MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: TallTitan34 on August 08, 2018, 12:31:31 PM
-
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/24320401/ncaa-announces-new-college-basketball-policy-including-agents-players-longer-postseason-bans
The NCAA adopted a series of policy and rule changes Wednesday that it hopes will clean up college basketball, which has been engulfed by an FBI investigation and other corruption over the past two years.
Among the significant changes that were adopted by the NCAA's Board of Governors and Division I Board of Directors are allowing elite high school basketball recruits and players to be represented by agents who are certified by the NCAA while still playing; allowing players to enter the NBA draft and return to school if undrafted; introducing more rigorous certification requirements for summer basketball-related events; and longer postseason bans, head coach suspensions and increased recruiting restrictions for college coaches who break the rules.
-
So vander's coming back?
-
Took them enough years to do what baseball and hockey already have.
-
Apparently, USA Basketball just found out today that they will be the organization responsible for determining the "elite" players.
This sounds organized...
-
Why do only "elite" players get agents? So guys like Dwyane Wade and Zhaire Smith don't have the agent option? If you let one player get an agent, all players should be able to get agents.
-
Apparently, USA Basketball just found out today that they will be the organization responsible for determining the "elite" players.
This sounds organized...
So the elite players get representation, but the guy who is the next in line from elite cant be represented at all. Not sure why that's the case.
And if a player engages with an agent, he must terminate that relationship should he decide to remain in school. I'm sure the agent will give him sound advice under such a scenario.
The NCAA really doesn't know what it's doing.
-
This is going to be a disaster. Can't wait for some type of class action lawsuits over the some players get agents some don't.
-
This is going to be a disaster. Can't wait for some type of class action lawsuits over the some players get agents some don't.
Why are they entering the draft, if they are not elite players? They do not need an agent. Also why would an agent want to represent a player that has no chance of being drafted? The undrafted player can just dump the agent, so there is no benefit for an agent trying to represent a non-elite player.
-
Why are they entering the draft, if they are not elite players? They do not need an agent. Also why would an agent want to represent a player that has no chance of being drafted? The undrafted player can just dump the agent, so there is no benefit for an agent trying to represent a non-elite player.
People playing semi pro handball in Moldova have agents. There are agents for every level.
Also, surprises happen every year. Zhaire Smith was a 3 star recruit and he got drafted in the first round after his freshman year. Under the the new rules, it's doubtful he would have been allowed an agent.
The idea is good but the execution is likely going to be poor
-
Why are they entering the draft, if they are not elite players? They do not need an agent. Also why would an agent want to represent a player that has no chance of being drafted? The undrafted player can just dump the agent, so there is no benefit for an agent trying to represent a non-elite player.
https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/09/01/tony-anderson-southeast-missouri-state-nba-draft-one-done
-
https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/09/01/tony-anderson-southeast-missouri-state-nba-draft-one-done
So even God gives bad advice when there is money to be made?
-
I think far too much attention is paid to the handful of kids who are bonafide NBA prospects. Not enough attention is given to the vast majority of players who won’t have any kind of professional career.
Overall ,the plan as outlined has merit. Should be good for the players, the school and the NBA. The proverbial devil is in the details .
-
https://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/the-ncaa-has-attempted-to-make-major-rule-changes-to-college-basketball
Good analysis
-
This plan is completely useless and doomed to failure. Here's why:
- Agents: This is stupid. First, USA Basketball determines "elite". What about foreign players like Lauri Markkanen or Jakob Poetl or Harry Froling? So what, they will allow the top-25 players, but exclude #26? Or allow 100 and exclude #101? And if you go back to school, you have to leave the agent. There are no benefits to this.
- Undrafted Returning to School: Maybe the worst of the rule change proposals. First, to qualify you have to be invited to the Combine but go undrafted. So that's an incredibly small pool of players. Second, you have 4 days after the draft to decide. So while you are getting invites from teams to play in the Summer League, you're supposed to make that choice without knowing how Summer League will go or what kind of professional opportunities you will get? Virtually no one will qualify or take advantage of this.
- Recruiting Period: Because of the shorter period, most likely the championship weekends for Adidas Uprising and Under Armour will be moved up to the same weekend as Peach Jam. That will spread coaches even thinner and make recruiting harder. And the youth camps will include probably at most 800 players per class? So how do kids 801-1500 and beyond that might be able to earn D1 scholarships, or even scholarships and aid from D2 and D3 schools get noticed?
- Visits: Recruits can now take 15 visits instead of 5, but schools can only host 28 instead of 24 over a two-year rolling period. So recruits increase their visits by 200% and schools increase it by 17%? That's nonsensical.
- Enforcement: We're supposed to believe ADs and Presidents will now be on the hook for the NCAA? Presidents oversee the entire school, not just athletics, it's tough to imagine the NCAA will ever be able to enforce their punishments on them. And increasing punishments never stops anything. Coaches still want players, players still want money, and agents and shoe companies still want a slice, so none of this will change anything.
And that's the real problem. None of this will change anything. None of this actually addresses the issues the FBI investigation uncovered or any of the sweeping problems the NCAA says they are trying to fix. Allowing temporary agents won't get agents out of things and it won't legitimize them. Shutting out AAU coaches from the decision process won't fix AAU; no one in the room really understands it. This won't change what did or didn't happen at UNC, Louisville, Arizona, or any other schools that have been intermittently implicated because it doesn't address the actual issues.
The NCAA is just showing again they don't understand the issues and are impotent to fix them.
-
Don't think it will fail, just something else to say is broken down the line. I do think the fringe players will get squeezed a little and it will be harder to get noticed on non-shoe teams.
Wonder what NY2LA/Curro is thinking. They basically wiped Summer Jam off the map. I know he's got other stuff, but that tourney was always loaded.
-
Gee it's almost as if the NCAA, with its Condi Rice lead panel, was more interested in a big PR win than it was actually fixing the problems.
-
Gee it's almost as if the NCAA, with its Condi Rice lead panel, was more interested in a big PR win than it was actually fixing the problems.
Could something like that really happen? ;)
-
This plan is completely useless and doomed to failure. Here's why:
- Agents: This is stupid. First, USA Basketball determines "elite". What about foreign players like Lauri Markkanen or Jakob Poetl or Harry Froling? So what, they will allow the top-25 players, but exclude #26? Or allow 100 and exclude #101? And if you go back to school, you have to leave the agent. There are no benefits to this.
- Undrafted Returning to School: Maybe the worst of the rule change proposals. First, to qualify you have to be invited to the Combine but go undrafted. So that's an incredibly small pool of players. Second, you have 4 days after the draft to decide. So while you are getting invites from teams to play in the Summer League, you're supposed to make that choice without knowing how Summer League will go or what kind of professional opportunities you will get? Virtually no one will qualify or take advantage of this.
- Recruiting Period: Because of the shorter period, most likely the championship weekends for Adidas Uprising and Under Armour will be moved up to the same weekend as Peach Jam. That will spread coaches even thinner and make recruiting harder. And the youth camps will include probably at most 800 players per class? So how do kids 801-1500 and beyond that might be able to earn D1 scholarships, or even scholarships and aid from D2 and D3 schools get noticed?
- Visits: Recruits can now take 15 visits instead of 5, but schools can only host 28 instead of 24 over a two-year rolling period. So recruits increase their visits by 200% and schools increase it by 17%? That's nonsensical.
- Enforcement: We're supposed to believe ADs and Presidents will now be on the hook for the NCAA? Presidents oversee the entire school, not just athletics, it's tough to imagine the NCAA will ever be able to enforce their punishments on them. And increasing punishments never stops anything. Coaches still want players, players still want money, and agents and shoe companies still want a slice, so none of this will change anything.
And that's the real problem. None of this will change anything. None of this actually addresses the issues the FBI investigation uncovered or any of the sweeping problems the NCAA says they are trying to fix. Allowing temporary agents won't get agents out of things and it won't legitimize them. Shutting out AAU coaches from the decision process won't fix AAU; no one in the room really understands it. This won't change what did or didn't happen at UNC, Louisville, Arizona, or any other schools that have been intermittently implicated because it doesn't address the actual issues.
The NCAA is just showing again they don't understand the issues and are impotent to fix them.
The camel was a horse built by a committee.
There will be material revisions to this paradigm over time. What will evolve is the end of the one and done system , and the ability of players to return to school if not drafted. The rest is all internal bickering by and among coaches and they will settle it out in a way that works to their own personal best interests.
-
Gee it's almost as if the NCAA, with its Condi Rice lead panel, was more interested in a big PR win than it was actually fixing the problems.
yeah! when will the ncaa learn that women belong in the kitchen, not big time b-ball
-
Gee it's almost as if the NCAA, with its Condi Rice lead panel, was more interested in a big PR win than it was actually fixing the problems.
It takes the NCAA a few years to do some things. How many members have to vote on this stuff? Anyone know? For some governance it requires the entire membership, but not sure on these.
Some of the progress made since the committee's proposals. It has only been a few months, but some action already taken.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/committed-change
-
Some of the progress made since the committee's proposals. It has only been a few months, but some action already taken.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/committed-change
This is complete lip service, and shoddy lip service at that. How does this actually address players being able to come back to school after declaring they are going pro? The limitations put on those players effectively will prevent any players from coming back that want to. How does this address the illegal payments from shoe companies and agents? It doesn't at all.
This isn't making progress or taking action, it's creating headlines to convince people progress was made. It's a complete sham that doesn't address any of the issues the FBI investigation opened in the first place.
Further, this is actually making things worse for kids and coaches. For kids not part of the USA Basketball setup, how are they supposed to get noticed? You'll get maybe what, 800 kids per year in that setup? What about the hundreds beyond that number that still earn D1 scholarships, D2 scholarships, or get to play in D3? The NCAA is ACTIVELY working to make their lives worse. This is an attack on children.
For the coaches, when do they get any time off? Changing the calendar like this will have them at USA basketball camps when they usually could have spent time with their families and raising their own children. Again, the NCAA is ACTIVELY working to make their lives worse.
This organization is so incredibly blind and incompetent. Every bit of "progress made" and "action already taken" either fails to address the problem at hand or deliberately makes the lives worse of the people they claim to be trying to serve.
-
This is complete lip service, and shoddy lip service at that. How does this actually address players being able to come back to school after declaring they are going pro? The limitations put on those players effectively will prevent any players from coming back that want to. How does this address the illegal payments from shoe companies and agents? It doesn't at all.
This isn't making progress or taking action, it's creating headlines to convince people progress was made. It's a complete sham that doesn't address any of the issues the FBI investigation opened in the first place.
Further, this is actually making things worse for kids and coaches. For kids not part of the USA Basketball setup, how are they supposed to get noticed? You'll get maybe what, 800 kids per year in that setup? What about the hundreds beyond that number that still earn D1 scholarships, D2 scholarships, or get to play in D3? The NCAA is ACTIVELY working to make their lives worse. This is an attack on children.
For the coaches, when do they get any time off? Changing the calendar like this will have them at USA basketball camps when they usually could have spent time with their families and raising their own children. Again, the NCAA is ACTIVELY working to make their lives worse.
This organization is so incredibly blind and incompetent. Every bit of "progress made" and "action already taken" either fails to address the problem at hand or deliberately makes the lives worse of the people they claim to be trying to serve.
Read today's Athletic article (requires subscription) on the topic. They believe it is a step in the right direction. Any large body with so many members to point in one direction (think Congress, think UN, etc) means reforms are slow and incrementally small, but that doesn't mean they don't happen at some pace.
-
I'd like to give the NCAA credit for taking a first step in what will be a multiple-year, multiple-step evolution.
But I'd also like to think I'd have a chance with Scarlett Johansson. (Just a joke, Mrs. 82; you're all the woman I can handle!)
Seriously, this falls so short of any real reform that it's laughable. I like brew's breakdown.
Even those drafted and even those who didn't attend the combine should be able to return to school, and restricting agents to some undefined "elite" is as dopey as it gets.
Should end transfers having to sit out a year, too.
-
In addition to everything said here about how the NCAA swung and missed, I think there are some questions for teams. Is the team required to hold a scholarship open for the guy who declares for the draft, in case he decides to come back? What does this do for teams - those decisions will get made in late June or early July, when most teams are already doing summer workouts. Does this mean that the so-called "elite" players will wait even later to choose schools? The deadline was in place for a reason - so that coaches would know in May what spots they had open.
What happens when the NBA takes kids right out of high school? We saw toward the end how many high schoolers declared and then didn't get picked. For the record, I think guys who thought they were good enough to get drafted out of high school but weren't should be allowed to go to college. If they do that, is there a minimum stay imposed, like NCAA baseball? Should the NBA have an early high school draft for teams that want to draft high schoolers in the first round (If you pick you forfeit your first round selection in the regular draft - or not, depending on how they want to play it), so undrafted high school kids can pick schools and get oriented along with other teammates? I can see how all of this will really screw up team formation for college coaches.
Yes, change is hard - but bad change is just stupid.
-
Yes, change is hard - but bad change is just stupid.
That is an awesome statement.
-
Being caught in a recruiting or academic scandal (such as fake classes at UNC or just about everything imaginable at Louisville) is an embarrassment for schools and the NCAA. But it's not illegal.
Those are violations of the NCAA's own standards. As long as coaches and programs see a benefit to sidestepping the rules, and until the NCAA starts to impose more serious consequences than temporary probation or suspension of a few scholarships, I don't see an end to such scandals. Holding school presidents and chancellors "personally accountable" sounds like a nice idea. I'm skeptical whether that has any teeth.
Would any rule about player-agent relationships or post-draft eligibility have prevented Louisville from hiring prostitutes for recruits or paying Brian Bowen $100,000 for his commitment?
Athletic companies bribing coaches to steer players to a school (the basis of the FBI investigation) is what should really make university officials sit up and take notice. There's a big difference between NCAA violations and federal crimes. But apart from allowing findings from outside investigations in its infractions process, I don't see much in the proposed new rules that directly addresses this issue.
While some of the updates should help at least some student athletes, it seems like more of a PR move than real change to me.
-
This is complete lip service, and shoddy lip service at that. How does this actually address players being able to come back to school after declaring they are going pro? The limitations put on those players effectively will prevent any players from coming back that want to. How does this address the illegal payments from shoe companies and agents? It doesn't at all.
This isn't making progress or taking action, it's creating headlines to convince people progress was made. It's a complete sham that doesn't address any of the issues the FBI investigation opened in the first place.
Further, this is actually making things worse for kids and coaches. For kids not part of the USA Basketball setup, how are they supposed to get noticed? You'll get maybe what, 800 kids per year in that setup? What about the hundreds beyond that number that still earn D1 scholarships, D2 scholarships, or get to play in D3? The NCAA is ACTIVELY working to make their lives worse. This is an attack on children.
For the coaches, when do they get any time off? Changing the calendar like this will have them at USA basketball camps when they usually could have spent time with their families and raising their own children. Again, the NCAA is ACTIVELY working to make their lives worse.
This organization is so incredibly blind and incompetent. Every bit of "progress made" and "action already taken" either fails to address the problem at hand or deliberately makes the lives worse of the people they claim to be trying to serve.
right on brew! this is acting like they care when in actuality, they further complicated it. now it may be even to hide the $heeenanigan$, eyn'a? they might as well set a cap limit so they know what they have left for the "un-washed"
-
I'm on USA basketball. I declared every player considering Presbyterian an elite player.
-
I'd like to give the NCAA credit for taking a first step in what will be a multiple-year, multiple-step evolution.
But I'd also like to think I'd have a chance with Scarlett Johansson. (Just a joke, Mrs. 82; you're all the woman I can handle!)
Seriously, this falls so short of any real reform that it's laughable. I like brew's breakdown.
Even those drafted and even those who didn't attend the combine should be able to return to school, and restricting agents to some undefined "elite" is as dopey as it gets.
Should end transfers having to sit out a year, too.
Transfers should have to sit unless their coach leaves.
Dan Gavitt said this is fluid, additional amendments over the next 2, 3 or 4 years. Takes time. Again, try to get this many people, institutions to move in one direction in a democratic process (schools have to vote) takes time. Some may not like it, but this is how it will be. Slow movement, but movement nonetheless.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rule-changes-what-will-happen-with-the-ncaas-new-rules-for-recruiting-and-the-nba-draft/
-
Until the NBA is allowed to change their rules, 2022, the NCAA can only go so far. That lever has to move for any material change.
