MUScoop

See the highlighted part ...

Want to Play at a Different College? O.K., but Not There or There

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/sports/ncaafootball/college-coaches-use-transfer-rules-to-limit-athletes-options.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&

When a quarterback decided last month to transfer to another football program after one season at Oklahoma State, he thanked the coach, who thanked him back. Here were two parties seemingly in mutual agreement, on good terms, headed for an amicable divorce.

Then the transfer process started, producing the latest and perhaps an extreme example of what is occurring throughout the country this time of year as many college athletes try to move to different universities.

The Oklahoma State coach, Mike Gundy, ruled out nearly 40 universities as transfer options for quarterback Wes Lunt, an apparent show of gamesmanship and punishment toward a college athlete who wanted to take his skills elsewhere.

The forces at work were not new, but Gundy, like a growing number of coaches, chose to harness them to eliminate many, if not all, of Lunt's preferred options and to keep a potential rival from gaining the services of a highly regarded quarterback entering his sophomore season. It was a powerful illustration of the big-business mind-set of college sports and the control that coaches have over players.

When an athlete chooses to transfer, three sets of rules can be involved: those of the N.C.A.A.; those of the conference in which the university competes; and those that accompany the national letter of intent, a contract that athletes sign while still in high school to announce their intention to attend a university.

"It's entirely slanted to the coach's side," said Don Jackson, a lawyer who runs the Sports Group in Montgomery, Ala., and who has represented dozens of athletes attempting to transfer to a university of their choice. "Once the student-athlete signs that national letter of intent, it's essentially a contract of adhesion. They have limited rights."

Universities have long sought to block student-athletes from transferring to a rival program. Alabama's football team, for example, would not be expected to let a star player go to Auburn. But the impulse to limit the student-athlete's options has been heightened to the point that coaches are now blacklisting dozens of universities.

Proponents of transfer limits say that they are put in place to prevent coaches from continually attempting to lure athletes from other universities, which could create a never-ending recruiting cycle. Critics counter that the rules make it much too easy for coaches to act punitively, penalizing athletes for changing their minds about decisions made when they were teenagers.

Coaches cannot fully prevent athletes like Lunt from transferring to any university they want. But if a coach does not grant an athlete a release, the player must forfeit any scholarship opportunity, pay his own way to the new university and sit out the next season. Meanwhile, Gundy, whose contract pays him $30.3 million over eight years, and other coaches can routinely move from one college to another with minimal consequence, often for bigger contracts after arranging a buyout with the first college.

Lunt, who did not respond to requests for comment, is reportedly deciding whether to transfer to Louisville or Illinois, neither of which was blocked by Gundy, 45, who declined to comment and has not spoken publicly about the restrictions placed on Lunt.

The N.C.A.A. also declined to comment.

When Eugene Byrd worked for the Southeastern Conference, he oversaw the administration of the national letter of intent, essentially a one-year contract between a student and an institution with four yearly options to renew. As an assistant commissioner, he tried to simplify the often confusing process.

Byrd said the national letter of intent no longer served its original purpose, which was to stop the pursuit of high school players once they committed to a university. "It was supposed to end the recruiting once you signed," he said. "It became a threat to limit the ability to transfer."

In 2009, Robert Marve, who had started 11 games at quarterback for Miami before being benched, announced his intention to transfer. Randy Shannon, then the team's coach, blocked him from transferring to any program in the Atlantic Coast Conference, which Miami belongs to; any program in the SEC; and any program in Florida, Marve's home state.

Marve's father, Eugene, was being treated for prostate cancer in Tampa at the time, but Miami blocked his son from transferring to the University of South Florida, in Tampa. Robert Marve ended up transferring to Purdue.

"The N.C.A.A. preaches about how it protects the student-athlete," Eugene Marve said. "They do everything but that with these restrictions. They give schools like Miami leverage to really limit where a student-athlete can go and what they can do. Then they call them student-athletes."

The N.C.A.A. has said that the transfer issue affects a small fraction of its athletes. Last year, according to data provided by the organization, 627 member institutions participated in the letter of intent program, 38,663 athletes signed letters, and less than 1 percent requested a release after their first year. Those figures, however, do not take into account athletes who will seek a transfer later in their college careers.

The issue is most pronounced in men's basketball. Jim Haney, the executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, said nearly 500 men's basketball players transferred last year, with a similar number expected to transfer before next season.

That volume, Haney said, has created a situation in which coaches often believe that they need to spend time each off-season persuading players to remain instead of transferring.

