a coach could not restrict a transfer to any school. The incentive not to transfer is having to sit out a year and the coaches incentive to keep a player happy is not to lose that scholarship for a year. As far as fairness there is no system that is totally fair, but this is fairer because there is both a penalty for the coach and the player if there is a transfer.
This in my opinion would get rid of over signing, coaches cutting marginal players and put greater emphasis on building a team with four year players instead of one & dones as the blue bloods do. I see these as three positives.  The down side is overall there would be less scholarships given to high school players as a lot of teams would not be able to fill all 13 scholarships and teams will not take flyers on players (lost opportunity for some), since they will not be able to dump them so easily (no more one & dumps). You do not need to agree with me, this is just how I feel college basketball should be. Keep commitments made and recruit players that fit your college culture.

[GGGG]

It gives a school less incentive to rely on taking only one & dones.

But I don't care if a school relies on one-and dones.  You are correcting a problem that isn't really a problem.

[bilsu]

But I don't care if a school relies on one-and dones.  You are correcting a problem that isn't really a problem.

I guess it is what your goal is. Generally, the team expected to win the title is from a select group of blue blood teams. Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, etc. because they are the ones that are constantly signing one & dones. Occasionally a team like Villanova sneaks in and gets the title, but it is more likely that Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas as a group will win several more titles before Villanova wins one again. I like to see the non blue bloods have a reasonable chance and that happens if the one and dones are spread out among more schools. The system is fine, if you are happy with a blue blood winning the title. Duke won it two years ago and I believe they are favored to win it this year with a new group of one & dones.

[GGGG]

Blue bloods were winning titles before the one and done rule.  Blue bloods have won titles recently without one and dones (Louisville).  Really when is the last time a non-blue blood has won a title?  Donovan's Florida teams? 

Really no matter what the rules are, blue bloods are likely going to win the titles.

[#UnleashSean]

I guess it is what your goal is. Generally, the team expected to win the title is from a select group of blue blood teams. Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, etc. because they are the ones that are constantly signing one & dones. Occasionally a team like Villanova sneaks in and gets the title, but it is more likely that Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas as a group will win several more titles before Villanova wins one again. I like to see the non blue bloods have a reasonable chance and that happens if the one and dones are spread out among more schools. The system is fine, if you are happy with a blue blood winning the title. Duke won it two years ago and I believe they are favored to win it this year with a new group of one & dones.

Your trying to correct a problem that's not actually a problem by creating handicaps.

Your entire case for this is that blue bloods are to good so we should limit who they can recruit. Instead of having other colleges get better you are trying to artificially make great ones worse.

That is the most millennial argument ever.

[Pakuni]

Blue bloods were winning titles before the one and done rule.  Blue bloods have won titles recently without one and dones (Louisville).  Really when is the last time a non-blue blood has won a title?  Donovan's Florida teams? 

2016 Villanova
2014 UConn
2011 UConn

[GGGG]

2016 Villanova
2014 UConn
2011 UConn

UConn isn't a blue blood? 

[bilsu]

UConn isn't a blue blood?

They definitely were. It remains to be seen if Ollie can keep them there.
The difference between the UConn and Kentucky is that Uconn's blue blood status was coach dependent.

[bilsu]

Your trying to correct a problem that's not actually a problem by creating handicaps.

Your entire case for this is that blue bloods are to good so we should limit who they can recruit. Instead of having other colleges get better you are trying to artificially make great ones worse.

That is the most millennial argument ever.

I think I am too old to be consider a millennial. Maybe, I am just envious of schools like Kentucky. I miss the Al McGuire days I grew up in. Of course back then UCLA won it every year. I just do not like basketball being dominated by certain teams who reload year after year. MU had their one & done and it may be another 25 years before we have another one.

[Galway Eagle]

They definitely were. It remains to be seen if Ollie can keep them there.
The difference between the UConn and Kentucky is that Uconn's blue blood status was coach dependent.

It really wasn't they could've hired someone huge but went with an unknown instead
 

[GGGG]

It really wasn't they could've hired someone huge but went with an unknown instead
 

Calhoun resigned in September.  So UConn basically had to name Ollie their coach on an interim basis.  He was the top assistant - it made perfect sense to do so.  He did well his first year, but didn't make the tournament due to APR issues.  They won the national championship the second year.

What "huge" coach would have taken the position?

[CTWarrior]

Calhoun resigned in September.  So UConn basically had to name Ollie their coach on an interim basis.  He was the top assistant - it made perfect sense to do so.  He did well his first year, but didn't make the tournament due to APR issues.  They won the national championship the second year.

What "huge" coach would have taken the position?

Calhoun wanted Ollie to be the next coach but wasn't sure the AD would see it that way so his retirement was timed to force the AD's hand and give Ollie the chance.  After the job Ollie did in his first two seasons (and continues to do, IMO) there was no reason for a change.  There is some worry year that NBA teams occasionally are sniffing around, but he now appears to be settled in for the long run.