-
Transfers should have to sit unless their coach leaves.
When a scholarship violinist or a kid with an academic scholarship has to sit out a year after transferring, I'll believe that an athlete should have to sit out a year after transferring.
-
I'm all for giving athletes the right to transfer when and where they want, with no restrictions, just like any other college student. It'll probably happen eventually.
But changing the rules regarding transfers does nothing to reduce corruption in recruiting. More than 20 schools were implicated in the ongoing federal investigation. The list includes legendary programs such as Duke, UNC, Kentucky and Kansas. Plus Villanova, Xavier and Seton Hall from the Big East.
When payments to players and other NCAA violations become this pervasive, that's the real threat to the future of college basketball.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketballs-fbi-probe-gets-specific-with-players-teams-named-in-report/ (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketballs-fbi-probe-gets-specific-with-players-teams-named-in-report/)
-
When a scholarship violinist or a kid with an academic scholarship has to sit out a year after transferring, I'll believe that an athlete should have to sit out a year after transferring.
When smart kids and gifted musicians start making as much money for their schools as star athletes, they should have to sit out a year after transferring.
-
When a scholarship violinist or a kid with an academic scholarship has to sit out a year after transferring, I'll believe that an athlete should have to sit out a year after transferring.
Especially when coaches leave so freely, both voluntarily and involuntarily. And non-revenue athletes generally don't sit either (see: Wally Ellenson in track). It's strictly a control mechanism.
And the money they make for the school shouldn't matter. How much money do they make for the school while sitting on the bench for a year?
-
Especially when coaches leave so freely, both voluntarily and involuntarily. And non-revenue athletes generally don't sit either (see: Wally Ellenson in track). It's strictly a control mechanism.
And the money they make for the school shouldn't matter. How much money do they make for the school while sitting on the bench for a year?
My point is, if there is no waiting period, the recruiting of these kids will never stop. I can't imagine how distracting that would be. And the only reason recruiting is so crazy for revenue sport athletes is the revenue.
-
My point is, if there is no waiting period, the recruiting of these kids will never stop. I can't imagine how distracting that would be. And the only reason recruiting is so crazy for revenue sport athletes is the revenue.
I don't think it does stop now, but the rules on it wouldn't change, so most of the contact would still go through filters like coaches and family friends.
I just haven't ever heard a convincing argument why transfers need a year in residence when neither freshmen nor grad transfers need the same. That's why it's hard to believe that rule is in place for the benefit of the student athletes.
-
When a scholarship violinist or a kid with an academic scholarship has to sit out a year after transferring, I'll believe that an athlete should have to sit out a year after transferring.
Doesn't feel like a comparison that is worthy of discussion, but I will try.
Does the violinist sign a national letter of intent or grant in aid that has binding rules that if they wish to leave they will have to sit out a year and not play violin for the school? Conditions come with many forms aid, this is the case with athletic grants. Are those same conditions that the violinist is under?
Is the violinist on a team representing the school where 10's of thousands, or millions of people on television (for the biggest of games) are watching? Those people providing valuable resources to the school in the form of donations?
Is there a competitive balance the violinist is changing by transferring that is akin to sports?
Are the violinist competitions on television rallying alumni to the TV set and into the arenas?
Is the concert hall the violinist plays in hold 18K people?
Can I buy t-shirts at the book store supporting the violinist and their team?
Edit:
These do not seem apt comparisons to me, both for what they do for the school or in how the scholarships and the conditions applied to them are structured. We could argue the Chemistry professor is more important than the basketball coach, but the market dictates the coach will be paid much more than the Chemistry professor. The coach is also many times more likely to be fired while a professor is highly unlikely to be fired. There are tradeoffs in life, and even though employees or students may be working or studying under the same institutional umbrella, it doesn't mean they are the same or the conditions in which they operate are equal.
-
Doesn't feel like a comparison that is worthy of discussion, but I will try.
Does the violinist sign a national letter of intent that has binding rules that if they wish to leave they will have to sit out a year and not play violin for the school?
Is the violinist on a team representing the school where 10's of thousands, or millions of people on television (for the biggest of games) are watching? Those people providing valuable resources to the school in the form of donations?
Is there a competitive balance the violinist is changing by transferring that is akin to sports?
Are the violinist competitions on television rallying alumni to the TV set and into the arenas?
Is the concert hall the violinist plays in hold 18K people?
Can I buy t-shirts at the book store supporting the violinist and their team?
Are you comparing two things that should not be compared because there is no similarity at all?
This is an idiotic argument. Sure your argument is great if the schools and ncaa announce what needs to be announced. That these players are not student athletes, but rather athletes that are employed by the school.
Until that day comes, which may be in the next decade, they should have the exact same rights as anyone else under scholarship at the school.
-
This is an idiotic argument. Sure your argument is great if the schools and ncaa announce what needs to be announced. That these players are not student athletes, but rather athletes that are employed by the school.
Until that day comes, which may be in the next decade, they should have the exact same rights as anyone else under scholarship at the school.
Why? Are there not conditions granted for those scholarships? When a student athlete signs for that grant, there are conditions tied to it. Are those the same conditions the violinist scholarship student is signing?
Why is it that my youngest at Marquette has several scholarships, one of which mandates a specific GPA be maintained each semester, but the other scholarships do not have any requirement other than "in good academic standing"? Is it fair that her roommate's scholarships don't require a GPA mandate, while one of hers does? Aren't they both students, at the same school? Why are the conditions different for one versus another? Because those are the rules that are bound to those scholarships. As there are rules applied to athletic grant in aid which anyone that signs knows what those rules or conditions are. I would like to see them change the rules when a coach leaves, but not for other reasons.
-
Why? Are there not conditions granted for those scholarships? When a student athlete signs for that grant, there are conditions tied to it. Are those the same conditions the violinist scholarship student is signing?
Why is it that my youngest at Marquette has several scholarships, one of which mandates a specific GPA be maintained each semester, but the other scholarships do not have any requirement other than "in good academic standing"? Is it fair that her roommate's scholarships don't require a GPA mandate, while one of hers does? Aren't they both students, at the same school? Why are the conditions different for one versus another? Because those are the rules that are bound to those scholarships. As there are rules applied to athletic grant in aid which anyone that signs knows what those rules or conditions are. I would like to see them change the rules when a coach leaves, but not for other reasons.
Wow. A "rules are rules" argument. How incredibly Chicos of you.
Anyway the point that most are making is that rules can (and should) be changed.
-
In the forest of important issues facing college basketball, transfer rules are one tiny sapling.
The commission led by Condoleezza Rice was formed in response to the federal corruption investigation that rocked the sport. Transfer rules have nothing to do with that; they're simply not critical to the future of the game. So it should come as no surprise that the commission's report and recommendations focused elsewhere.
-
Doesn't feel like a comparison that is worthy of discussion, but I will try.
Does the violinist sign a national letter of intent or grant in aid that has binding rules that if they wish to leave they will have to sit out a year and not play violin for the school? Conditions come with many forms aid, this is the case with athletic grants. Are those same conditions that the violinist is under?
Is the violinist on a team representing the school where 10's of thousands, or millions of people on television (for the biggest of games) are watching? Those people providing valuable resources to the school in the form of donations?
Is there a competitive balance the violinist is changing by transferring that is akin to sports?
Are the violinist competitions on television rallying alumni to the TV set and into the arenas?
Is the concert hall the violinist plays in hold 18K people?
Can I buy t-shirts at the book store supporting the violinist and their team?
Edit:
These do not seem apt comparisons to me, both for what they do for the school or in how the scholarships and the conditions applied to them are structured. We could argue the Chemistry professor is more important than the basketball coach, but the market dictates the coach will be paid much more than the Chemistry professor. The coach is also many times more likely to be fired while a professor is highly unlikely to be fired. There are tradeoffs in life, and even though employees or students may be working or studying under the same institutional umbrella, it doesn't mean they are the same or the conditions in which they operate are equal.
This argument doesn't work for me because the NCAA has said its not about "rules are rules" or about the money that the players generates for the school. They claim it is to benefit the athlete academically. My problem with this is that statistically, freshman and juco transfers struggle academically a lot more than traditional transfers do (not sure of the data on first year grad students). Yet those populations are allowed to play right away while transfer sit. I'm just a fan of consistency. If it truly is about academics then make jucos and freshmen sit as well.
-
When smart kids and gifted musicians start making as much money for their schools as star athletes, they should have to sit out a year after transferring.
They usually just drop out to make their money.
-
This argument doesn't work for me because the NCAA has said its not about "rules are rules" or about the money that the players generates for the school. They claim it is to benefit the athlete academically. My problem with this is that statistically, freshman and juco transfers struggle academically a lot more than traditional transfers do (not sure of the data on first year grad students). Yet those populations are allowed to play right away while transfer sit. I'm just a fan of consistency. If it truly is about academics then make jucos and freshmen sit as well.
That's the NCAA trying to be politically correct. They can't admit that revenue athletes are pseudo employees. So they say the year in residence rule is for academics.
I think it's a boldface lie. The real reason is to prevent players from hopping teams willy nilly. I'm ok with that being the reason. Playing D-1 basketball and football is a privilege, not a right. Nothing wrong with putting some conditions on that privilege.
For the most part, players face very few restrictions for when and where they transfer. The issue of when they are eligible to compete is what's restricted. I have no problem with that. I know a lot of people think it's unfair but I disagree. I'm not going to pretend it benefits the student-athlete. But I don't think it does any harm.
The year in residence rule is also a deterrent for coaches tampering with players. Without the rule, recruiting never stops. I can even imagine schools paying kids to transfer. How much would an immediately eligible Markus Howard be worth on the black market of recruiting? Imagine adding even more corruption to D-1 revenue sports.
-
Doesn't feel like a comparison that is worthy of discussion, but I will try.
Does the violinist sign a national letter of intent or grant in aid that has binding rules that if they wish to leave they will have to sit out a year and not play violin for the school? Conditions come with many forms aid, this is the case with athletic grants. Are those same conditions that the violinist is under?
Is the violinist on a team representing the school where 10's of thousands, or millions of people on television (for the biggest of games) are watching? Those people providing valuable resources to the school in the form of donations?
Is there a competitive balance the violinist is changing by transferring that is akin to sports?
Are the violinist competitions on television rallying alumni to the TV set and into the arenas?
Is the concert hall the violinist plays in hold 18K people?
Can I buy t-shirts at the book store supporting the violinist and their team?
This is idiotic because nothing in the response remotely addresses the benefit of the year in residence. It's like addressing the question of "why" with "because." That might work with a 3-year-old, but not here.
-
Doesn't feel like a comparison that is worthy of discussion, but I will try.
Does the violinist sign a national letter of intent or grant in aid that has binding rules that if they wish to leave they will have to sit out a year and not play violin for the school? Conditions come with many forms aid, this is the case with athletic grants. Are those same conditions that the violinist is under?
Is the violinist on a team representing the school where 10's of thousands, or millions of people on television (for the biggest of games) are watching? Those people providing valuable resources to the school in the form of donations?
Is there a competitive balance the violinist is changing by transferring that is akin to sports?
Are the violinist competitions on television rallying alumni to the TV set and into the arenas?
Is the concert hall the violinist plays in hold 18K people?
Can I buy t-shirts at the book store supporting the violinist and their team?
Edit:
These do not seem apt comparisons to me, both for what they do for the school or in how the scholarships and the conditions applied to them are structured. We could argue the Chemistry professor is more important than the basketball coach, but the market dictates the coach will be paid much more than the Chemistry professor. The coach is also many times more likely to be fired while a professor is highly unlikely to be fired. There are tradeoffs in life, and even though employees or students may be working or studying under the same institutional umbrella, it doesn't mean they are the same or the conditions in which they operate are equal.
Thanks for trying.
Try again when you have a better argument.
When smart kids and gifted musicians start making as much money for their schools as star athletes, they should have to sit out a year after transferring.
I'd have expected a better argument from you, chickadee.
Coaches make a lot of money for their schools (theoretically) and they leave whenever they damn well feel like it. They should have to sit out a year after leaving.
-
Coaches make a lot of money for their schools (theoretically) and they leave whenever they damn well feel like it. They should have to sit out a year after leaving.
And while yes, there is a difference between paid coaches and students due to the archaic notions of amateurism, the decisions of coaches to leave without repercussion directly impacts the student athletes that cannot leave without repercussion.
-
This argument doesn't work for me because the NCAA has said its not about "rules are rules" or about the money that the players generates for the school. They claim it is to benefit the athlete academically. My problem with this is that statistically, freshman and juco transfers struggle academically a lot more than traditional transfers do (not sure of the data on first year grad students). Yet those populations are allowed to play right away while transfer sit. I'm just a fan of consistency. If it truly is about academics then make jucos and freshmen sit as well.
I think the NCAAs argument about one year of residence is flimsy. The true argument is it will create free agency and damage college basketball. They should just say that, because that is the truth and also why transfers shouldn't be allowed unless a coach leaves.
-
I think the NCAAs argument about one year of residence is flimsy. The true argument is it will create free agency and damage college basketball. They should just say that, because that is the truth and also why transfers shouldn't be allowed unless a coach leaves.
College basketball would survive just fine.
There were many who thought players leaving early for the NBA would irreparably damage college basketball. There were many who thought players being able to go directly from high school to the NBA would irreparably damage college basketball. There were many who thought the rampant violations, point-shaving scandals, agent-involved infractions, etc, would damage college basketball.
College basketball is resilient.
Anything that would treat the players as the No. 1 reason (by far) that college basketball is profitable and resilient would be a good thing IMHO.
-
College basketball would survive just fine.
There were many who thought players leaving early for the NBA would irreparably damage college basketball. There were many who thought players being able to go directly from high school to the NBA would irreparably damage college basketball. There were many who thought the rampant violations, point-shaving scandals, agent-involved infractions, etc, would damage college basketball.
College basketball is resilient.
Anything that would treat the players as the No. 1 reason (by far) that college basketball is profitable and resilient would be a good thing IMHO.
College basketball is not near the quality it used to be since guys left early for the NBA. No one can say this with a straight face. Early departures and kids jumping straight to the NBA has not helped the college game. I'm ok with the latter, however, if it means something like the hockey or baseball rule.
IMHO open transfers will lead to tampering, full scale free agency and hurt the middle class teams. Why hang around at Loyola to see if you are good if you are a senior and can fit into a power program. Devastating effects for the college game. Will make it even more of the 1% dominating the sport.
edit
“It would turn into one of the dirtiest recruiting periods that you’ve ever seen,” said Archie Miller. “You’ll have guys talking to your players when they are in your gym. Coaches will recruit players right after games and now you can go directly to the source, it would cripple teams and programs.”
“I think it’s ridiculous,” Chris Mack “There’s a constant narrative on social media about the mass exodus of kids and how it’s appalling so many kids opt to transfer. So now we want to make it easier to transfer? I don’t see any logic in that line of thinking. Doesn’t surprise me, but it’s a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. I transferred years ago and I sat out a year. Did me a world of good. It's not the negative people make it out to be.”
“It makes it impossible to build a program,” Christian (Mt. St. Mary's Coach) said when asked about the potential rule. “These kids are going to choose your school, looking for an opportunity to move up every year. It’s going to impact everyone. You won’t be able to have depth. I don’t know if high majors think that, but I think it’ll impact every single program because if guys don’t play they’ll leave. Everyone becomes a JUCO. It’s going to impact everyone.”
“The power 5 will be doing most of their recruiting off the other teams,” said Middle Tennessee State coach Kermit Davis. “Recruiting on each other's campus, ridiculous,” Davis said. “Will bring in college coaches Wrestle Mania.” “Will be the worst rule in the history of college hoops"
-
College basketball is not near the quality it used to be since guys left early for the NBA. No one can say this with a straight face.
College basketball is near the quality it used to be since guys left early for the NBA.
You can't see it but I promise I said it with a straight face.
The game evolves, always has, always will. I am not really for or against transfers sitting, I just think it needs to be grounded in the mission of academics first. If you are going to make transfers sit, then make jucos, grads, and even freshmen sit. If the reason is that it would be inconvenient to some programs than that doesn't really resonate with me.
-
College basketball is not near the quality it used to be since guys left early for the NBA. No one can say this with a straight face. Early departures and kids jumping straight to the NBA has not helped the college game. I'm ok with the latter, however, if it means something like the hockey or baseball rule.