Haney said the N.C.A.A. had started to change the recruiting structure to cut down on transfers in men's basketball. The organization allowed for more interaction between coaches and high school prospects so they could make more informed decisions. Additionally, the N.C.A.A. commissioned a task force to examine transfer rules across all sports. Recommendations are expected in August. New rules could go into effect in 2014.

"The reality is, we still have kids transferring," Haney said. "With 500 kids, this whole free-agency thing going on, I don't think that's where we want to be. It's rare to see somebody who transfers for a better business school."

Those involved with and affected by transfer rules proposed a variety of solutions. Jackson, the lawyer, said few teenagers really understood what they were signing and thus proposed that athletes be allowed to transfer without restrictions, the same as a regular student.

John Infante, an N.C.A.A. analyst for athleticscholarships.net who has a background in compliance, suggested a one-time exemption for athletes who have completed their first year to transfer without penalty. Ed Cunningham, a former football player, an ESPN analyst and a documentary filmmaker, said athletes should be able to transfer anywhere without penalty after two or three seasons.

"I don't believe in pure free agency," he said. "But you have to have common-sense conversations about this stuff. It's going to change. It just is. It's just so antiquated. Look at Oklahoma State. That's an awful lot of power for a football coach to have over a young man's life. He's a kid. I wish we would remember that."

Some bad information in this article (bad=incorrect).

Anyway, I tend to agree with Infante's take on a lot of things, but not his one-time transfer suggestion. Yuck.

I would like to see the graduate transfer exception & waivers changed (eliminated). I'd be fine with a one year add-on to a grad transfer's 5 yr clock.

Actually I really like Infante's suggestion.  One free transfer without sitting a year...but no additional waivers after that for any reason.

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 08, 2013, 10:22:18 AM
Actually I really like Infante's suggestion.  One free transfer without sitting a year...but no additional waivers after that for any reason.

I HATE that idea. Especially with APR rules as they currently stand.

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 08, 2013, 10:22:18 AM
Actually I really like Infante's suggestion.  One free transfer without sitting a year...but no additional waivers after that for any reason.

Just what college athletics needs .... outright free agency.
No chance that would further corrupt the system.

Quote from: Pakuni on June 08, 2013, 04:27:09 PM
Just what college athletics needs .... outright free agency.
No chance that would further corrupt the system.

The system sucks and is stacked against the players as it is.  This can only help them.

Quote from: Jay Bee on June 08, 2013, 10:28:50 AM
I HATE that idea. Especially with APR rules as they currently stand.

Right.  We need to get rid of the APR rules too.

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 08, 2013, 04:34:52 PM
The system sucks and is stacked against the players as it is.  This can only help them.

Even if true (and I would argue it's not nearly as bad as some like to claim) .... so what? Are we really supposed to be surprised/bothered/outraged/clutch pearls over the fact that the institutions that make up the NCAA set rules in their favor? In what association ever is it different?

Playing college basketball ultimately is a voluntary activity. Don't like the rules .... rules you agreed to when you agreed to play college basketball? Don't play college basketball. Nobody is required to play college basketball, or play in the NCAA. In fact, with the NBDL and European options, there's never been a time when it's been less necessary for an aspiring pro (sans the very few who could make the jump straight from high school) to play in the NCAA.

Quote from: Pakuni on June 08, 2013, 05:15:26 PM
Even if true (and I would argue it's not nearly as bad as some like to claim) .... so what? Are we really supposed to be surprised/bothered/outraged/clutch pearls over the fact that the institutions that make up the NCAA set rules in their favor? In what association ever is it different?

Playing college basketball ultimately is a voluntary activity. Don't like the rules .... rules you agreed to when you agreed to play college basketball? Don't play college basketball. Nobody is required to play college basketball, or play in the NCAA. In fact, with the NBDL and European options, there's never been a time when it's been less necessary for an aspiring pro (sans the very few who could make the jump straight from high school) to play in the NCAA.

Doesn't mean the rules can't be improved.  And I think this would be a huge improvement.

Specifically, this is what I would like the rule to be:

Any player is allowed one "free" transfer without sitting.  The only qualification is that you must transfer with enough credits accepted by the school you are transferring to in order to earn the same class standing corresponding to the years you have remaining.

So if a player wants to transfer from Tennessee Tech to Missouri after using three years of eligibility, they must earn enough transfer credit to be of senior status at Missouri.

The "system is stacked against them" crap is nonsense. There are rules and standards that might not seem fair, but they are not hidden.

