Oso planning to go pro
All college should be free, as well as healthcare, housing, and Arby's
So my grand daughter just shows up at Harvard and takes classes and gets her Harvard degree in 4 years; sounds great.
Jim Delany has to be rolling over in his grave
Such a piss poor idea that will benefit the haves and hurt everyone else. Reap what you sow.
Buzz Williams left MU to a have not...Right Sultan?Conference payouts are a product of the success of the conference.What this rule change will do if enough conferences start to do it is wide open tampering, full free agency. It is beyond stupid. If you are any good at a program that is a step back, you are likely to lose players. It makes rebuilding very difficult, and the major programs simply have to target who they want to pull up from other teams. Brutally bad. Senseless. And yeah, life isn’t always fair or comparable.
Fire departments.Police departments.Libraries.Public schools.Interstate highway system.All of those (and many others we take for granted) are "free." All have value.Of course, none of it really is free. You and I and millions of others help pay for them. We also use taxpayer money to give stadiums to billionaires, welfare to farmers, incentives to corporations, tax cuts to billionaires, etc, etc, etc.
If this passes transfers will increase, I see no way around that. If it is already 40%, it will be higher still. Probably a bad thing overall for the quality of play in college basketball (I think familiarity with your teammates is a big factor in quality) and I'd rather it not happen, but it is inevitable. A consistent rule that says you always sit out a year or are always allowed to play immediately would be preferable the current state, where it seems to an outsider like me that the granting or denying of a waiver is rather haphazardly applied.
This is a practical, intelligent way to look at this issue.You personally would rather it not happen for a variety of reasons, but you realize it very well might happen and that, in some ways, a consistent policy would be preferable to the status quo.That's a lot better, IMHO, than the hair-on-fire reaction of some. There were similar reactions to many other big changes that, over time, proved to have not warranted all the WE ARE DOOMED angst they inspired at the time.
Anybody marry their dog recently?
Helps big conferences and totally screws smaller schools and conferences...yay for the rich and powerful.
Boeheim admitted as much last year and said he would oppose it.Mid-majors would become developmental leagues for the Power 5. Transfers up happen already with guys willing to sit (e.g. Rowsey, Curry), now imagine if they could move immediately, they wouldn't hesitate to do it and there would be a huge spike. A mid-major kid who puts up stats against a high-major team is going to be recruited in the handshake line.
Boeheim admitted as much last year and said he would oppose it.Mid-majors would become developmental leagues for the Power 5. Transfers up happen already with guys willing to sit (e.g. Rowsey, Curry), now imagine if they could move immediately, they wouldn't hesitate to do it and there would be a huge spike. A mid-major kid who puts up stats against a high-major team is going to be recruited in the handshake line. Poaching by high-majors is a major issue in Men's Soccer with no year in residence requirement, basketball would be 100x worse.
I don't disagree with this, although I think I lean toward supporting this rule.I'm curious about something, though, and your background might make you uniquely able to comment. Are some schools that are not well funded reluctant to take transfers that will have to sit out a year? I've seem some schools in non-revenue sports that are pretty aggressive in trying to move athletes through in four years to avoid the additional costs of that fifth year. Redshirt years cost the program money without corresponding production on the court. I don't know if that would ever be a concern in MBB. Is it possible that a rule like this would benefit smaller schools by allowing them more flexibility to take incoming transfers without having to give them an extra year? If you take a junior transfer, you only have to give them two years, not three. And could this also benefit athletes who are in over their heads at high-majors by giving them more potential landing spots in a transfer?
I am not doubting it will increase transfers of talented players to high major programs and harm mid major ones. But I have two responses.First, why is that on the players to ensure competitiveness of mid-majro programs? We don't limit a coach's ability to move. We don't try to share revenue in a more equitable manner. Why do we bring up these issues ("have and have nots") only when we discuss players?Second, collectively college basketball fans don't care about mid-majors. We SAY we do, especially when schools like Loyola and Sister Whateverhernameis make for a nice story, but even in the NCAA tournament, the big boys draw the most eyeballs. There are 80+ schools in the P6 conferences plus a handful of AAC, MVC and Gozaga type schools that can compete every year. That's plenty. If the other schools can't hack it, drop to D2.
That is a terribly broad statement to say they don’t care.
What you eventually see with all the pilfering is schools dropping out of D1, which means less opportunities for minorities, women, etc.
Some people think players are soft now, you just wait until this process rule is put into place....the ENTITLEMENT it creates is off the charts. Sorry kiddos, life ain’t easy all the time and you will find situations where the coach is mean, or your boss, or your colleagues. Use it to grow yourself and learn to handle adversity, do not run away from it.
The idea that a bunch of programs are going to drop sports or drop to a lower division because of this is palpably stupid.You're going to see just as many - and perhaps more, as is the case today - lateral and downward transfers as you do upward moves. The low- and mid-majors will thrive by being able to offer immediate playing time to kids stuck on the bench in the better conferences.Frankly, this has the potential of hurting the power schools as much as helping. Plenty of 9th-10th guys at a school in the Big East or Pac 12 might be happy to leave for starters minutes at a smaller program if they don't have to sit out a year first. That's the real reason a guy like Boeheim is against it. It makes his job harder.Conversely, P6 schools aren't going to be able to raid the smaller programs for their top players unless they can get those kids minutes. Kids starting in the Missouri Valley or Big West aren't transferring to a bigger school to play 10 minutes a night.At the end of the day, players want to play.But again, for all the talk of how much NCAA athletics benefits athletes, some of you can only frame this discussion in terms of how it affects the schools. How it affects the players isn't secondary for you. It's not even worthy of consideration.
Of course it is a broad statement. But it's an accurate one taken as a whole.I think we should be providing more such opportunities, but not tie them to athletic ability. That is why I think we should reinstitute many of the federal grant programs for higher education that have disappeared over the last 30 years. But that's politics...Oh God not this bullsh*t again. A bunch of adults who have switched jobs repeatedly are going to tell kids that they should handle adversity better. <yawn>
In basketball all it takes is one or two guys to leave and you potentially crush their chances. Sure you will have some ladder up and down, it’s the degree of impact that matters.A kid laddering down has much less impact to the school they leave than one laddering up. It isn’t about quantity, it is about quality.