IMHO open transfers will lead to tampering, full scale free agency and hurt the middle class teams. Why hang around at Loyola to see if you are good if you are a senior and can fit into a power program. Devastating effects for the college game. Will make it even more of the 1% dominating the sport.
edit
“It would turn into one of the dirtiest recruiting periods that you’ve ever seen,” said Archie Miller. “You’ll have guys talking to your players when they are in your gym. Coaches will recruit players right after games and now you can go directly to the source, it would cripple teams and programs.”
“I think it’s ridiculous,” Chris Mack “There’s a constant narrative on social media about the mass exodus of kids and how it’s appalling so many kids opt to transfer. So now we want to make it easier to transfer? I don’t see any logic in that line of thinking. Doesn’t surprise me, but it’s a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. I transferred years ago and I sat out a year. Did me a world of good. It's not the negative people make it out to be.”
“It makes it impossible to build a program,” Christian (Mt. St. Mary's Coach) said when asked about the potential rule. “These kids are going to choose your school, looking for an opportunity to move up every year. It’s going to impact everyone. You won’t be able to have depth. I don’t know if high majors think that, but I think it’ll impact every single program because if guys don’t play they’ll leave. Everyone becomes a JUCO. It’s going to impact everyone.”
“The power 5 will be doing most of their recruiting off the other teams,” said Middle Tennessee State coach Kermit Davis. “Recruiting on each other's campus, ridiculous,” Davis said. “Will bring in college coaches Wrestle Mania.” “Will be the worst rule in the history of college hoops"
1. I disagree completely that it would have a devastating effect, chicos2, and you can't prove that it would.
2. All of the gentlemen you quoted have ulterior motives. Many of these me-first coaches also want to get rid of the grad-transfer rule - they want to close the one loophole that actually favors the athletes.
You remember the athletes, right? They're the unpaid dudes who make it possible for the coaches - and the entire college basketball industrial complex - to line their pockets.
-
College basketball is near the quality it used to be since guys left early for the NBA.
You can't see it but I promise I said it with a straight face.
The game evolves, always has, always will. I am not really for or against transfers sitting, I just think it needs to be grounded in the mission of academics first. If you are going to make transfers sit, then make jucos, grads, and even freshmen sit. If the reason is that it would be inconvenient to some programs than that doesn't really resonate with me.
I come from an era where players like Patrick Ewing, Laettner, Walton, Manning, Ferry, Augmon, May, Robinson, Reddick, David Rivers, Alford, Bias, Maravich, Sampson, and countless others played through their eligibility. Even guys like Shaq and Michael Jordan played 3 years. The depth and quality of the teams was substantially better in my view. The amount of quality players and play that leaves early, unfortunately all too often not playing much in the NBA early on, has devalued the college game. You can't have talent drain like that and not have it impact the game.
-
1. I disagree completely that it would have a devastating effect, chicos2, and you can't prove that it would.
2. All of the gentlemen you quoted have ulterior motives. Many of these me-first coaches also want to get rid of the grad-transfer rule - they want to close the one loophole that actually favors the athletes.
You remember the athletes, right? They're the unpaid dudes who make it possible for the coaches - and the entire college basketball industrial complex - to line their pockets.
Are you saying the coaches I listed want to get rid of the grad transfer rule? Do you have evidence of this? Mack, as stated, was a transfer player himself.
Yes, I am aware of the student athletes. We have one in my family since graduated, we went through the process in a non revenue spot. My view is that my child benefited greatly from the system in place with an immense opportunity to have their education paid for, solid coaching, travel, and all the other perks that go with it. It isn't easy, these student athletes put in long hours, often are stars on their high school teams that do not play much in the early years of college, but life lessons are taught.
College basketball players are not unpaid dudes. What is the value of a scholarship at Marquette? What is the value of a college degree over the course of a lifetime? What is the value of their experience, the people they meet to prolong their dream, the travels they take? If there was no value, how would so many of these guys make millions after college if it weren't for the college proving grounds? Would they do this on the AAU courts? The public hoops courts of New York?
-
Are you saying the coaches I listed want to get rid of the grad transfer rule? Do you have evidence of this? Mack, as stated, was a transfer player himself.
Yes, I am aware of the student athletes. We have one in my family since graduated, we went through the process in a non revenue spot. My view is that my child benefited greatly from the system in place with an immense opportunity to have their education paid for, solid coaching, travel, and all the other perks that go with it. It isn't easy, these student athletes put in long hours, often are stars on their high school teams that do not play much in the early years of college, but life lessons are taught.
College basketball players are not unpaid dudes. What is the value of a scholarship at Marquette? What is the value of a college degree over the course of a lifetime? What is the value of their experience, the people they meet to prolong their dream, the travels they take? If there was no value, how would so many of these guys make millions after college if it weren't for the college proving grounds? Would they do this on the AAU courts? The public hoops courts of New York?
zzzzzzz
chicos2, as usual, lots of words to say nothing of substance.
-
zzzzzzz
chicos2, as usual, lots of words to say nothing of substance.
It's not Chicos. The Cubs W flag is a clear indicator of it. Chicos is an Angels fan. Duh.
-
I come from an era
(https://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/jay-cutler-dont-care-225x300.jpg)
-
zzzzzzz
chicos2, as usual, lots of words to say nothing of substance.
You asked if I was aware of the student athlete. The answer is yes, because of one my kids was one. I answered your question directly.
-
You asked if I was aware of the student athlete. The answer is yes, because of one my kids was one. I answered your question directly.
Cool, c2. One of my kids was a college athlete, too. (D3 hoops.) So I guess we're both aware!
What I really asked you to do was prove that transfers being eligible without sitting out a year would damage college basketball. You couldn't. Nobody can. I admit I can't prove the opposite, either. I stated an opinion, as did you. Your opinion was no more "factual" than mine or TAMU's or wades or anybody else's.
As my uncle used to say: You're allowed to have an opinion just like anybody else is ... no matter how wrong yours might be!
-
zzzzzzz
chicos2, as usual, lots of words to say nothing of substance.
Feels more like 500, hey?
-
It's not Chicos. The Cubs W flag is a clear indicator of it. Chicos is an Angels fan. Duh.
I'm convinced.
-
According to the NCAA, about 40% of all men's basketball players who enter Division I right out of high school leave their initial college by the end of their sophomore year.
If you think the current "year in residence" rule discourages transfers, I'd encourage you think again. If players aren't happy somewhere, they're going to transfer. Whether they have to sit out a year or not. My theory is that the rule accomplishes nothing and we would see absolutely no difference in transfer rates if it went away.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball)
-
According to the NCAA, about 40% of all men's basketball players who enter Division I right out of high school leave their initial college by the end of their sophomore year.
If you think the current "year in residence" rule discourages transfers, I'd encourage you think again. If players aren't happy somewhere, they're going to transfer. Whether they have to sit out a year or not. My theory is that the rule accomplishes nothing and we would see absolutely no difference in transfer rates if it went away.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball)
Not sure I'd agree with "absolute no difference," but I do not think it would be huge, and I definitely do not think it would irreparably damage college basketball, as others do.
The truly great difference-making players are going to the NBA, not to other college programs.
Most very good players would be happy where they are because it's there they became very good.
You'd have the same guys transferring without having to sit out as you do now: kids who no longer like their coach; kids who want to start and/or get more PT; kids who want to be closer to home; bad actors who think the world should revolve around them; kids whose coach left for another program; etc.
-
Cool, c2. One of my kids was a college athlete, too. (D3 hoops.) So I guess we're both aware!
What I really asked you to do was prove that transfers being eligible without sitting out a year would damage college basketball. You couldn't. Nobody can. I admit I can't prove the opposite, either. I stated an opinion, as did you. Your opinion was no more "factual" than mine or TAMU's or wades or anybody else's.
As my uncle used to say: You're allowed to have an opinion just like anybody else is ... no matter how wrong yours might be!
Yes, theses are opinions. Let's have some fun. To my knowledge division 3 doesn't have scholarships making it a little different, but in the ballpark. With your child did you feel they were exploited or not compensated in some way because of no scholarship? We didn't feel that way in our situation, but a scholarship was provided.
We were probably talking past each other as the only sentence I saw with a question mark was the one I answered.
To answer your new question, my opinion is similar to those coaches. Already we see this with the grad transfer rule where kids leave mid level programs to higher level their last year. Without sitting out a year, that then happens constantly. 40% transfer rates become 65% or 70%. I do not believe that is healthy for college basketball, in my opinion. I cannot prove it, but I would offer those coaches as expert witnesses in what would happen and the negative consequences that would follow.
-
To answer your new question, my opinion is similar to those coaches. Already we see this with the grad transfer rule where kids leave mid level programs to higher level their last year. Without sitting out a year, that then happens constantly. 40% transfer rates become 65% or 70%. I do not believe that is healthy for college basketball, in my opinion. I cannot prove it, but I would offer those coaches as expert witnesses in what would happen and the negative consequences that would follow.
I have been tracking grad transfers extensively for the last four years. Nowhere close to 65-70% of players who are grad transfer eligible use a grad transfer.
-
Yes, theses are opinions. Let's have some fun. To my knowledge division 3 doesn't have scholarships making it a little different, but in the ballpark. With your child did you feel they were exploited or not compensated in some way because of no scholarship? We didn't feel that way in our situation, but a scholarship was provided.
We were probably talking past each other as the only sentence I saw with a question mark was the one I answered.
To answer your new question, my opinion is similar to those coaches. Already we see this with the grad transfer rule where kids leave mid level programs to higher level their last year. Without sitting out a year, that then happens constantly. 40% transfer rates become 65% or 70%. I do not believe that is healthy for college basketball, in my opinion. I cannot prove it, but I would offer those coaches as expert witnesses in what would happen and the negative consequences that would follow.
Most (not all, but the vast majority of) D3 players have no chance to play at an athletic scholarship level; the few who do might get a partial scholly at D2. Very, very, very, very, very few D1-scholarship-level athletes opt to play D3.
My daughter had no chance at an athletic scholarship. She knew going in exactly what she was in for as a D3 basketball player. Also, she was not a moneymaker for the school. And when the combination of athletics and high-level academics got too heavy for her, she stopped playing, leaving the team after her sophomore season to concentrate on her studies. Making that decision did not cost her a penny of the academic scholarship she received. So no, I don't think she was exploited. But, as you well know, D3 is not D1, and this is an apples-to-pomegranate comparison. Schools don't make money off the backs of star athletes in D3. Indeed, athletics are "loss leaders" for D3 schools. There's nothing to exploit.
As for the second part of your comment, I will defer to Brother TAMU ...
I have been tracking grad transfers extensively for the last four years. Nowhere close to 65-70% of players who are grad transfer eligible use a grad transfer.
c2, you almost surely are inflating your hypothetical numbers to make your point.
Again, maybe I went over the top asking guys to "prove" their opinions-stated-kinda-as-facts, but this sort of is an example of why I did that.
You pull numbers out of your rectal cavity and the rest of us are supposed to go, "Yeah, uh-huh, maybe he has a point."
But your point is that you want to be "right," and it would appear that you're not, despite the "stats" you throw out there.
And again, the coaches you quote have ulterior motives. They might be "expert witnesses" but they also are extremely biased ones. I'm pretty sure that if you asked pro sports coaches 40 years ago if unfettered free agency would cause significant damage to their sports, those "expert witnesses" would have said yes. They'd have been biased, too. And they'd have been wrong, as well -- at least so far.
If the NCAA changed the transfer rule tomorrow, allowing D1 scholarship athletes to be free agents every year -- just as coaches are, just as scholarship violinists and scholarship pre-med students are -- it would not materially damage college basketball. The coaches and programs would adjust, just as they have for every major rule change over the years.
All IMHO, of course.
And thanks. That was "some fun."
-
I think there should be a GPA requirement to avoid the sit out year. Like a 3.5 or something.
-
I think there should be a GPA requirement to avoid the sit out year. Like a 3.5 or something.
That is a rule that would be abused constantly.
-
I have been tracking grad transfers extensively for the last four years. Nowhere close to 65-70% of players who are grad transfer eligible use a grad transfer.
I can see how you interpreted it that way as it was poorly written by me. It was late, almost midnight. Let me try again.
What is happening already today with the grad transfer rules are kids leaving mid level programs where they have played their career and then they bounce to a higher level. The Cleveland State example in the second article below illustrates it well. I'm not against that opportunity, but it does hurt the school that invested money, time, resources into those kids. Separately, the current transfer rate is 40% per the NCAA. I'm not saying grad transfer rate is 40%, but rather all DI basketball transfer rate shows 40% will transfer to another school by the end of their sophomore year. In my opinion, that 40% moves to 65% or 70% if kids do not have to sit. Kids are on record saying they didn't transfer because they didn't want to sit out (and often were happy they stuck it out and didn't transfer), therefore it suppresses what the rate would become without sitting. Free agency would also destroy mid major basketball, just ask the mid major coaches. Farm systems would be created, no more Loyola Chicago runs.
I get the sense some people want to burn it all down because they enjoy doing those things.
Articles to Support My Argument (some factual data, some opinions from experts in the field)
- College Basketball Transfer rate 40% - 2017 NCAA published data http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball
- Author of this article believes transfers will move from 800 currently to 1200 or 1600 per year. Supported by coaches at major and mid level schools: Chris Mack, Kermit Davis, Archie Miller, Jamion Christian, https://247sports.com/college/basketball/recruiting/Article/NCAA-coaches-loudly-speaking-out-on-potential-transfer-rule--107036402/
- College basketball would change forever if free agency allowed and transfer rates could double. Article by Jeff Goodman, with inputs from Sean Miller, Jeff Jones, Coach K, Coach Cal. "Tampering will be out of control". "Transfers will double". "if it gets to free agency, that would be a scary thing for college athletics" "College basketball will turn into the wild, wild West" http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17501805/will-free-agency-every-come-college-basketball
- Boeheim and Martelli speak of grad transfer rule, most do not earn the graduate degree. Purely for basketball reasons. https://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2017/05/the_truth_about_basketball_graduate_transfers_why_players_do_it_what_coaches_thi.html
- Grad transfer rule intent was great. In practice, not necessarily the case. USA Today article. Input from experts in their field. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2017/10/17/college-basketball-grad-transfers-unintended-consequences/537014001/
- "I really think it's a dark day for our sport if it's just free agency" Porter Moses. http://www.osga.com/online_gaming_articles.php?New-Proposed-Transfer-Rule-for-Immediate-Eligibility-Will-Destroy-College-Basketball-Mid-Majors-20521
[/list]
-
If the NCAA changed the transfer rule tomorrow, allowing D1 scholarship athletes to be free agents every year -- just as coaches are, just as scholarship violinists and scholarship pre-med students are -- it would not materially damage college basketball. The coaches and programs would adjust, just as they have for every major rule change over the years.
Experts in their field disagree, but that is only their expert opinion. Today transfer rates are 40% per the NCAA. If free agency, predictions from experts in the field are up to double that. I provided a number of articles from experts in their field to back my opinion which I share with those experts in the field. Using simple logic, if today the rate is 40% requiring student athlete to sit, it will undoubtedly with 99.999999% certainty be much higher with no restrictions of sitting. How is that good for college basketball? Especially for smaller schools that have to work that much harder to take chances on kids to come play for them? You effectively, in my opinion, will eliminate the Loyola of Chicago runs again. Why would a Dwyane Wade stick around to play at MU, if Kentucky calls? A farm system will be created, effectively destroying college basketball in my opinion. One of the articles says ruin college basketball, those would be my words, too.
Don't believe me about the Loyola example? Ask their coach, Porter Moses.
If the rule goes into effect, "mid-major schools would become "a farm club system" for power conferences," says Southern Illinois coach Barry Hinson. Of course he's right, as the 'poaching' of better players from mid and low-majors would be a continuous cycle of corruption as major programs pick off the better players from smaller programs.
"I really think it's a dark day for our sport if it's just free agency," said Loyola coach Porter Moser.