For example, kids are told they are committing to an institution and NOT a coach. Yet, people cry when a coach leaves and a kid decides to go elsewhere. You knew the rules.

Credit card interest rates are outrageous - but you know the rules (or at least should know, idiot).

The reality is that kids leave schools with ease in most cases. And the many kids that just quit during the school year and hurt their school's APR are rarely (ever?) pointed at by anyone. Not many editorials from sportswriters pointing this out. No, it's always "the kids are victims".

----------
With respect to transfers... Sultan I ax you this: why is it so important to you that kids get a one time transfer exception that allows them to play immediately? If one, why not two? What is so awful about having them sit for a year while they get acclimated to their new school?

Quote from: Jay Bee on June 08, 2013, 06:38:00 PM
With respect to transfers... Sultan I ax you this: why is it so important to you that kids get a one time transfer exception that allows them to play immediately? If one, why not two? What is so awful about having them sit for a year while they get acclimated to their new school?

Because I think it is an unnecessary restriction.

My problem with this is it would give yet another advantage to the "haves". Kid blows up at Murray State, he's gone to Louisville or Kentucky after a year or two. Much less likely if he has to sit out a year.

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 08, 2013, 06:42:39 PM
Because I think it is an unnecessary restriction.

Why do you wish to restrict the rules such that there are no waivers for any reason after the first transfer?

We could get into college basketball and the concerns of tampering and unscrupulous third parties... which would become a bigger issue if we went with your rule.

But, let's focus on academics. There is a reason why there isn't a one-time transfer exception for basketball, football and a couple of other sports. Student-athletes in those sports have historically underperformed in the classroom.

The idea behind requiring a year of sitting out is to help kids adjust to the new school and to help ensure the transfer was not motivated solely by athletics (i.e., academics were a significant motivating factor).

One-time transfer exceptions in college basketball would turn things into a total circus. The grad student exception is bad enough (and should be done away with).

Jaybee...you are under the assumption I give a sh*t about academics in college basketball.

Hint:  I don't.

And a "total circus" could benefit MU as well.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 08, 2013, 09:09:19 PM
My problem with this is it would give yet another advantage to the "haves". Kid blows up at Murray State, he's gone to Louisville or Kentucky after a year or two. Much less likely if he has to sit out a year.

Yeah...that would be a shame for the kid wouldn't it?

::)

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 08, 2013, 09:09:19 PM
My problem with this is it would give yet another advantage to the "haves". Kid blows up at Murray State, he's gone to Louisville or Kentucky after a year or two. Much less likely if he has to sit out a year.

Kid goes to Wisconsin, now wants to transfer...where's he going? NOWHERE (suck it Ulthoff)

It's like these kids don't realize that they're GETTING A FREE EDUCATION and that what made America great was not standing up for yourself and doing what you're told to do.  Why should they have the right to change schools like any other student.  They already can't get a job off campus like any other student.  You think they'd sense the pattern.

Its like, this kid goes to a crappy school and works hard and improves his play, suddenly he's going to want to go to a better school to help his draft stock.  I'm not sure what country these guys are from where you work hard, get better and get rewarded, but it ain't America.

Instead of coddling these kids we should make them poop their pants, John Wayne, WWII.

I think I've covered all the arguments against these ungrateful, basetball playing communists.

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 08, 2013, 09:26:10 PM
Yeah...that would be a shame for the kid wouldn't it?

::)

No, it would be a shame for what little competitive balance is left in college basketball. 300+ schools would be farm teams for the few, and if they did a good enough job developing a player their investment would be for naught when the kid got "called up" to the big leagues. Do you really like the idea that Kentucky could keep recruiting our players throughout their college careers?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 08, 2013, 09:59:48 PM
No, it would be a shame for what little competitive balance is left in college basketball. 300+ schools would be farm teams for the few, and if they did a good enough job developing a player their investment would be for naught when the kid got "called up" to the big leagues. Do you really like the idea that Kentucky could keep recruiting our players throughout their college careers?

I agree, would be a horrible idea.  If they want to fix the system a bit simply make transferring always open to any University, no placing bans on specific teams/leagues. 

As a secondary level, allow players to transfer if their coaches leave, with immediate eligibility.  That would maintain the competitive balance and solve some of the problems with the transfer system. 

I actually would also not counter transfer red-shirt years as counting towards their 4 years of eligibility in 5 years total.

Quote from: forgetful on June 08, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
As a secondary level, allow players to transfer if their coaches leave, with immediate eligibility.  That would maintain the competitive balance and solve some of the problems with the transfer system. 