It's a death sentence to mid and low-majors.
http://www.osga.com/online_gaming_articles.php?New-Proposed-Transfer-Rule-for-Immediate-Eligibility-Will-Destroy-College-Basketball-Mid-Majors-20521
-
Experts in their field disagree, but that is only their expert opinion. Today transfer rates are 40% per the NCAA. If free agency, predictions from experts in the field are up to double that. I provided a number of articles from experts in their field to back my opinion which I share with those experts in the field. Using simple logic, if today the rate is 40% requiring student athlete to sit, it will undoubtedly with 99.999999% certainty be much higher with no restrictions of sitting. How is that good for college basketball? Especially for smaller schools that have to work that much harder to take chances on kids to come play for them? You effectively, in my opinion, will eliminate the Loyola of Chicago runs again. Why would a Dwyane Wade stick around to play at MU, if Kentucky calls? A farm system will be created, effectively destroying college basketball in my opinion. One of the articles says ruin college basketball, those would be my words, too.
Don't believe me about the Loyola example? Ask their coach, Porter Moses.
If the rule goes into effect, "mid-major schools would become "a farm club system" for power conferences," says Southern Illinois coach Barry Hinson. Of course he's right, as the 'poaching' of better players from mid and low-majors would be a continuous cycle of corruption as major programs pick off the better players from smaller programs.
"I really think it's a dark day for our sport if it's just free agency," said Loyola coach Porter Moser.
It's a death sentence to mid and low-majors.
http://www.osga.com/online_gaming_articles.php?New-Proposed-Transfer-Rule-for-Immediate-Eligibility-Will-Destroy-College-Basketball-Mid-Majors-20521
Rights of the players are more important than mid-major basketball programs. People like Moser should stop whining and do a better job of keeping their players interested in sticking around.
-
Rights of the players are more important than mid-major basketball programs. People like Moser should stop whining and do a better job of keeping their players interested in sticking around.
I disagree that the preservation of competition and mid-majors is not important to the game. The reason college b-ball remains a strong product is because David has a chance against the giant and it is cheaper than football for more schools to compete on the big stage.
The blue bloods win if players can go anywhere year to year and anything that tilts the balance more in that direction is bad for the entirety of the game (in my opinion).
The players rights are not unimportant, but i think there are better ways to blunt any hardship that potentially arises from having to sit out a year (like stipends or other)
-
I think you vastly over-estimate the importance of mid-majors to college basketball. I will also point out that the ratings for college football are much higher than those for college basketball. People like the blue bloods.
And no I don't think the player's rights should be unlimited. I have advocated one "free" transfer during a player's career. That way the NCAA doesn't have to be in the waiver business.
-
I basically agree with sultan, but I think everybody talking about this is overstating the effect it would have on mid-majors.
Players by and large would stay where they are happy, productive, well-coached, like their teammates, etc.
Unhappy players would transfer, as they do now. Same with players who want to be closer to home, players whose coaches leave, etc.
Stars would leave to go pro, as they do now.
Would there be some "poaching"? Probably. That's the cost of doing business, the cost of not treating the athletes like contractually bound employees -- employees are something the NCAA has gone to court to say the athletes aren't, BTW.
I'm a guy who firmly believes the athletes ARE the game and they deserve freedom to use their skills as they and their parents best see fit.
I am old enough to remember the predictions of the horrors that were going to happen to Major League Baseball after Messersmith and McNally in 1975 won the right to leave their teams when their contracts expired -- a legal ruling that introduced free agency to pro sports.
Please.
-
I can see how you interpreted it that way as it was poorly written by me. It was late, almost midnight. Let me try again.
What is happening already today with the grad transfer rules are kids leaving mid level programs where they have played their career and then they bounce to a higher level. The Cleveland State example in the second article below illustrates it well. I'm not against that opportunity, but it does hurt the school that invested money, time, resources into those kids. Separately, the current transfer rate is 40% per the NCAA. I'm not saying grad transfer rate is 40%, but rather all DI basketball transfer rate shows 40% will transfer to another school by the end of their sophomore year. In my opinion, that 40% moves to 65% or 70% if kids do not have to sit.
I understood your point fine. But if the only thing keeping the transfer rate from jumping to 65-70% is the year in residence, then why is that not happening with grad transfers? Why are most of them staying put if they don't have the year in residence to keep them from transferring?
I do think transfer rates would increase, I don't think it is by the amount you or the articles you are quoting are guessing. And even it were to climb that high, I frankly don't care. College basketball would adjust like it always has. You say that mid-majors would struggle. I say they would be just fine. For every mid-major star that transfers up to the high majors, there is two high major players transferring down to mid-majors for more playing time and many of them become stars at that level. Recruiting would change but it would not kill mid majors.
And again, I'm not necessarily against the year in residence. There are certainly academic benefits to it which is the only reason that should matter. But make it consistent. Make JUCOs, grads, and freshmen sit. Or if you can figure out the logistics, tie it to GPA. If a player a has certain GPA then waive the year in residence. Any argument that is based in "would make the coaches job harder" is of no concern IMHO.[/list]
-
What is happening already today with the grad transfer rules are kids leaving mid level programs where they have played their career and then they bounce to a higher level.
I'm calling BS. Most transfers go down or lateral, not up. All the outrage is over a minority of both players in general and transfers in specific. The only reason this false narrative exists is because you only hear about those that transfer up.
-
I think you vastly over-estimate the importance of mid-majors to college basketball. I will also point out that the ratings for college football are much higher than those for college basketball. People like the blue bloods.
And no I don't think the player's rights should be unlimited. I have advocated one "free" transfer during a player's career. That way the NCAA doesn't have to be in the waiver business.
Maybe I am — I just think if I am Ky or Duke in this scenario, I am selecting my starting five every year. This scenario just isn’t that desireable to me. Now if there were limits on transfers into a given program (ie each program can take one a year without sitting), it could get more interesting.
-
I just think if I am Ky or Duke in this scenario, I am selecting my starting five every year.
So you think that Wade or Blake Griffin or some other multi-year star who chose to stay in college rather than going pro would have left a place they liked for Kentucky or Duke just because those schools called them and they wouldn't have had to sit out a year?
I think you overstate the likelihood of that happening.
Would you care to give an example of an a few athletes who might have chosen that route the last couple of years? I'm having trouble thinking of guys who were so talented that Duke/Ky would have tried to poach them but not talented enough to go pro. I mean, Duke/Ky can't keep their own players from going pro even if those players aren't really ready to be pros.
But again, even if what you're worried about ended up being a byproduct of a no-sit-out-for-transfer rule, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I firmly believe in shifting the power dynamic toward the athletes.
Finally, while this has been a fun conversation, I don't think those opposed to such a drastic rule change have to worry. The NCAA and its member institutions do not seem to be in much of a rush to give the athletes this kind of freedom. It's easier to exploit them when, unlike the coaches, they are locked in place by a punitive rule.
-
Maybe I am — I just think if I am Ky or Duke in this scenario, I am selecting my starting five every year. This scenario just isn’t that desireable to me. Now if there were limits on transfers into a given program (ie each program can take one a year without sitting), it could get more interesting.
Are Duke and Kentucky really going to be able to select their starting five? Would Jalen Brunson left Nova for either one of them? Would Sam leave MU after this year?
-
So you think that Wade or Blake Griffin or some other multi-year star who chose to stay in college rather than going pro would have left a place they liked for Kentucky or Duke just because those schools called them and they wouldn't have had to sit out a year?
I think you overstate the likelihood of that happening.
Would you care to give an example of an a few athletes who might have chosen that route the last couple of years? I'm having trouble thinking of guys who were so talented that Duke/Ky would have tried to poach them but not talented enough to go pro. I mean, Duke/Ky can't keep their own players from going pro even if those players aren't really ready to be pros.
But again, even if what you're worried about ended up being a byproduct of a no-sit-out-for-transfer rule, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I firmly believe in shifting the power dynamic toward the athletes.
Finally, while this has been a fun conversation, I don't think those opposed to such a drastic rule change have to worry. The NCAA and its member institutions do not seem to be in much of a rush to give the athletes this kind of freedom. It's easier to exploit them when, unlike the coaches, they are locked in place by a punitive rule.
Wade is a great example. After he qualified or after his first year he could have jumped to a school with more talent. So no he isn’t going after the final four, it has a chance to not happen. Not far fetched based on what Crean said when at IU.
Curry would have been another—again before his sr campaign. I could have seen Kris Dunn leaving providence for a chance at a title. I don’t know if Novak would leave the hometown school, but what a great way to spend his fourth year being featured on KY or duke.
This isn’t far fetched. This occurs in the NBA right now—kids want to form super-teams and win.
Look I’m not worried or feel like there is some emotional right or wrong. The hypothetical was posed and I just think there is downside that hurts the overall product. If they go this route in the name of kids rights—I hope they would be thoughtful so the blue bloods don’t get richer.
-
Are Duke and Kentucky really going to be able to select their starting five? Would Jalen Brunson left Nova for either one of them? Would Sam leave MU after this year?
Why would Jalen Brunson leave a final four contending team? VU is a blue blood in today’s game.
Sam - maybe. What about Markus - what if we have a bad year and miss the tourney. I can see it being attractive to be featured on a team that you know can go deep.
-
Wade is a great example. After he qualified or after his first year he could have jumped to a school with more talent. So no he isn’t going after the final four, it has a chance to not happen. Not far fetched based on what Crean said when at IU.
Curry would have been another—again before his sr campaign. I could have seen Kris Dunn leaving providence for a chance at a title. I don’t know if Novak would leave the hometown school, but what a great way to spend his fourth year being featured on KY or duke.
This isn’t far fetched. This occurs in the NBA right now—kids want to form super-teams and win.
Look I’m not worried or feel like there is some emotional right or wrong. The hypothetical was posed and I just think there is downside that hurts the overall product. If they go this route in the name of kids rights—I hope they would be thoughtful so the blue bloods don’t get richer.
Why would Wade have left? Is there anything to indicate he was unhappy at MU? There was a lot of talent and he liked it there.
And what if Curry would have left Davidson? Why is that bad?
-
Why would Jalen Brunson leave a final four contending team? VU is a blue blood in today’s game.
Sam - maybe. What about Markus - what if we have a bad year and miss the tourney. I can see it being attractive to be featured on a team that you know can go deep.
If Markus wants to leave he can leave. Life goes on.
-
Why would Wade have left? Is there anything to indicate he was unhappy at MU? There was a lot of talent and he liked it there.
And what if Curry would have left Davidson? Why is that bad?
I believe it’s bad because it would concentrate the ‘magic’ moments of college basketball amongst fewer fans and schools.
You can say there are no trade-offs but there will be if free agency comes to college ball. My point is that this needs to be taken into account.
-
Why would Wade have left? Is there anything to indicate he was unhappy at MU? There was a lot of talent and he liked it there.
And what if Curry would have left Davidson? Why is that bad?
This.
I believe it’s bad because it would concentrate the ‘magic’ moments of college basketball amongst fewer fans and schools.
You can say there are no trade-offs but there will be if free agency comes to college ball. My point is that this needs to be taken into account.
Not this.
IMHO, guys won't leave where they are happy, getting lots of PT and getting plenty of exposure. If they are truly great, they will leave for the pros, as they do now. A few guys might get poached by the bluebloods and blueblood-wannabes, but far fewer than the Nervous Nellies think. The rest is just inflated doom-and-glooming based on hypotheticals.
The main trade-off would be young adults having freedom without having to face the kind of unfair consequence the rest of the student body -- and their coaches -- never have to face.
-
Okay, this whole mindset of how it will become panic, pandemonium, and transfers will explode is a load of crap. Consider this thread: https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55365.msg980272#msg980272
If you scroll through the first page, I included 20 players between 2 lists of guys that were going to be grad transfer eligible. All of these were identified by February, long before the transfer season began. Here are those 20 players:
- Robert Cartwright: Transferred down from Stanford to UC-Irvine
- Kory Holden: Transferred down from South Carolina to South Alabama
- Ria'n Holland: Declared pro & signed with agent
- Tavarius Shine: Declared pro & signed with agent
- Jon Elmore: Remaining at Marshall
- Isaac Fleming: Remaining at East Carolina
- Ethan Happ: Remaining at Wisconsin
- Paul Jackson: Remaining at Eastern Michigan
- Tayler Persons: Remaining at Ball State
- Ahmaad Rorie: Remaining at Montana
- Shawn Roundtree: Remaining at Central Michigan
- Deshon Taylor: Remaining at Fresno State (Despite a coaching change)
- Devin Watson: Remaining at San Diego State
- Isaiah Wright: Remaining at San Diego
- Marcquise Reed: Remaining at Clemson
- Shelton Mitchell: Remaining at Clemson
- Alex Robinson: Remaining at TCU
- James Palmer: Remaining at Nebraska
- Cane Broome: Remaining at Cincinnati
- B.J. Taylor: Remaining at UCF
Two transferred down. Two went pro. 16 stayed at their current programs, even though the majority of them could have easily transferred up. Just because guys can transfer doesn't mean they will. Most will stay. Would transfers go up with immediate eligibility across the board? Maybe. I wouldn't rule it out. But the idea that it would be some mass free agent, chaotic end-of-the-college-basketball-world scenario is just pure ignorance of how the transfer landscape has actually worked.
Guys generally transfer when there are coaching changes, when they can't get minutes (and then usually down), and occasionally (but rarely) to bigger programs. That's just reality. Not everyone that can transfer does.
-
Okay, this whole mindset of how it will become panic, pandemonium, and transfers will explode is a load of crap. Consider this thread: https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55365.msg980272#msg980272
If you scroll through the first page, I included 20 players between 2 lists of guys that were going to be grad transfer eligible. All of these were identified by February, long before the transfer season began. Here are those 20 players:
- Robert Cartwright: Transferred down from Stanford to UC-Irvine
- Kory Holden: Transferred down from South Carolina to South Alabama
- Ria'n Holland: Declared pro & signed with agent
- Tavarius Shine: Declared pro & signed with agent
- Jon Elmore: Remaining at Marshall
- Isaac Fleming: Remaining at East Carolina
- Ethan Happ: Remaining at Wisconsin
- Paul Jackson: Remaining at Eastern Michigan
- Tayler Persons: Remaining at Ball State
- Ahmaad Rorie: Remaining at Montana
- Shawn Roundtree: Remaining at Central Michigan
- Deshon Taylor: Remaining at Fresno State (Despite a coaching change)
- Devin Watson: Remaining at San Diego State
- Isaiah Wright: Remaining at San Diego
- Marcquise Reed: Remaining at Clemson
- Shelton Mitchell: Remaining at Clemson
- Alex Robinson: Remaining at TCU
- James Palmer: Remaining at Nebraska
- Cane Broome: Remaining at Cincinnati
- B.J. Taylor: Remaining at UCF
Two transferred down. Two went pro. 16 stayed at their current programs, even though the majority of them could have easily transferred up. Just because guys can transfer doesn't mean they will. Most will stay. Would transfers go up with immediate eligibility across the board? Maybe. I wouldn't rule it out. But the idea that it would be some mass free agent, chaotic end-of-the-college-basketball-world scenario is just pure ignorance of how the transfer landscape has actually worked.
Guys generally transfer when there are coaching changes, when they can't get minutes (and then usually down), and occasionally (but rarely) to bigger programs. That's just reality. Not everyone that can transfer does.
Superbly stated, and excellent research.
Facts. They will set us free!
-
Truth isn't truth.
-
Truth isn't truth.
Nothing that you see or read is
-
I'm calling BS. Most transfers go down or lateral, not up. All the outrage is over a minority of both players in general and transfers in specific. The only reason this false narrative exists is because you only hear about those that transfer up.
You are correct that most transfers make lateral or downward moves. I'm not sure, however, how that is applicable in a world where one has to sit out a year, vs free agency. You are not comparing the same things.
The players that can make the most difference (the good players) where nothing stops movement in the future, will have a strong incentive to leave for a ready made squad especially if his team is rebuilding.
This is the biggest fear. You have a kid finished his junior year on a senior laden team. He is about to become a senior, but it's a rebuild or uncertain year because of all the youth and out there are teams ready with just one missing piece. That starts happening and you could hamper rebuilds for long periods of time.
-
Rights of the players are more important than mid-major basketball programs. People like Moser should stop whining and do a better job of keeping their players interested in sticking around.
What rights of the players are being denied? A free education, free food, free clothing, free coaching, free travel? How does Moser do a better job when bigger schools, better facilities and all the tampering that goes with it starts to interfere?
I am old enough to remember the predictions of the horrors that were going to happen to Major League Baseball after Messersmith and McNally in 1975 won the right to leave their teams when their contracts expired -- a legal ruling that introduced free agency to pro sports.
I am also old enough to remember this and to some degree those horrors came true, but nevertheless comparing that to this is pecuilar. Since 1985, salary and winning percentage in baseball are positively correlated. So much so, in 1994 MLB made changes to address the issues that were occurring after the mid 70's changes. In other words, many tweaks and changes have happened along the way as a result of free agency, including draft compensation picks, luxury tax, and others.
Also, in pro baseball you can have the best player in the game and it means nothing. Andrew Dawson, Mike Trout, others won MVPs and couldn't make the playoffs because baseball requires great pitching, hitting, fielding. In college basketball one guy can make the entire difference and lead a bad team to the promised land. Baseball also has 30 teams (back then it was 26 I think), where college basketball has 350+, at at least 75 to 90 that are high quality teams with a chance to make the NCAA tournament each year going in. The opportunities are considerably different and so are the impacts on one player switching clubs because of the value to the game one player can bring in basketball vs baseball.
-
You are correct that most transfers make lateral or downward moves. I'm not sure, however, how that is applicable in a world where one has to sit out a year, vs free agency. You are not comparing the same things.
The players that can make the most difference (the good players) where nothing stops movement in the future, will have a strong incentive to leave for a ready made squad especially if his team is rebuilding.
This is the biggest fear. You have a kid finished his junior year on a senior laden team. He is about to become a senior, but it's a rebuild or uncertain year because of all the youth and out there are teams ready with just one missing piece. That starts happening and you could hamper rebuilds for long periods of time.
And who cares? It is their right to choose the path they want to go. And ultimately that is on the coach for not recruiting better and filling the void having all those seniors leave. He would have known for 4 years his team would be very senior heavy and could have brought in some traditional transfers or some grad transfers to fill the leadership void of all those seniors. That is college coaching roster management 101...
Also, why does this theory not prove out in the grad transfer market (see Brew's post above)? They are essentially free agents and a lot of them could be good players on better teams, but the majority of them tend to stay.
-
How does Moser do a better job when bigger schools, better facilities and all the tampering that goes with it starts to interfere?
I don't know. And I don't care.
-
Lol, I guess not enough people caught on to Chicos's changing his picture to the Cubs W flag so he had to make it even more apparent that hey, he really is a Cubs fan! No denying it, he threw up a Cubs picture as his avatar.
What a nut.
-
What rights of the players are being denied? A free education, free food, free clothing, free coaching, free travel? How does Moser do a better job when bigger schools, better facilities and all the tampering that goes with it starts to interfere?
And you can prove there will be tampering? Also, just saw what sultan said, and I agree, who cares? That is his job, to manage his roster and put the best team he can out there. Oh and now he is getting paid close to $1M/yr to do it through the 2025/26 season, poor him.
We get it, you would rather take the side of the universities and the coaches over the individual athletes.
-
I am also old enough to remember this and to some degree those horrors came true
Baseball experienced none of the "horrors" that were predicted.
This is the biggest fear. You have a kid finished his junior year on a senior laden team. He is about to become a senior, but it's a rebuild or uncertain year because of all the youth and out there are teams ready with just one missing piece. That starts happening and you could hamper rebuilds for long periods of time.
I do not "fear" this at all.
The much bigger "fear" is that the coach who won with that senior-laden team uses his success to bolt to a different university. It doesn't matter that he has 5 years left on his contract or that he promised the junior repeatedly that he would be there "for the duration" ... he'll leave, and he won't feel one iota guilty about it. And then the junior, who liked the school but loved the coach more, will also leave. And whether or not the junior stays or leaves, you have a total rebuild of 4-5 years or more.
Give the kids the same freedom enjoyed by the adults who profit off their labors. That's all I'm looking for.
'Merica!
-
You are correct that most transfers make lateral or downward moves. I'm not sure, however, how that is applicable in a world where one has to sit out a year, vs free agency. You are not comparing the same things.
Again, we already have "free agency" in the form of grad transfers. Yet most players who are grad transfer eligible don't use it. And most players who do use it transfer down in search of more playing time. So why would it be different if expanded?
-
You are correct that most transfers make lateral or downward moves. I'm not sure, however, how that is applicable in a world where one has to sit out a year, vs free agency. You are not comparing the same things.
So show me numbers that compares the same thing. I'm guessing you can't because they don't exist. It's a fallacious unsupported statement created by people with an agenda.
The players that can make the most difference (the good players) where nothing stops movement in the future, will have a strong incentive to leave for a ready made squad especially if his team is rebuilding.
This is the biggest fear. You have a kid finished his junior year on a senior laden team. He is about to become a senior, but it's a rebuild or uncertain year because of all the youth and out there are teams ready with just one missing piece. That starts happening and you could hamper rebuilds for long periods of time.
Way to completely dodge the actual grad-transfer eligible list I created in January and February and reconstituted in this thread. What happened with those 20 players? 10% transferred down. 10% went pro. 80% remained at their current schools. After NCAA appearances, guys like Jon Elmore, Ahmaad Rorie, & Devin Watson certainly could have transferred up had they chose to. And guys on lesser teams that didn't make the Dance, like Tayler Persons, Isaiah Wright, & Deshon Taylor could've easily chased greater glory on bigger programs.
"This is the biggest fear."
LOL no. This is you fear-mongering. This is you spreading unsubstantiated BS because there is no evidence to substantiate it & because in the vast majority of situations, your "biggest fear" is a load of crap that doesn't come to pass. Some players transfer up. More transfer laterally or down. Most don't transfer at all. But I suppose that doesn't fit your sky is falling narrative, so it's easier to just avoid that reality.
-
Wait, has everyone really fallen back into arguing with "what is a chicos?"
-
Wait, has everyone really fallen back into arguing with "what is a chicos?"
And as with all Chicos arguments the whole thread goes into spin mode...
-
chicosnomatta
-
And who cares? It is their right to choose the path they want to go. And ultimately that is on the coach for not recruiting better and filling the void having all those seniors leave. He would have known for 4 years his team would be very senior heavy and could have brought in some traditional transfers or some grad transfers to fill the leadership void of all those seniors. That is college coaching roster management 101...
Also, why does this theory not prove out in the grad transfer market (see Brew's post above)? They are essentially free agents and a lot of them could be good players on better teams, but the majority of them tend to stay.
That depends, kids get hurt, kids leave early for the pros. Schools can find themselves in tough situations and that makes it easier for a kid to leave. The majority tend to stay because of the one year sitting requirement, I'm not so sure the post above is thorough with all the facts that he stated.
I don't know. And I don't care.
Some care, some don't. These are opinions. We all having fun still? Some sound angry.
What a nut.
Still struggling, I see https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54934.msg1032498#msg1032498 Your logic then was impeccable. As a reminder, a 49ers fan growing up a fan of Montana as the greatest can't think Brady is the greatest? That's what you said here.
The much bigger "fear" is that the coach who won with that senior-laden team uses his success to bolt to a different university. It doesn't matter that he has 5 years left on his contract or that he promised the junior repeatedly that he would be there "for the duration" ... he'll leave, and he won't feel one iota guilty about it. And then the junior, who liked the school but loved the coach more, will also leave. And whether or not the junior stays or leaves, you have a total rebuild of 4-5 years or more.
Give the kids the same freedom enjoyed by the adults who profit off their labors. That's all I'm looking for.
I support that if the coach leaves the players can leave. If a coach leaves the contract buyout has to be paid. Are you suggesting if the player leaves he pays back the school for the scholarship? There is a penalty for a coach leaving, it is almost always monetary, he doesn't get to walk away without paying that penalty.
-
Again, we already have "free agency" in the form of grad transfers. Yet most players who are grad transfer eligible don't use it. And most players who do use it transfer down in search of more playing time. So why would it be different if expanded?
How many players are graduate eligible to transfer? I do not know the answer, maybe someone does. There appears to be a reason why a number of the high profile mid level coaches have a concern about this. Usually those concerns do not occur in a bubble.
The person above shared some examples, but I went to the graduate transfer list today and it feels like many of them made upward movement. The list was more extensive because it is more recent.
Makai Mason from Yale to Baylor
Evan Bourdeaux from Dartmouth to Purdue
Zach Hankis from Ferris State to Xavier
Miles Reynolds from Pacific to Oklahoma
David Nichols from Albany to Florida State
Kyle Castlin from Columbia to Xavier
Ryan Taylor from Evansville to Northwestern
Keenan Gumbs from Schreiner to Liberty
Ryan Welage from San Jose State to Xavier
Tarin Smith from Duquense to UCONN
Aaron Calixte from Maine to Oklahoma
Novak Topalovic from Idaho State to Utah
Austin Nehls from Central Connecticut State to Ball State
Ryan Luther from Pittsburgh to Arizona
Zach Johnson from FGCU to Miami (FL)
Josephy Chartouny from Fordham to Marquette
Mike Cunningham from South Carolina Upstate to Oklahoma State
Prentiss Nixon from Colorado State to Iowa State
Keyshawn Woods from Wake Forest to Ohio State
Justin Coleman from Samford to Arizona
Wyatt Walker from Samford to North Carolina State
Christian Cunningham from Samford to Louisville
Femi Olujobi from North Carolina A&T to DePaul
Ikenna Smart from Buffalo to Wake Forest
Torry Johnson from Northern Arizona to Wake Forest
Evan Fitzner from St. Mary's to Indiana
Javan White from Oral Roberts to Clemson
Joe Cremo from Albany to Villanova
Michael Gilmore from FGCU to VCU
Eric Lockett from FIU to NC State
Sidy N'Dir from New Mexico State to Pittsburgh
Brock Stull from Milwaukee to Minnesota
Shea Feehan from Eureka to Evansville
Aaron Menzies from Seattle to St. Mary's
Tramamaine Isabell from Drexel to St. Louis
Christian Mekowulu from Tennessee State to Texas A&M
Khwan Fore from Richmond to Louisville
Connor Cashaw from Rice to Creighton
Reid Travis from Stanford to Kentucky
Akoy Agua from SMU to Louisville
Jarrett Givens from Adams State to Austin Peay
Ehab Amin from TAMU-CC to Oregon
Adonis De La Rosa from Kent State to Illinois
Geno Crandall from North Dakota to Gonzaga
Stone Gettings from Cornell to Arizona
Probably can argue with a few whether the are upward, but in those that are close they are moving to a much more difficult conference and level of play night in and night out.
-
I support that if the coach leaves the players can leave. If a coach leaves the contract buyout has to be paid. Are you suggesting if the player leaves he pays back the school for the scholarship? There is a penalty for a coach leaving, it is almost always monetary, he doesn't get to walk away without paying that penalty.
I support that if the player wants to leave he can leave without being punished for it ... because he is a human being and he should be free to pursue his life's dream -- just as the scholarship trombonist could do.
As for paying back the school that loses the player, sure ... they can take it out of the salary he gets at the new school. After all, that's how it works for the coach who leaves. Of course, first the schools will have to pay their employees (athletes) salaries.
And as for whether the player should get to leave without penalty if the coach leaves, that's the biggest no-brainer change they should make.
I'm reasonable so I'd even let them stipulate that the player can't just follow the coach to his new school because that would be too squirmy.
So yes, I'm a man who's willing to compromise; I'd be asking the athletes to give up a little freedom for the right to be (mostly) free agents.
-
I support that if the player wants to leave he can leave without being punished for it ... because he is a human being and he should be free to pursue his life's dream -- just as the scholarship trombonist could do.
As for paying back the school that loses the player, sure ... they can take it out of the salary he gets at the new school. After all, that's how it works for the coach who leaves. Of course, first the schools will have to pay their employees (athletes) salaries.
And as for whether the player should get to leave without penalty if the coach leaves, that's the biggest no-brainer change they should make.
I'm reasonable so I'd even let them stipulate that the player can't just follow the coach to his new school because that would be too squirmy.
So yes, I'm a man who's willing to compromise; I'd be asking the athletes to give up a little freedom for the right to be (mostly) free agents.
But what if the trombonist is allowed to leave to follow the trombone teacher to a new school? Isn't a basic human right? ;)
If I felt my child for a second was being exploited when they played, I might agree with you. That was never the case. In my view it isn't the case for 99% of student athletes. The coaches have a legitimate concern in my view.
-
Baseball experienced none of the "horrors" that were predicted.
This sounds like an opinion positioned as fact, which you have indicated you don't care for. What horrors were predicted in which none of them came true? There were many positive things that came with free agency in baseball, but not all were. The reason your use of this comparison bothers me is baseball or all pro sports teams have players under contract, they know when free agency is coming. What you propose in college basketball would give coaches and universities no way of knowing or planning. With no disincentive to leave, a team could lose 5 or more guys in a single season and be completely blindsided. How is that good for the sport?
Let's switch over to the NBA, is there competitive balance there with free agency, or super team dominance? In my view that is the worry with college basketball. You have a great player like DWade that loses in the first round of the NCAAs, a stacked team comes along the following year and says switch to us and win a title or risk that you may or may not go far with your current team. You let another school find the diamond in the rough and then pluck him. Not good for the sport.
-
So because you produce a list of 44 grad transfers you think that's definitive? Hundreds more didn't transfer. How about going through team by team to see how many players with redshirts stayed put? Oh wait, it's easier to use cop out anecdotal evidence with no shred of accuracy.
Also, assuming you used grad transfer tracker, they listed what, 121 players? So less than 37% transferred up? And that only includes committed players, every year there are many more that go down a division or two, or simply leave to pursue other options.
The worst thing about picking this hill to die on is you're standing in a valley.
-
This sounds like an opinion positioned as fact, which you have indicated you don't care for. What horrors were predicted in which none of them came true? There were many positive things that came with free agency in baseball, but not all were. The reason your use of this comparison bothers me is baseball or all pro sports teams have players under contract, they know when free agency is coming. What you propose in college basketball would give coaches and universities no way of knowing or planning. With no disincentive to leave, a team could lose 5 or more guys in a single season and be completely blindsided. How is that good for the sport?
Let's switch over to the NBA, is there competitive balance there with free agency, or super team dominance? In my view that is the worry with college basketball. You have a great player like DWade that loses in the first round of the NCAAs, a stacked team comes along the following year and says switch to us and win a title or risk that you may or may not go far with your current team. You let another school find the diamond in the rough and then pluck him. Not good for the sport.
Free agency has been a good thing for every sport.
More importantly, free agency is a condition every free human being should enjoy in his or her work.
Coaches would adjust, as they always have. They adjusted to kids leaving for the pros through hardship; they adjusted to kids leaving for the pros without needing to prove financial hardship; they adjusted to kids going preps-to-pros; they adjusted kids going 1-and-done; they adjusted to the grad-transfer rule; they adjusted to the prop-48 rule; they adjusted to the 3-point line; they adjusted to the shot clock; they adjusted to dunks being outlawed and then brought back; etc etc etc. That's why the coaches get paid the big bucks. Maybe it's why they also get to enjoy unfettered free agency ... even if they have 1,000-year contracts.
Your doom-and-gloom hypotheticals have zero basis in fact.
For a guy who doesn't know what a chicos is, c2, you sure have the act down well: You're starting to sound desperate to prove you are "right."
All IMHO, of course!
So because you produce a list of 44 grad transfers you think that's definitive? Hundreds more didn't transfer. How about going through team by team to see how many players with redshirts stayed put? Oh wait, it's easier to use cop out anecdotal evidence with no shred of accuracy.
Also, assuming you used grad transfer tracker, they listed what, 121 players? So less than 37% transferred up? And that only includes committed players, every year there are many more that go down a division or two, or simply leave to pursue other options.
The worst thing about picking this hill to die on is you're standing in a valley.
This. (Also IMHO.)
The hilarious thing is that c2 is willing to die on this hill even though this hill probably will never exist. "Transfers must sit out a year" is the NCAA's version of "From my cold, dead hands."
-
How many players are graduate eligible to transfer? I do not know the answer, maybe someone does. There appears to be a reason why a number of the high profile mid level coaches have a concern about this. Usually those concerns do not occur in a bubble.
The person above shared some examples, but I went to the graduate transfer list today and it feels like many of them made upward movement. The list was more extensive because it is more recent.