One of several problems I have with this idea is that it goes against the reasons for the year-in-residency requirement. ESPECIALLY in situations where a coach "leaves", a very quick decision is often made by kids as to what school they are going to transfer to. A year of sitting out to get their crap in order is consistent with the idea that academics are a big part of being a student-athlete.

Maybe it is a charade, but if you're going to play the game (of stressing academics), then be consistent.

Quote from: Jay Bee on June 08, 2013, 11:24:12 PM
One of several problems I have with this idea is that it goes against the reasons for the year-in-residency requirement. ESPECIALLY in situations where a coach "leaves", a very quick decision is often made by kids as to what school they are going to transfer to. A year of sitting out to get their crap in order is consistent with the idea that academics are a big part of being a student-athlete.

Maybe it is a charade, but if you're going to play the game (of stressing academics), then be consistent.

I'm not going to pretend this is about academics.  Its about both, they spend more time practicing and playing ball than they do focusing on their classes so they should be happy with the people they are around.  If the coach leaves, could disrupt the atmosphere.  Let the kid go in those cases. 

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 08, 2013, 09:59:48 PM
No, it would be a shame for what little competitive balance is left in college basketball. 300+ schools would be farm teams for the few, and if they did a good enough job developing a player their investment would be for naught when the kid got "called up" to the big leagues. Do you really like the idea that Kentucky could keep recruiting our players throughout their college careers?

I don't buy the competitive balance argument.

Allowing players to transfer without sitting out wouldn't just cause more good players at small schools to move "up" to a better program. It would also cause more good players sitting on the bench at the top programs to move "down" to smaller schools to get some PT. Furthermore, if a Kentucky is cherry picking the best players from smaller schools every year, then they will have to have, or make a scholarship available for said player. That means either cutting a guy already on scholarship or bringing in less recruits. Either way, that's one more very good player for the rest of the teams.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 08, 2013, 09:59:48 PM
No, it would be a shame for what little competitive balance is left in college basketball. 300+ schools would be farm teams for the few, and if they did a good enough job developing a player their investment would be for naught when the kid got "called up" to the big leagues. Do you really like the idea that Kentucky could keep recruiting our players throughout their college careers?

Even if I buy your argument, it is not the responsibility of the players who be responsible for keeping the competitive balance in basketball.  You've got programs with different levels of resources, different quality of coaching...and you are going to keep players restricted to keep competitive balance? 

Doesn't sound real fair to me.

Quote from: Jay Bee on June 08, 2013, 11:24:12 PM
Maybe it is a charade, but if you're going to play the game (of stressing academics), then be consistent.

This is great!!!  "Hey, it may be a bunch of smoke and mirrors...but let's shine up the mirrors a bit."

My system actually would reward those making progress toward a degree.

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 09, 2013, 06:47:15 AM

Even if I buy your argument, it is not the responsibility of the players who be responsible for keeping the competitive balance in basketball.  You've got programs with different levels of resources, different quality of coaching...and you are going to keep players restricted to keep competitive balance? 

Doesn't sound real fair to me.

There are severe restrictions on free agency even when one signs a pro contract. It protects the investment of the original team, ensures a competitive balance and prevents chaos. Even the pro sport's unions recognize this. Anything short of total free agency may not seem fair to you, but I'd argue that some restrictions are necessary.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 09, 2013, 09:21:11 AM
There are severe restrictions on free agency even when one signs a pro contract. It protects the investment of the original team, ensures a competitive balance and prevents chaos. Even the pro sport's unions recognize this. Anything short of total free agency may not seem fair to you, but I'd argue that some restrictions are necessary.

This would be a quality argument....if college basketball players could form a union...or get paid a wage...or get health coverage, etc. etc. etc.

The whole scholarship issue sounds like baseball's old reserve clause. "Gee, I'm only signing you to a one-year contract, but you can't go anywhere I don't want you to!"

To that end, there is a simple solution to the transfer problem.

First, you can't transfer to any school in your conference without the signing school's consent. Period.

Second, you can't transfer to an in-state rival. For Marquette, that would mean Wisconsin. Period.

Thirdly, offer guaranteed four-year scholarships. That would change everything tomorrow and create a four-year contractual bond.

These rules would even out the playing field immediately and guarantee a kid a chance at a four-year degree, which is what he or she is there for anyway.

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 09, 2013, 09:31:28 AM

This would be a quality argument....if college basketball players could form a union...or get paid a wage...or get health coverage, etc. etc. etc.