Makai Mason from Yale to Baylor
Evan Bourdeaux from Dartmouth to Purdue
Zach Hankis from Ferris State to Xavier
Miles Reynolds from Pacific to Oklahoma
David Nichols from Albany to Florida State
Kyle Castlin from Columbia to Xavier
Ryan Taylor from Evansville to Northwestern
Keenan Gumbs from Schreiner to Liberty
Ryan Welage from San Jose State to Xavier
Tarin Smith from Duquense to UCONN
Aaron Calixte from Maine to Oklahoma
Novak Topalovic from Idaho State to Utah
Austin Nehls from Central Connecticut State to Ball State
Ryan Luther from Pittsburgh to Arizona
Zach Johnson from FGCU to Miami (FL)
Josephy Chartouny from Fordham to Marquette
Mike Cunningham from South Carolina Upstate to Oklahoma State
Prentiss Nixon from Colorado State to Iowa State
Keyshawn Woods from Wake Forest to Ohio State
Justin Coleman from Samford to Arizona
Wyatt Walker from Samford to North Carolina State
Christian Cunningham from Samford to Louisville
Femi Olujobi from North Carolina A&T to DePaul
Ikenna Smart from Buffalo to Wake Forest
Torry Johnson from Northern Arizona to Wake Forest
Evan Fitzner from St. Mary's to Indiana
Javan White from Oral Roberts to Clemson
Joe Cremo from Albany to Villanova
Michael Gilmore from FGCU to VCU
Eric Lockett from FIU to NC State
Sidy N'Dir from New Mexico State to Pittsburgh
Brock Stull from Milwaukee to Minnesota
Shea Feehan from Eureka to Evansville
Aaron Menzies from Seattle to St. Mary's
Tramamaine Isabell from Drexel to St. Louis
Christian Mekowulu from Tennessee State to Texas A&M
Khwan Fore from Richmond to Louisville
Connor Cashaw from Rice to Creighton
Reid Travis from Stanford to Kentucky
Akoy Agua from SMU to Louisville
Jarrett Givens from Adams State to Austin Peay
Ehab Amin from TAMU-CC to Oregon
Adonis De La Rosa from Kent State to Illinois
Geno Crandall from North Dakota to Gonzaga
Stone Gettings from Cornell to Arizona
Probably can argue with a few whether the are upward, but in those that are close they are moving to a much more difficult conference and level of play night in and night out.
To answer your first question, remember the hundreds of traditional transfers that happen every year? The vast majority of them are grad transfer eligible once they reach their fifth year. Sure, some either don't have the academics, go pro, or leave basketball all together, but those are offset by all the players who graduate in three years, redshirt for reasons other than transfer, not to mention all the players from lower divisions who could choose to grad transfer up.
As for your long list, this is a fun game.
Eugene Artison from Tulsa to University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma
Larry Austin Jr from Vandy to Central Michigan
Jake Babic from App State to TAMU-CC
Djery Baptiste from Vandy to UMass
Chancellor Barnard from Loyola to Binghamton
Brett Barney from Wichita State to Omaha
Justice Bartley from Virginia to Maryland Eastern Shore
Wil Barthurst from Cornell to UAB
Bradeon Bayer from Syracuse to Siena
Freddy Bitondo from Sam Houston State to Fort Hayes State
Josh Boutte from Sam Houston State to Angelo State
Armani Branch from VMI to Norfolk State
Tre Campbell from Georgetown to South Carolina
Robert Cartwright fom Stanford to UC Irvine
Schadrac Casimir from Iona to FGCU
Brandon Chauca from California to Enderun College
Jadon Cohee from Southern Utah to University of British Columbia
Jeremy Combs from LSU to Texas Southern
Jake Connor from Utah to Westminister
Chris Darrington form Tennesee to Toledo
Ar'Mond Davis from Alabama to UC Santa Barbara
Gerad Davies from Northern Colorado to New Mexico Highlands
Eddie Davis III Southern Miss to Hartford
Ibrahima Diallo Rutgers to Manhattan
Dan Dwyer from Penn to Hofstra
Abrian Edwards jr from Sam Houston State to William Penn
Brady Ellingson from Iowa to Drake
Alex Ennis from Morgan State to Southern
Michael Finke from Illinois to Grand Canyon
Davante Fitzgerald from Minnesota to Stephen F Austin
Phillip Flory from Seton Hall to Albany (not a grad transfer but was known to be immediately eligible due to walk on status)
Devonte Fuller from Western Carolina to Miles
Jeff Garrett from Northern Kentucky to LSU-Shreveport
Bryan Gee from Longwood to Young Harris
Chaz Glotta from Northern Colorado to Maryville
Khalil Gracey from Morgan State to Rochester College
Solomon Hainna from Evansville to UT Rio Grande Valley
Jared Harper from Fairfield to Dominican
Ronnie Harrell Jr from Creighton to Denver
Jontray Harris from Oral Roberts to UL-Monroe
Terry Harris from Eastern Michigan to North Carolina A&T
Jay Harvey from FIU to South Dakota
Byron Hawkins from Murray State to Bryant
Brent Hibbits from Michigan to Unknown (but he can't transfer down from Michigan)
Perris Hicks from Fordham to Cal State San Marcos
There, 45 to match your 45....and I didn't even make it past the Hs. I have most of the alphabet to go. Also, one of your examples wasn't a grad transfer, Prentiss Nixon has to sit next season. Plus, three of your examples were from the Ivy League. Ivy League rules forbid graduate students from participating in athletics so they literally have to transfer. Stone Gettings also isn't a true grad transfer. He will be redshirting next season while on scholarship at Cornell in order to preserve his eligibility to play a season at Arizona but graduate with a Cornell degree. So he has to redshirt in order to transfer.
I'm sure you didn't put every grad transfer who moved up on your list (in fact I know a few off the top of my head that you missed). Feel free to keep adding, I have a lot more examples of lateral and downward moves.
I told you before, I have been tracking the grad transfer market extensively for the last four years. Clearly a nerd with too much time on his hands. You can trust me when I tell you that most players who are grad transfer eligible don't take advantage and most who do are lateral or downward moves. I'm not lying.
-
I told you before, I have been tracking the grad transfer market extensively for the last four years. Clearly a nerd with too much time on his hands. You can trust me when I tell you that most players who are grad transfer eligible don't take advantage and most who do are lateral or downward moves. I'm not lying.
I never suggested you were. My comments were regarding Brewtown, his list was short but older and not updated. I do believe you.
Free agency has been a good thing for every sport.
Some fans would disagree with you if you live in a small market and are a fan of a small market team. But your opinion is respected.
Coaches would adjust, as they always have. They adjusted to kids leaving for the pros through hardship; they adjusted to kids leaving for the pros without needing to prove financial hardship; they adjusted to kids going preps-to-pros; they adjusted kids going 1-and-done; they adjusted to the grad-transfer rule; they adjusted to the prop-48 rule; they adjusted to the 3-point line; they adjusted to the shot clock; they adjusted to dunks being outlawed and then brought back; etc etc etc. That's why the coaches get paid the big bucks. Maybe it's why they also get to enjoy unfettered free agency ... even if they have 1,000-year contracts.
Yes, they will. Whether it is good for college basketball was my question. In my opinion it is not, will hurt mid level programs, encourage tampering and other behaviors that is bad for basketball, but impossible to prove until free agency happens.
Your doom-and-gloom hypotheticals have zero basis in fact.
For a guy who doesn't know what a chicos is, c2, you sure have the act down well: You're starting to sound desperate to prove you are "right."
All IMHO, of course!
It is an opinion, shared by those coaches I provided as references to similar opinions. I was going to say the same thing about some of you guys that you are desperate to be prove yourself right. Time to move on, we have all said our bits and I respect yours please respect mine.
-
I never suggested you were. My comments were regarding Brewtown, his list was short but older and not updated. I do believe you.
So your answer was to go to a grad transfer website, cherry pick about a third of the listed grad transfers, and hope no one would call you on your BS? Because you had to know as you were taking the time to post those names it was already BS.
It is an opinion, shared by those coaches I provided as references to similar opinions. I was going to say the same thing about some of you guys that you are desperate to be prove yourself right.
It would be a lot less necessary if you weren't so desperate to post things that are clearly false and inaccurate.
-
Some fans would disagree with you if you live in a small market and are a fan of a small market team. But your opinion is respected.
Time to move on, we have all said our bits and I respect yours please respect mine.
Since either NY or LA team last won it all, teams from Houston, KC and St. Louis have won championships. It wasn't easy. They had to be creative and smart, and they had to endure losing first. But they did it. Plenty of other teams that would be defined as small market have been quite competitive in that time, too, including Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Tampa, Cleveland, etc.
But sure, I get it.
And I appreciate your respectful tone in your response.
Have a good one ... till next time.
-
Wait, Houston is a small market? 4th largest in population and 10th in media market size?
-
Wait, Houston is a small market? 4th largest in population and 10th in media market size?
Yeah ... I confess that I never know what a "small market" is any more. There are some who think the White Sox are small-market. And Detroit. And San Antonio. And San Diego. And a few others that are pretty darn big.
-
So your answer was to go to a grad transfer website, cherry pick about a third of the listed grad transfers, and hope no one would call you on your BS? Because you had to know as you were taking the time to post those names it was already BS.
It would be a lot less necessary if you weren't so desperate to post things that are clearly false and inaccurate.
I was upfront that I went to the website and named it. I was upfront that I found more than what you originally had listed, but stated it was because the list was more up to date. I didn't list all of those that moved up, but most by my definition. No cherry picking or hiding anything or why would I reveal where I went and what I was writing? You will have to show me where I made the claim that most were upward or made a factual statement, because I said these were my opinions. Some coaches agree with me, some fans do not. That's ok, it is all good to have some conversation.
-
Since either NY or LA team last won it all, teams from Houston, KC and St. Louis have won championships. It wasn't easy. They had to be creative and smart, and they had to endure losing first. But they did it. Plenty of other teams that would be defined as small market have been quite competitive in that time, too, including Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Tampa, Cleveland, etc.
But sure, I get it.
And I appreciate your respectful tone in your response.
Have a good one ... till next time.
That would seem to suggest that only winning it all is a definition of success or competitive? Maybe you are not saying that, but if New York was in the playoffs most years while some other teams were rarely in it, but happened to win the whole thing in a give year that wipes out all the years they weren't competitive? LA has made it to the playoffs 17 of 29 times since they won it all. NYY made it 5 of 8 seasons since they won it, and likely 6 out of 9. Both teams still successful. For comparison, the A's won it one year earlier than the Dodgers and have been back only 10 times since. The Pirates have been to only 6 playoffs in nearly 40 years. The Angels never made the playoffs in their history prior to free agency, but 10 times since. The Cubs went decades without making a single playoff series, but free agency helped us immensely. Big spenders correlate to better performances on the average, while the lower funded teams on average struggle more often. Is this good for competitive balance?
Marvin Miller thought all-out free agency was a bad idea, in other words each year every player could switch. He cut a deal with the owners that prevented that and instead free agency was triggered in one of two ways: 1) contract expired (2) 6 years of club service.
What college basketball would have is all-out free agency. If Marvin Miller thought it was bad, it probably was. In my opinion.
-
Again, we already have "free agency" in the form of grad transfers. Yet most players who are grad transfer eligible don't use it. And most players who do use it transfer down in search of more playing time. So why would it be different if expanded?
Essentially it could open up the recruiting process to be annual. That is different - more players & better talent with annual ability to move.
The current recruitment process stinks with corruption, money and kids being steered places by people with other interest (shoe companies - agents - etc). Why would that change in a new system where everyone is available annually?
Again I think there is a way to design it that could be more favorable for kids than today’s model - but agree with “not Chico’s” that there are implications & risks to the broader game/product that change needs to account for.
-
I didn't list all of those that moved up, but most by my definition.
So roughly one in three is most by your definition?
No cherry picking or hiding anything or why would I reveal where I went and what I was writing?
When you only post those that move up, that is cherry picking. You literally did exactly that.
You will have to show me where I made the claim that most were upward or made a factual statement, because I said these were my opinions.
I don't have to look further than this post. The very post you deny it you also did the thing you deny. I even bolded it for you above so you can see.
Or does that not count because by "your definition" 36% is a majority?
-
Wait as I'm reading this I can't help but wonder are people on here saying transfer whenever to play immediately and get paid?
-
I told you before, I have been tracking the grad transfer market extensively for the last four years. Clearly a nerd with too much time on his hands. You can trust me when I tell you that most players who are grad transfer eligible don't take advantage and most who do are lateral or downward moves. I'm not lying.
Referring to the players who move up to a better school - isn't that a good thing? Meant rhetorically, of course, as I agree totally with your post. Isn't bettering (or at least trying to better) one's lot in life the reason to attend college in the first place?
-
Referring to the players who move up to a better school - isn't that a good thing? Meant rhetorically, of course, as I agree totally with your post. Isn't bettering (or at least trying to better) one's lot in life the reason to attend college in the first place?
Not TAMU, but I'd argue it all is. If you move up for a better opportunity, great! If you move down for more available playing time, great! If you move laterally for the right fit, great! If you are happy and stay put, great!
Honestly, anyone against this is thinking about the coaches first and kids second. Hard for me to get too upset for guys making 6-7 figures.
-
That would seem to suggest that only winning it all is a definition of success or competitive? Maybe you are not saying that, but if New York was in the playoffs most years while some other teams were rarely in it, but happened to win the whole thing in a give year that wipes out all the years they weren't competitive? LA has made it to the playoffs 17 of 29 times since they won it all. NYY made it 5 of 8 seasons since they won it, and likely 6 out of 9. Both teams still successful. For comparison, the A's won it one year earlier than the Dodgers and have been back only 10 times since. The Pirates have been to only 6 playoffs in nearly 40 years. The Angels never made the playoffs in their history prior to free agency, but 10 times since. The Cubs went decades without making a single playoff series, but free agency helped us immensely. Big spenders correlate to better performances on the average, while the lower funded teams on average struggle more often. Is this good for competitive balance?
Marvin Miller thought all-out free agency was a bad idea, in other words each year every player could switch. He cut a deal with the owners that prevented that and instead free agency was triggered in one of two ways: 1) contract expired (2) 6 years of club service.
What college basketball would have is all-out free agency. If Marvin Miller thought it was bad, it probably was. In my opinion.
Marvin Miller's stance had absolutely nothing to do with his belief that unfettered free agency would be bad for the game.
He was an economist, and he thought that total, unfettered free agency might drive down player salaries because too many free agents might enter the market at once.
He was all about increasing compensation for the players. Again, it had ZERO to do with it being a "bad idea" for MLB.
Once he realized a few years later that free agency was A-OK, he worked to loosen and loosen and loosen the free agency rules.
But nice try, c2!
The rest of your post means little to me. Baseball, like all sports, is cyclical. Despite having a bazillion dollars, the Cubs were losers for decades. Mets, mostly losers. San Fran, mostly losers. Etc. The Cardinals, meanwhile, have mostly won. Even the Pirates had a great run a few years back, as did the Royals. Baseball's problems have nothing to do with competitive balance. The game is too slow and boring. IMHO.
Again, you're trying really hard to "win" here, buddy ... even after you said you were done. But that's OK. You be you.
And again, we've wasted a lot of time here because I'm not holding my breath for NCAA basketball players to be granted unfettered free agency in my lifetime. The power brokers all have your back as they make sure they keep their fiefdom intact.
Don't worry. Unfettered free agency is reserved for the big-money coaches you have sided with.
Power to the power!
-
Since free agency came to MLB, only two teams (Nats and Mariners) haven't made the World Series. 19 of MLB's 30 teams have made it since 2000.
Smart teams that draft and invest wisely have repeatedly shown that they can put winning teams on the field. Moreso over the last decade or so. Do larger teams have an advantage in free agency? Of course. Has it been bad for baseball? Hardly. And I think fans agree! The top 41 seasons in terms of per game attendance have all occurred since free agency was implemented.
"Not Chicos" is very similar to "Actual Chicos" in that he over-romanticizes things in the past.
-
So roughly one in three is most by your definition?
When you only post those that move up, that is cherry picking. You literally did exactly that.
I don't have to look further than this post. The very post you deny it you also did the thing you deny. I even bolded it for you above so you can see.
Or does that not count because by "your definition" 36% is a majority?
No, I used the word most to describe those I thought went up a level. I list most that fit that criteria, not that they were most of the transactions.
But that raises an important evaluation on this. If you look at the complete list of players that left as grad transfers to parity schools or higher profile, I think that is a majority of players on the list. Others are viewing it as those that left for parity or lower profile, which would also be a majority. But in the end, the school that recruited him, trained him, fed him, coached him, educated him still loses him. Whether they leave for a parity situation or not, that original school is out. Commitment broken.
There needs to be a middle point here. If coach leaves, player can leave. If player leaves on own, player should have some penalty if NCAA is going to limit roster sizes.
-
Since free agency came to MLB, only two teams (Nats and Mariners) haven't made the World Series. 19 of MLB's 30 teams have made it since 2000.
Smart teams that draft and invest wisely have repeatedly shown that they can put winning teams on the field. Moreso over the last decade or so. Do larger teams have an advantage in free agency? Of course. Has it been bad for baseball? Hardly. And I think fans agree! The top 41 seasons in terms of per game attendance have all occurred since free agency was implemented.
"Not Chicos" is very similar to "Actual Chicos" in that he over-romanticizes things in the past.
The big market teams with the resources to spend have had it better than the small market teams since free agency. On an ongoing, year after year review of consistently being good. The Padres making it once, or the Marlins winning it all doesn’t erase the big market teams securing the talent more often than not.
Attendance is also subject to population growth. The US population has grown every single year, but despite that this year it is down lowest in 15 years, and in 5 of the previous 6 years attendance has declined.
-
The big market teams with the resources to spend have had it better than the small market teams since free agency. On an ongoing, year after year review of consistently being good. The Padres making it once, or the Marlins winning it all doesn’t erase the big market teams securing the talent more often than not.
Attendance is also subject to population growth. The US population has grown every single year, but despite that this year it is down lowest in 15 years, and in 5 of the previous 6 years attendance has declined.
Not unique to baseball
-
Attendance and television viewership is down almost across the board for sports. For many reasons. To argue that free agency, which has been around for 40+ years, is the cause of MLB 's lower numbers is absurd. But somehow comfortable and expected from that source.
-
Not unique to baseball
True, but some leagues have grown attendance. NBA four straight years as an example.
-
Referring to the players who move up to a better school - isn't that a good thing? Meant rhetorically, of course, as I agree totally with your post. Isn't bettering (or at least trying to better) one's lot in life the reason to attend college in the first place?
Yes, but every action has a corresponding reaction. When coaches leave they have to pay a contractual penalty, if players leave should they have some culpability? If the players weren’t receiving all these benefits which have tremendous value, I could see leaving whenever, but that isn’t the case. Middle ground needed
-
Try, but some leagues have grown attendance. NBA four straight years as an example.
Ok, that is one sport. I am guessing MLS is another, but the majority of them are seeing declines in attendance. Good thing that the NBA got rid of free agency before all the other major sports to help the game go back to its glory days.
-
But that raises an important evaluation on this. If you look at the complete list of players that left as grad transfers to parity schools or higher profile, I think that is a majority of players on the list. Others are viewing it as those that left for parity or lower profile, which would also be a majority.
Largest group is the group the transfers down. Followed by the group that transfers laterally. Smallest group is the ones that transfer up. You might be right that the smallest group + the middle group is larger than the largest group but really this is all goalpost shifting from your original claim that mid majors are being decimated en masse by grad transfers.
But in the end, the school that recruited him, trained him, fed him, coached him, educated him still loses him. Whether they leave for a parity situation or not, that original school is out. Commitment broken.
There is no commitment broken. Vast, vast, vast majority of division 1 players are on 1 year scholarships. They made a commitment to play for 1 year. Unless they are transferring midseason these players are choosing to leave after their commitment is up, and midseason transfers are penalized more than any other kind of transfer. Now if you want to make an argument that a player with a multi-year scholarship should be penalized, I would be willing to hear that argument.
You also only focus on how a school is harmed by grad transfers. What about how they are benefited by them? Marquette has certainly benefited from them in the past few years. Mid and low majors also get to replenish their rosters with grad transfers. For every grad transfer that commits to a high major school, there are three that commit to a mid or low major.
-
Try, but some leagues have grown attendance. NBA four straight years as an example.
If it is up in basketball, then the theory that free agency is the cause of baseball's decline is weakened. Because free agency in the NBA has led to super teams and a lack of competitiveness. Which is what you argue happens in baseball.
-
Yes, but every action has a corresponding reaction. When coaches leave they have to pay a contractual penalty, if players leave should they have some culpability? If the players weren’t receiving all these benefits which have tremendous value, I could see leaving whenever, but that isn’t the case. Middle ground needed
Coaches only have to play a penalty if they leave before their contract is up. Vast majority of players leave after their 1 year contract is up. This comparison doesn't work.
Also to be clear, the coaches aren't punished, the schools trying to hire them are punished. I have yet to hear of a division 1 coach paying his own buyout.
-
Attendance and television viewership is down almost across the board for sports. For many reasons. To argue that free agency, which has been around for 40+ years, is the cause of MLB 's lower numbers is absurd. But somehow comfortable and expected from that source.
NBA is up. Others down
I’m not saying attendance is down because of free agency, but responding to other person that made claim attendance is strong because of free agency. Isn’t necessarily the case. My conversation is about competitive balance. The big get stronger, the smaller have to be more creative and that historically the last rip years means less consistent winning.
-
Some fans would disagree with you if you live in a small market and are a fan of a small market team. But your opinion is respected.
In the 47 years prior to free agency the NY Yankees (largest market, richest team) played in 30 world series and won 23 of them.
In the 47 years since free agency became a reality the same NY Yankee franchise has played in 11 world series and won 7.
Fans who don't think free agency has helped the competitive balance are certainly allowed to stubbornly clings to that uninformed opinion but the facts don't back it up.
-
NBA is up. Others down
I’m not saying attendance is down because of free agency, but responding to other person that made claim attendance is strong because of free agency. Isn’t necessarily the case. My conversation is about competitive balance. The big get stronger, the smaller have to be more creative and that historically the last rip years means less consistent winning.
Just like you weren't saying attendance is down because of free agency, Sultan wasn't saying attendance was up because of free agency. He was just showing that it hadn't ruined baseball as you appear to be claiming.
-
Largest group is the group the transfers down. Followed by the group that transfers laterally. Smallest group is the ones that transfer up. You might be right that the smallest group + the middle group is larger than the largest group but really this is all goalpost shifting from your original claim that mid majors are being decimated en masse by grad transfers.
There is no commitment broken. Vast, vast, vast majority of division 1 players are on 1 year scholarships. They made a commitment to play for 1 year. Unless they are transferring midseason these players are choosing to leave after their commitment is up, and midseason transfers are penalized more than any other kind of transfer. Now if you want to make an argument that a player with a multi-year scholarship should be penalized, I would be willing to hear that argument.
You also only focus on how a school is harmed by grad transfers. What about how they are benefited by them? Marquette has certainly benefited from them in the past few years. Mid and low majors also get to replenish their rosters with grad transfers. For every grad transfer that commits to a high major school, there are three that commit to a mid or low major.
Some are harmed and some benefit, I agree. It feels to me that most here are only claiming benefit from player perspective and not the looking at the harm side. My response has been to look at that side, but you are correct it is both.
I thought all major conferences, the P5 and the Big East and AAC have guaranteed scholarships multiyear since a few years ago. Is that not the case?
-
Some are harmed and some benefit, I agree. It feels to me that most here are only claiming benefit from player perspective and not the looking at the harm side. My response has been to look at that side, but you are correct it is both.
I thought all major conferences, the P5 and the Big East and AAC have guaranteed scholarships multiyear since a few years ago. Is that not the case?
Are the power 6 the majority of Division 1? Also wasnt your concern for mid and low majors?
-
The big market teams with the resources to spend have had it better than the small market teams since free agency. On an ongoing, year after year review of consistently being good. The Padres making it once, or the Marlins winning it all doesn’t erase the big market teams securing the talent more often than not.
Attendance is also subject to population growth. The US population has grown every single year, but despite that this year it is down lowest in 15 years, and in 5 of the previous 6 years attendance has declined.
Are you seriously suggesting that population growth is the reason for the increase in per game attendance?
No one is suggesting that MLB is perfectly level. It isn't. But to say it is at the detriment of baseball is a statement that shows an ignorance of history.
-
Are the power 6 the majority of Division 1? Also wasnt your concern for mid and low majors?
No they are not the majority, and my concern is for all including mid and low majors. I gave the example of Dwade leaving or being wooed while at MU, he played for a school that is not mid or low major.
And though they are not the majority of all schools, they do makeup probably 90% or more of the players that are supposedly somehow exploited to hear some describe the situation when it comes to paying players.
Based on your comments earlier, are you supportive then of players at P5 schools or any school that provides guaranteed scholarships a payback to the school if they leave since a coach has to do that? Why should the school be on the hook for all expenses, especially in developing these kids and not be made partially whole in some fashion? We will leave the schools that don’t guarantee scholarships to the side for the moment.
-
No they are not the majority, and my concern is for all including mid and low majors. I gave the example of Dwade leaving or being wooed while at MU, he played for a school that is not mid or low major.
And though they are not the majority of all schools, they do makeup probably 90% or more of the players that are supposedly somehow exploited to hear some describe the situation when it comes to paying players.
Based on your comments earlier, are you supportive then of players at P5 schools or any school that provides guaranteed scholarships a payback to the school if they leave since a coach has to do that? Why should the school be on the hook for all expenses, especially in developing these kids and not be made partially whole in some fashion? We will leave the schools that don’t guarantee scholarships to the side for the moment.
Id be willing to hear an argument that they should have a plenty such as having to sit out a year. But pay the school money? Are you kidding me? The school provided a year of services and got a year of basketball in return they are square.
Again, coaches don't have to payback schools when they leave early. The new school pays a buyout that is built into a contract signed by the coach. It's not payback for years of development it's honoring a contract. If a school wants to put a buyout into scholarship agreements they are welcome to. I think they would lose a lot of recruits that way.
The paying players conversation is completely separate. I'm against paying players though I support them being able to profit from their likeness.
-
But in the end, the school that recruited him, trained him, fed him, coached him, educated him still loses him. Whether they leave for a parity situation or not, that original school is out. Commitment broken.
From a grad transfer perspective, this is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, the school did those things, but the player also played for them, helped market their program, kept up the APR, and earned a degree. Commitment fulfilled. What they choose to do after earning that degree having fulfilled their commitment is up to them. If they decide to go to another school, it will be because that school recruited him and then trained, fed, coached, and educated him while he fulfilled that new commitment.
But even from a regular transfer perspective, if the player is meeting all the requirements of the program while they are there, they are fulfilling their obligation. If they do that for two years and choose to leave, that is their decision. Further, if they left because for whatever reason they aren't happy, whether it's because of living situation, playing time, relationship with the staff, aren't those things the school should've planned for? If you don't want your players to become disgruntled and leave, don't do things that make them disgruntled and leave.
Sure, there are occasionally things beyond the school's control, but if players leave for more playing time, maybe you should've played them more. If they left because they don't get along with the staff, maybe the staff should've been more accommodating. If the player left to play on a bigger stage, maybe the school should've won more to gain greater attention. The street goes both ways and as long as the player fulfilled their obligations while there, no commitment is broken.
-
Yes, but every action has a corresponding reaction. When coaches leave they have to pay a contractual penalty, if players leave should they have some culpability?
You're going to keep trying this one no matter how many times you are gently reminded that coaches never pay any penalty. They are free agents every single day. Shaka could sign a 100-year contract tomorrow but if he left for Kentucky the next day, Kentucky would pay whatever penalty.
But if one of Shaka's players wants to transfer to Kentucky for a better opportunity, he is punished to the full extent of "the law."
And you know it, so stop being silly.
I’m not saying attendance is down because of free agency, but responding to other person that made claim attendance is strong because of free agency. Isn’t necessarily the case.
Hilarious, c2. You made a ridiculous argument (as usual), were called on it by more honest Scoopers (as usual), and now you are trying to pretend you weren't trying to get away with your silliness (as usual).
In the 47 years prior to free agency the NY Yankees (largest market, richest team) played in 30 world series and won 23 of them.
In the 47 years since free agency became a reality the same NY Yankee franchise has played in 11 world series and won 7.
Fans who don't think free agency has helped the competitive balance are certainly allowed to stubbornly clings to that uninformed opinion but the facts don't back it up.
Yep, yep.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that population growth is the reason for the increase in per game attendance?
No one is suggesting that MLB is perfectly level. It isn't. But to say it is at the detriment of baseball is a statement that shows an ignorance of history.
Are you seriously suggesting population growth isn’t part of it? Not all of it by any measure, but definitely part of it. When we added stores in expansion it was where population was growing. Door swings tied to population centers. When sports leagues expand, this is typically what they do. Look at the Dodgers attendance in the 60’s and early 70’s, but as their population grew more fans to draw from. The Rangers in the 60’s and 70’s struggled to get 1 million fans, but their population exploded in the metroplex and now they routinely hit north of 2.5 mil and sometimes 3 million even despite the heat. Angels the same, a number of other teams.
It is not the only reason, but yes population matters to a degree.
-
In 1960, Chicago had a population of 3.5 million; the Cubs' home attendance was 809,770.
In 1980, Chicago had a population of 3 million; the Cubs drew 1,206,776 fans to home games.
In 2000, Chicago had a population of 2.9 million; the Cubs drew 2,789,511.
In 2017, Chicago had a population of 2.7 million; the Cubs drew 3,199,562.
-
In 1960, Chicago had a population of 3.5 million; the Cubs' home attendance was 809,770.
In 1980, Chicago had a population of 3 million; the Cubs drew 1,206,776 fans to home games.
In 2000, Chicago had a population of 2.9 million; the Cubs drew 2,789,511.
In 2017, Chicago had a population of 2.7 million; the Cubs drew 3,199,562.
Yep. The amount of times Chicos can get owned in one topic is astounding.
-
In the 47 years prior to free agency the NY Yankees (largest market, richest team) played in 30 world series and won 23 of them.
In the 47 years since free agency became a reality the same NY Yankee franchise has played in 11 world series and won 7.
Fans who don't think free agency has helped the competitive balance are certainly allowed to stubbornly clings to that uninformed opinion but the facts don't back it up.
More than half of the Yankees World Titles happened when there were only 8 teams in the American League, making it statically easier to get to the championship than it is now. As I have said free agency has been great for some teams, especially bigger markets, or well financed ones. It has also hurt teams that did well before free agency and now have difficult time competing consistently.
-
More than half of the Yankees World Titles happened when there were only 8 teams in the American League, making it statically easier to get to the championship than it is now. As I have said free agency has been great for some teams, especially bigger markets, or well financed ones. It has also hurt teams that did well before free agency and now have difficult time competing consistently.
It was also much harder to get to the WS back in the day because you had to win your league outright. The Yankees back in the day at the resources to scout and sign players throughout the country, then via the reserve clause, the ability to hold onto those players indefinitely.
Free agency has leveled out the talent level of teams considerably. Maybe not when it was first introduced, but mid and small market teams have gotten better at finding talent and incorporating it into their talent pool. Your excuses are at least 20 years out of date and don't reflect the reality of today's MLB.
-
In 1960, Chicago had a population of 3.5 million; the Cubs' home attendance was 809,770.
In 1980, Chicago had a population of 3 million; the Cubs drew 1,206,776 fans to home games.
In 2000, Chicago had a population of 2.9 million; the Cubs drew 2,789,511.
In 2017, Chicago had a population of 2.7 million; the Cubs drew 3,199,562.
I guess suburbs and population growth didn’t exist? ::)
1960 Chicago metro area population 6,794,461
1980 Chicago metro area population 7,869,542
2000 Chicago metro area population 9,098,316
2017 Chicago metro area population 9,900,000 estimated
-
LOL. So in 50+ years the population went up by a third...and attendance went up nearly 400%.
-
LOL. So in 50+ years the population went up by a third...and attendance went up nearly 400%.
D'oh...beat me to it ;D
-
You're going to keep trying this one no matter how many times you are gently reminded that coaches never pay any penalty. They are free agents every single day. Shaka could sign a 100-year contract tomorrow but if he left for Kentucky the next day, Kentucky would pay whatever penalty.
But if one of Shaka's players wants to transfer to Kentucky for a better opportunity, he is punished to the full extent of "the law."
And you know it, so stop being silly.
It is still an expense that someone had to pay to make the other entity whole. Dollars were paid. Dollars that could be used to do something else. Kentucky or any other program doesn’t have their own US printing press to create currency. I am for Shaka’s players being able to transfer free and clear if Shaka were to leave. That is a rule that should be put into place.