They can't form a union, but they do get paid and get health coverage. I'm not opposed to changes that would benefit the players (a modest stipend, for example) but I don't think unrestricted free agency should be one of them.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 09, 2013, 09:40:15 AM
They can't form a union, but they do get paid and get health coverage. I'm not opposed to changes that would benefit the players (a modest stipend, for example) but I don't think unrestricted free agency should be one of them.

You keep using the phrase "unrestricted free agency" as if the label is somehow bad.  All I am suggesting is that players get to transfer once without sitting out a year...and you make it sound like it would be the the end of college basketball as we know it. 

(And it wouldn't be "unrestricted" because the player would have to meet certain academic targets...and would only get one "free" transfer...so there are restrictions.)

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 09, 2013, 09:37:26 AM
The whole scholarship issue sounds like baseball's old reserve clause. "Gee, I'm only signing you to a one-year contract, but you can't go anywhere I don't want you to!"

To that end, there is a simple solution to the transfer problem.

First, you can't transfer to any school in your conference without the signing school's consent. Period.

Second, you can't transfer to an in-state rival. For Marquette, that would mean Wisconsin. Period.

Thirdly, offer guaranteed four-year scholarships. That would change everything tomorrow and create a four-year contractual bond.

These rules would even out the playing field immediately and guarantee a kid a chance at a four-year degree, which is what he or she is there for anyway.

Why shouldn't they be able to transfer to an "in state rival?"  So a player from St. Mary's can't transfer to San Diego State?  How do you determine if they are a "rival?"

And I am very much against four year scholarships.  The motivation needs to be there to earn your spot.

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 09, 2013, 06:47:15 AM

Even if I buy your argument, it is not the responsibility of the players who be responsible for keeping the competitive balance in basketball.  You've got programs with different levels of resources, different quality of coaching...and you are going to keep players restricted to keep competitive balance? 

Doesn't sound real fair to me.

Again, you're missing the point

You ignore that the NCAA was created and continues to exist for the benefit of its member institutions, not the players (though the players certainly can and do benefit from the existence of the NCAA). This is hardly unusual ... it's why any association of this nature is created.
What you seem to be arguing is that NCAA should alter their system to make it more "fair" for players, even to their members' detriment ... I'd argue significant detriment. You think the recruiting system - with its street agents, handlers, shoe salesmen, handout-seekers, etc. - is corrupt now? Just wait until a freshman All-American declares himself a free agent and goes seeking offers.

So, why on earth would the NCAA want to do such a thing? Can you name a single association or business entity that intentionally subverts its own best interests?

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 09, 2013, 09:52:01 AM

You keep using the phrase "unrestricted free agency" as if the label is somehow bad.  All I am suggesting is that players get to transfer once without sitting out a year...and you make it sound like it would be the the end of college basketball as we know it. 

(And it wouldn't be "unrestricted" because the player would have to meet certain academic targets...and would only get one "free" transfer...so there are restrictions.)

It would be the end of college basketball as we know it.  Teams would actively recruit players away from all teams.  There would be less carry over that allows fans to cheer for the same guys year after year.

Lower level teams would be poached, meaning all the resources, money and training they put in to improve a player would be a waste, as the player would just jump ship the moment a better offer came up.  

This is not like any other business.  A Murray State, can't just offer the kid a bigger compensation package (aka, salary/retirement), as occurs in business to mitigate poaching of talent.  They just have to watch them walk out the door.  

Frankly, the free transfer year with no limitations is the WORST idea I have hear of for college sports.  To think that anyone thinks this wouldn't affect the competitive balance, is quite shocking to me.  

Imagine what would happen in business if you could never give your employees a raise or promotion after you hired them, but your big competition could come in and offer them a better work environment/atmosphere with more long-term opportunities.  Would that affect the competition and business landscape???

Not sure we're all on the same page about what Infante means by one "penalty-free" transfer after a year.  If he just means that the kid can choose any other school he wants (without the coach limiting the choices) - that's how I interpreted it - I'd be fine with that because I view these limitations by coaches as "penalties."  I still think the kid should have to sit a year though, as I don't view that as a "penalty" imposed by a coach.

Just my $0.02.

Quote from: Pakuni on June 09, 2013, 10:21:42 AM
Again, you're missing the point

You ignore that the NCAA was created and continues to exist for the benefit of its member institutions, not the players (though the players certainly can and do benefit from the existence of the NCAA). This is hardly unusual ... it's why any association of this nature is created.
What you seem to be arguing is that NCAA should alter their system to make it more "fair" for players, even to their members' detriment ... I'd argue significant detriment. You think the recruiting system - with its street agents, handlers, shoe salesmen, handout-seekers, etc. - is corrupt now? Just wait until a freshman All-American declares himself a free agent and goes seeking offers.

So, why on earth would the NCAA want to do such a thing? Can you name a single association or business entity that intentionally subverts its own best interests?

The NCAA will likely not do it for some of the reasons you suggest.  That doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be done.

Quote from: forgetful on June 09, 2013, 10:22:05 AM
It would be the end of college basketball as we know it.  Teams would actively recruit players away from all teams.  There would be less carry over that allows fans to cheer for the same guys year after year.

Lower level teams would be poached, meaning all the resources, money and training they put in to improve a player would be a waste, as the player would just jump ship the moment a better offer came up. 

This is not like any other business.  A Murray State, can't just offer the kid a bigger compensation package (aka, salary/retirement), as occurs in business to mitigate poaching of talent.  They just have to watch them walk out the door. 

Frankly, the free transfer year with no limitations is the WORST idea I have hear of for college sports.  To think that anyone thinks this wouldn't affect the competitive balance, is quite shocking to me. 

I never said that it wouldn't effect competitive balance.  I just don't think competitive balance should be the main driver.  And spare me the chicken little "end of college basketball as we know it" arguments.  I remember the same thing being said when pros were allowed in the Olympics, and read the same thing about the end of the reserve clause in baseball.  It may be worse...it may be better...who can really say for sure?

Quote from: forgetful on June 09, 2013, 10:22:05 AM
Imagine what would happen in business if you could never give your employees a raise or promotion after you hired them, but your big competition could come in and offer them a better work environment/atmosphere with more long-term opportunities.  Would that affect the competition and business landscape???

Yeah, this kind of stuff *never* happens now.  ::)

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 09, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
I never said that it wouldn't effect competitive balance.  I just don't think competitive balance should be the main driver.  And spare me the chicken little "end of college basketball as we know it" arguments.  I remember the same thing being said when pros were allowed in the Olympics, and read the same thing about the end of the reserve clause in baseball.  It may be worse...it may be better...who can really say for sure?


Yeah, this kind of stuff *never* happens now.  ::)

My point is that it does happen, but at least the existing company has some options to sweeten the pot to get talent to stay, which helps offset some of the damage, that will not exist in CBB.  Talent will leave. 

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 09, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
I never said that it wouldn't effect competitive balance.  I just don't think competitive balance should be the main driver.  And spare me the chicken little "end of college basketball as we know it" arguments.  I remember the same thing being said when pros were allowed in the Olympics, and read the same thing about the end of the reserve clause in baseball.  It may be worse...it may be better...who can really say for sure?

So if competitive balance (and, of course, revenue) shouldn't be the main driver of the NCAA, what should be?
Your position here is the equivalent of a company's board of directors putting the best interests of its labor force ahead of that of its shareholders and customers. Because, gosh, without those widget makers the company wouldn't have a product to sell and the customers wouldn't be getting their widget fix met.
You're a smart guy Terror .... which is why it's hard to figure your naivete here.

So, every year, about 14% of eligible basketball student athletes transfer. At Marquette, about 11% of the general population freshmen transfer for their sophomore year. It sounds like the free market is working here.

The one area I have a concern with is if a non-revenue SA decides to transfer, and gets a release from their original school (assuming this is to assure that athlete has achieved proper academic status), they get to play at their next school right away.  A revenue sport athlete has to wait a year.  Is that fair?  Seems a bit discriminatory as a two tiered system.

I know that JayBee laid out the academic case for the difference between the sports and why that exists.  But, if a student fulfills their academic requirements for that year, I feel they should be released unconditionally of the sport to play immediately if they so choose. The scholarship is good for a year, why shouldn't a SA be free to move?  The APR may be more effective if yearly check-ins are required any way...rather than waiting to the end like UCONN and being way short.  Set the requirement to academic progress, or the transferee must sit out the year.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on June 09, 2013, 01:49:02 PM
I know that JayBee laid out the academic case for the difference between the sports and why that exists.  But, if a student fulfills their academic requirements for that year, I feel they should be released unconditionally of the sport to play immediately if they so choose. The scholarship is good for a year, why shouldn't a SA be free to move?  The APR may be more effective if yearly check-ins are required any way...rather than waiting to the end like UCONN and being way short.  Set the requirement to academic progress, or the transferee must sit out the year.