-
LOL. So in 50+ years the population went up by a third...and attendance went up nearly 400%.
I am not sure why this is an argument. Again, I said population growth was ONE of the reasons, not the only one.
Put another way, if the Cubs start playing as lousy as we did in the 60’s again, we will NOT be averaging 809K fans again. Too much population buffer now to prevent that. You are also using your numbers disingenuously to make that comparison. The point is there are an extra 3.2 million bodies in 2017 to attract fans to a Cubs game in the metro area then there was in 1960. That pool size benefits any business when there is a finite number of businesses in that space. If you want to go to a baseball game and live in Chicago, you have two choices for MLB. If you want pizza, you have a million choices. More population size helps your ability to draw, but you still have to be competitive, play in a decent yard that is safe, and other variables to consistently draw. In my opinion.
-
I guess suburbs and population growth didn’t exist? ::)
1960 Chicago metro area population 6,794,461
1980 Chicago metro area population 7,869,542
2000 Chicago metro area population 9,098,316
2017 Chicago metro area population 9,900,000 estimated
Is the metro including Racine and Kenosha? Or say the entire south side? Those are probably things that should be subtracted from the population growth
-
Is the metro including Racine and Kenosha? Or say the entire south side? Those are probably things that should be subtracted from the population growth
It is the area described by the Cubs where there fans typically drive from. The team draws fans consistently from those areas and rightly so. The Royals draw fans from Kansas City, KS even though they play in Missouri. Reds draw from Kentucky, Dodgers from Orange County, Giants from the east bay, Yankees from New Jersey, etc.
Kenosha to Wrigley is what, 55 miles or so? About what Sheboygan to Miller Park is if I had to guess.
Population centers have sprawled from the central city areas over the years and teams have appealed to fans as they pop up in within a radius they are willing to drive.
-
I am not sure why this is an argument. Again, I said population growth was ONE of the reasons, not the only one.
Oh bullsh*t. Some ole Chicos. Tries to pass off an argument, then when shown it is insignificant, just backpedals.
The fact is that free agency didn't ruin baseball. Baseball is more popular now than it was during its heyday based on per game attendance, which has also been insignificantly affected by population growth.
-
It is the area described by the Cubs where there fans typically drive from. The team draws fans consistently from those areas and rightly so. The Royals draw fans from Kansas City, KS even though they play in Missouri. Reds draw from Kentucky, Dodgers from Orange County, Giants from the east bay, Yankees from New Jersey, etc.
Kenosha to Wrigley is what, 55 miles or so? About what Sheboygan to Miller Park is if I had to guess.
Population centers have sprawled from the central city areas over the years and teams have appealed to fans as they pop up in within a radius they are willing to drive.
Same distance as Kenosha to Miller Park I'd wager there's more brewers fans in Kenosha than cubs (though they do exist). Same poor logic that ignores the fact that the vast majority of the south side isn't heading to wrigley. Sure there's some cubs fans but including those millions is ridiculous when most are apathetic till the Sox are good again
-
It is still an expense that someone had to pay to make the other entity whole. Dollars were paid. Dollars that could be used to do something else. Kentucky or any other program doesn’t have their own US printing press to create currency. I am for Shaka’s players being able to transfer free and clear if Shaka were to leave. That is a rule that should be put into place.
However, they should not be able to follow Shaka. How would you like it, if your coach brought in a top 5 class and then got a job at another school, because he could brings his recruits with him? MU gives Wojo a big recruiting budget. Wojo should not be able to run off with the recruits. I can live with the recruits leaving without penalty, but they should not be able to follow their coach.
-
However, they should not be able to follow Shaka. How would you like it, if your coach brought in a top 5 class and then got a job at another school, because he could brings his recruits with him? MU gives Wojo a big recruiting budget. Wojo should not be able to run off with the recruits. I can live with the recruits leaving without penalty, but they should not be able to follow their coach.
I am for nearly unfettered free agency for athletes -- in other words, I think a scholarship basketball player should have the exact same freedom (with lack of penalty) that a scholarship acting student, scholarship trombone student or a student on an academic scholarship has.
However, this makes sense to me, bilsu, and I could get behind this as a "fetter."
We already have established that coaches are total free agents, despite c2's pathetic and inaccurate claims that buy-out clauses make them something other than total free agents. But a coach shouldn't just be able to steal an entire team from one institution and bring them to another.
And hey, as a sign that I'm willing to compromise even further, I'd probably accept a rule that would prohibit a mid-season transfer to be able to suit up immediately at his new school. I don't think the kid should have to sit out an entire year, but he or she shouldn't be able to leave College A on Dec. 15 and play for College B on Dec. 17.
IMHO, those are reasonable limitations to an athlete's movement.
Making McEwen sit out this season, on the other hand, is unreasonable.
-
Oh bullsh*t. Some ole Chicos. Tries to pass off an argument, then when shown it is insignificant, just backpedals.
The fact is that free agency didn't ruin baseball. Baseball is more popular now than it was during its heyday based on per game attendance, which has also been insignificantly affected by population growth.
Chicos,
Where did I say free agency ruined baseball? I did not. https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56500.msg1038137#msg1038137
To the contrary, I said for some teams it wasn’t good, but free agency had many positive impacts.
There are clubs that competed more consistently prior to free agency that struggle now and occasionally do well. There are others that did little prior to free agency that have done well since. And there are those like the Yankees and Dodgers that had success in both eras. It hasn’t been universally great for everyone as MU82 said, nor has it ruined baseball as you erroneously stated I said.
There is a built in advantage for bigger market teams, a larger margin for error. And to imply population hasn’t helped attendance defies common sense. Business 101 you fish where the fish are. MLB isn’t moving a franchise to Spokane, or Salt Lake City for a reason. Instead population GROWTH centers like Las Vegas is where NHL and NFL went. You cannot ignore demographics, but it is not the only reason for attendance increases over the long haul, but it is one. Now that MLB has to figure out how to deal with the sliding attendance they have. They should be thankful they are positioned on metro areas that have large population sizes that can sustain these drops and not make them worse.
-
It was also much harder to get to the WS back in the day because you had to win your league outright. The Yankees back in the day at the resources to scout and sign players throughout the country, then via the reserve clause, the ability to hold onto those players indefinitely.
Free agency has leveled out the talent level of teams considerably. Maybe not when it was first introduced, but mid and small market teams have gotten better at finding talent and incorporating it into their talent pool. Your excuses are at least 20 years out of date and don't reflect the reality of today's MLB.
Bingo.
-
Chicos,
Where did I say free agency ruined baseball? I did not. https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56500.msg1038137#msg1038137
To the contrary, I said for some teams it wasn’t good, but free agency had many positive impacts.
There are clubs that competed more consistently prior to free agency that struggle now and occasionally do well. There are others that did little prior to free agency that have done well since. And there are those like the Yankees and Dodgers that had success in both eras. It hasn’t been universally great for everyone as MU82 said, nor has it ruined baseball as you erroneously stated I said.
Actually, I said: "Baseball experienced none of the 'horrors' that were predicted," and "Free agency has been a good thing for every sport; more importantly, free agency is a condition every free human being should enjoy in his or her work."
There is a big difference between saying free agency has been good for sports and that it has been "universally great for everyone."
So don't misrepresent what I said, c2.
Meanwhile, on Aug. 22 you said this:
Time to move on.
I guess you changed your mind, given that since then you've had dozens of posts on this subject -- many of them filled with erroneous or misleading information in your desperate attempts to be "right."
-
I am for nearly unfettered free agency for athletes -- in other words, I think a scholarship basketball player should have the exact same freedom (with lack of penalty) that a scholarship acting student, scholarship trombone student or a student on an academic scholarship has.
I go back and forth on where I stand on this, Mike, but I do tend to prefer "unfettered". That said, though, I don't think comparing revenue producing scholarship athletes with trombone players is apples to apples. Schools spend much more money recruiting the former, and once they're in school the investment really explodes. Tutors, trainers, weight rooms, training tables, coaches, etc., make on court/field success necessary to pay the bills - and that makes continuity important. With the trombone player, nobody cares because it has zero impact on the bottom line.
-
Making McEwen sit out this season, on the other hand, is unreasonable.
I fail to see how it is unreasonable. McEwen is still able to receive a full athletic scholarship. He does not lose any athletic eligibility. He just has to wait a year to play in games.
Minimal, if any, harm is done to the athlete.
-
I go back and forth on where I stand on this, Mike, but I do tend to prefer "unfettered". That said, though, I don't think comparing revenue producing scholarship athletes with trombone players is apples to apples. Schools spend much more money recruiting the former, and once they're in school the investment really explodes. Tutors, trainers, weight rooms, training tables, coaches, etc., make on court/field success necessary to pay the bills - and that makes continuity important. With the trombone player, nobody cares because it has zero impact on the bottom line.
I understand, Lenny, but it is the school's choice to spend like this on the athletes. Obviously, we're in so deep now that no school can afford not to do this stuff because it would place it at a competitive disadvantage, but the reason the spending has gotten out of hand is because the schools LET it get out of hand. It sure as heck isn't the athletes' fault that it got out of hand.
I'm a big proponent of freedom.
-
I fail to see how it is unreasonable. McEwen is still able to receive a full athletic scholarship. He does not lose any athletic eligibility. He just has to wait a year to play in games.
Minimal, if any, harm is done to the athlete.
It's unreasonable if McEwen wants to play 4 years of basketball in a 4-year span and then get on with his life. It's unreasonable if McEwen didn't want to spend his 20th birthday year sitting and watching instead of playing.
Frankly, I don't know if that applies to McEwen, but that's not the point. I was just using him as an example. I could have named any athlete who transferred and then was forced to spend a year of college not playing college basketball.
Your opinion is Minimal, if any, harm is done to the athlete, and I respect your opinion, but I wonder how many athletes you believe are "harmed minimally" would choose to sit out a year vs. playing right away if they were given the choice.
I'm for giving them the choice.
-
Yeah I'm not for "unfettered" transfers either. I think every player should simply get one transfer per career without spending a year in residence. That way there are no waivers, no grad transfer exceptions, etc. And a player can only play for one school per competitive season, so mid-year transfers have to wait until the start of the next season.
In a nod to bilsu, I am also comfortable with saying that no player can play immediately if he follows a coach from a school where he played. He must wait a year. In the case of a signed NLI, the original school must let him out of his commitment.
I don't think this is unreasonable. I don't think it's Pandora's Box. It's granting players more freedom without making it unlimited.
-
Yeah I'm not for "unfettered" transfers either. I think every player should simply get one transfer per career without spending a year in residence. That way there are no waivers, no grad transfer exceptions, etc. And a player can only play for one school per competitive season, so mid-year transfers have to wait until the start of the next season.
In a nod to bilsu, I am also comfortable with saying that no player can play immediately if he follows a coach from a school where he played. He must wait a year. In the case of a signed NLI, the original school must let him out of his commitment.
I don't think this is unreasonable. I don't think it's Pandora's Box. It's granting players more freedom without making it unlimited.
Seems a reasonable compromise.
It's 1,000 times better than "Tough crap. Sit out a year, like it or not. Now please excuse me while I troll for better coaching jobs, and I sure won't have to sit out a year."
-
I understand, Lenny, but it is the school's choice to spend like this on the athletes. Obviously, we're in so deep now that no school can afford not to do this stuff because it would place it at a competitive disadvantage, but the reason the spending has gotten out of hand is because the schools LET it get out of hand. It sure as heck isn't the athletes' fault that it got out of hand.
I'm a big proponent of freedom.
Me too, Mike - my libertarian brother!
-
It's unreasonable if McEwen wants to play 4 years of basketball in a 4-year span and then get on with his life. It's unreasonable if McEwen didn't want to spend his 20th birthday year sitting and watching instead of playing.
Frankly, I don't know if that applies to McEwen, but that's not the point. I was just using him as an example. I could have named any athlete who transferred and then was forced to spend a year of college not playing college basketball.
Your opinion is Minimal, if any, harm is done to the athlete, and I respect your opinion, but I wonder how many athletes you believe are "harmed minimally" would choose to sit out a year vs. playing right away if they were given the choice.
I'm for giving them the choice.
He does have a choice — he can in fact move on with his life any time he chooses.
-
He does have a choice — he can in fact move on with his life any time he chooses.
Well that's true, of course ... but I think you know what I was saying in the context of his college basketball career.
-
It's unreasonable if McEwen wants to play 4 years of basketball in a 4-year span and then get on with his life. It's unreasonable if McEwen didn't want to spend his 20th birthday year sitting and watching instead of playing.
Frankly, I don't know if that applies to McEwen, but that's not the point. I was just using him as an example. I could have named any athlete who transferred and then was forced to spend a year of college not playing college basketball.
Your opinion is Minimal, if any, harm is done to the athlete, and I respect your opinion, but I wonder how many athletes you believe are "harmed minimally" would choose to sit out a year vs. playing right away if they were given the choice.
I'm for giving them the choice.
Mike-
I respect your opinion. You're standing up for athletes that have little power. I typically favor giving the athletes more than less, too.
But I also view an athletic scholarship as a privilege, not a right. I am ok with some conditions on that scholarship. There are rules in the real world. I do not view the year in residence rule as a huge injustice. It's inconvenient for athletes but you are not always going to have your ideal scenario in life.
When it comes to reforms that favor the athletes and give them more power, doing away with the year in residence rule is way down the list for me.
-
He does have a choice — he can in fact move on with his life any time he chooses.
If that's the standard you use, you can justify putting all sorts of additional limits on athletes. In other words, it's a ridiculous standard.
-
Actually, I said: "Baseball experienced none of the 'horrors' that were predicted," and "Free agency has been a good thing for every sport; more importantly, free agency is a condition every free human being should enjoy in his or her work."
There is a big difference between saying free agency has been good for sports and that it has been "universally great for everyone."
So don't misrepresent what I said, c2.
Meanwhile, on Aug. 22 you said this:
Time to move on.
I guess you changed your mind, given that since then you've had dozens of posts on this subject -- many of them filled with erroneous or misleading information in your desperate attempts to be "right."
Correct that you said it has been good for every sport, but that doesn’t mean good for everyone or every team in that sport. That was my point, it hasn’t been universally great. It is setup to benefit teams with big markets and big payrolls on the average, but yes occasionally a smaller market team can strike gold.
Can you please stop with the politics in your signature every week with some new comment.
-
If that's the standard you use, you can justify putting all sorts of additional limits on athletes. In other words, it's a ridiculous standard.
My point is probably better said by Lazar — using hyperbole gets you hyperbole back.
-
Mike-
I respect your opinion. You're standing up athletes that have little power. I typically favor giving the athletes more than less, too.
But I also view an athletic scholarship as a privilege, not a right. I am ok with some conditions on that scholarship. There are rules in the real world. I do not view the year in residence rule as a huge injustice. It's inconvenient for athletes but you are not always going to have your ideal scenario in life.
When it comes to reforms that favor the athletes and give them more power, doing away with the year in residence rule is way down the list for me.
For any type of relationship both sides have to give a little. It sure feels like one side wants to blow it all up and have no restrictions at all.
If I am reading what some here want it is as follows (they can correct me and I am sure they will).
Guaranteed 4 year scholarships
Ability to transfer as a free agent, but since no contracts are signed the school can never plan for this unlike pro sports
Should be compensated (in addition to the scholarship, room and board, free travel, open audition each game for their career) in some fashion
Exactly what commitment is the student athlete providing on their side in this deal? Should they even be required to go to class?
-
Mike-
I respect your opinion. You're standing up for athletes that have little power. I typically favor giving the athletes more than less, too.
But I also view an athletic scholarship as a privilege, not a right. I am ok with some conditions on that scholarship. There are rules in the real world. I do not view the year in residence rule as a huge injustice. It's inconvenient for athletes but you are not always going to have your ideal scenario in life.
When it comes to reforms that favor the athletes and give them more power, doing away with the year in residence rule is way down the list for me.
While we disagree on this, Lazar, I appreciate your thoughts on this and the way you presented them.
I also appreciate you representing the words I said correctly ... unlike chicos2.
Correct that you said it has been good for every sport, but that doesn’t mean good for everyone or every team in that sport. That was my point, it hasn’t been universally great.
And yet, c2, you tried to claim that I said it has been "universally great." You needed to falsify my argument on this subject in your desperate attempt to be "right."
I'm guessing the "moving on" you promised to do nearly a week ago will occur any time now.