The SA is free to move. They just aren't free to play right away.

What do you mean by "The APR may be more effective if yearly check-ins are required any way...waiting to the end like UCONN and being way short"?

Things should get interesting. The 930 will be mostly phased in (with a 940 two-year clause) for the 2014-15 season. For the 2015 postseason the data looked at will be for the years ended this spring.

Many schools should today know if they are screwed for the 2015 tournament. We'll see how the NCAA reacts if there are "too many of them".

Also remember that as of today, a student who has "fulfilled their academic requirements", has made satisfactory progress towards a degree, etc. and transfers CAN ding a schools APR (i.e., a 1-for-2). But again - the current rules are there for a reason (i.e., data suggests that students who transfer with less than a 2.6 GPA don't do nearly as well as compared to those who transfer with a 2.6 or higher GPA).

There are a number of issues here... and competing interests of different parties.

Anyway, I think Sultan is just plain nuts on this issue.

And APR in 2014-15 and 2015-16 is going to be trouble. Having teams banned from postseason hurts everyone. I'd change a lot of things up.

What I am saying is add to the APR requirements based on academic progress.  So, a freshman player has fulfilled progress towards his academic goals to be considered a sophomore, etc. in their field of study.  If they fulfilled that requirement, they can be released to play immediately at their new school.  If after freshman year, the school still classifies the student as a freshman, then they can still transfer but have to sit out a year.  Btw, this would hold back the basketball factory concern by happenstance from the free agent issue.

In UCONN's case, APR was ignored and students took crappy classes just to remain eligible.  Classes that didn't allow the student to progress toward graduating in a major.  The hoops player figured they are at UCONN so they are good enough and will just declare early...and UCONN will be given the APR pass.  Well, those students didn't declare and were just passed on and then the team was penalized.  If yearly checks on academic progress were required, APR would have not been an issue for UCONN.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on June 09, 2013, 03:30:40 PM
What I am saying is add to the APR requirements based on academic progress.  So, a freshman player has fulfilled progress towards his academic goals to be considered a sophomore, etc. in their field of study.  If they fulfilled that requirement, they can be released to play immediately at their new school.  If after freshman year, the school still classifies the student as a freshman, then they can still transfer but have to sit out a year.  Btw, this would hold back the basketball factory concern by happenstance from the free agent issue.

In UCONN's case, APR was ignored and students took crappy classes just to remain eligible.  Classes that didn't allow the student to progress toward graduating in a major.  The hoops player figured they are at UCONN so they are good enough and will just declare early...and UCONN will be given the APR pass.  Well, those students didn't declare and were just passed on and then the team was penalized.  If yearly checks on academic progress were required, APR would have not been an issue for UCONN.

The APR is becoming a non-issue.  Schools know how to beat the system already.  Most high D1 schools just institute new majors that nearly all of their athletes that may be at risk focus on.  So they can still take the crappy classes just to remain eligible and progress towards a degree.

The APR hit some schools early, but they have adjusted.

Quote from: Pakuni on June 09, 2013, 12:42:12 PM
So if competitive balance (and, of course, revenue) shouldn't be the main driver of the NCAA, what should be?
Your position here is the equivalent of a company's board of directors putting the best interests of its labor force ahead of that of its shareholders and customers. Because, gosh, without those widget makers the company wouldn't have a product to sell and the customers wouldn't be getting their widget fix met.
You're a smart guy Terror .... which is why it's hard to figure your naivete here.

Again....I UNDERSTAND WHY THE NCAA WON'T WANT TO DO THIS!!!

That doesn't mean *I* don't think it should be done.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on June 09, 2013, 01:49:02 PM
So, every year, about 14% of eligible basketball student athletes transfer. At Marquette, about 11% of the general population freshmen transfer for their sophomore year. It sounds like the free market is working here.

The one area I have a concern with is if a non-revenue SA decides to transfer, and gets a release from their original school (assuming this is to assure that athlete has achieved proper academic status), they get to play at their next school right away.  A revenue sport athlete has to wait a year.  Is that fair?  Seems a bit discriminatory as a two tiered system.

I know that JayBee laid out the academic case for the difference between the sports and why that exists.  But, if a student fulfills their academic requirements for that year, I feel they should be released unconditionally of the sport to play immediately if they so choose. The scholarship is good for a year, why shouldn't a SA be free to move?  The APR may be more effective if yearly check-ins are required any way...rather than waiting to the end like UCONN and being way short.  Set the requirement to academic progress, or the transferee must sit out the year.

Excellent points.  I agree with this entirely.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on June 09, 2013, 03:30:40 PM
In UCONN's case, APR was ignored and students took crappy classes just to remain eligible.  Classes that didn't allow the student to progress toward graduating in a major.  The hoops player figured they are at UCONN so they are good enough and will just declare early...and UCONN will be given the APR pass.  Well, those students didn't declare and were just passed on and then the team was penalized.  If yearly checks on academic progress were required, APR would have not been an issue for UCONN.

UCONN's horrid APR scores weren't mostly due to players not graduating. Not at all. It was mostly due to crappy grades and not going to class. Numerous kids became ineligible. It was not due to academic progress toward degree issues.

(Also the NCAA retroactively changing punishments was questionable.)

Quote from: forgetfulThe APR is becoming a non-issue.  Schools know how to beat the system already.  Most high D1 schools just institute new majors that nearly all of their athletes that may be at risk focus on.  So they can still take the crappy classes just to remain eligible and progress towards a degree.

The APR hit some schools early, but they have adjusted.

I believe the opposite is true. It's going to become a bigger issue. It's not yet phased-in. There are issues that are extremely difficult to address. Look at MU for examples.

(btw, I will dig into some APR numbers for MU and others this week. MU should be in fine shape, but a rough year or two can really put schools into a difficult spot.)

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 09, 2013, 09:54:21 AM
And I am very much against four year scholarships.  The motivation needs to be there to earn your spot.

Agreed, and I think that's another argument for your idea.  If it's a one year renewable contract, make it a one year renewable contract for both parties.  What if the coach/team/institution isn't living up to its word/promises/etc.  The player has no recourse but to transfer and sit out a year, and then they have to deal with the jerk who didn't live up to his word also putting a ton of restrictions on where he can transfer.

I knew a girl who played ball at a D3 school and it wasn't what she was promised when she got there.  Her options were to sit out a year or transfer to an NAIA school.  She had other NCAA offers, but was unwilling to sit, so she went NAIA.  This rule would help her situation just as much as a star.

Quote from: TJ on June 10, 2013, 12:57:49 AM
Agreed, and I think that's another argument for your idea.  If it's a one year renewable contract, make it a one year renewable contract for both parties.  What if the coach/team/institution isn't living up to its word/promises/etc.  The player has no recourse but to transfer and sit out a year, and then they have to deal with the jerk who didn't live up to his word also putting a ton of restrictions on where he can transfer.

I knew a girl who played ball at a D3 school and it wasn't what she was promised when she got there.  Her options were to sit out a year or transfer to an NAIA school.  She had other NCAA offers, but was unwilling to sit, so she went NAIA.  This rule would help her situation just as much as a star.

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who goes somewhere and finds out "it wasn't all that" in this age.  I may have had a different opinion up to the late 1990s/early 2000s when there was no facebook, twitter, ratemyprofessor.com, etc. and a campus could have spit-shined itself for recruiting visits without anyone ever being the wiser.  But today there are plenty of resources to vet a college and know what you're getting into, so the responsibility is on the SA to do their diligence before making a commitment.  If someone what fraudulently misled, that's another issue entirely, and one which I'm sure the NCAA would grant a waiver.

Nevertheless, D-III schools are non-scholarship, but they can receive "athletic-related" financial aid; moreover, D-III does permit a one-time transfer to all SAs already without having to sit a year, they simply can't take the "athletic-related" aid for one year.  That doesn't preclude a D-III school from awarding non-athletic, need-based or other financial aid to fill in the gap for that one year.  But even if that wasn't the case, the SA is typically only giving up a couple thousand in athletic financial aid, at most, so it's not nearly as much of an obstacle that the transfer rules for D-I revenue athletes.

Quote from: Jay Bee on June 10, 2013, 12:32:49 AM
UCONN's horrid APR scores weren't mostly due to players not graduating. Not at all. It was mostly due to crappy grades and not going to class. Numerous kids became ineligible. It was not due to academic progress toward degree issues.

(Also the NCAA retroactively changing punishments was questionable.)

I believe the opposite is true. It's going to become a bigger issue. It's not yet phased-in. There are issues that are extremely difficult to address. Look at MU for examples.

(btw, I will dig into some APR numbers for MU and others this week. MU should be in fine shape, but a rough year or two can really put schools into a difficult spot.)

I didn't think of this before, but the unexpected return of Jake Thomas and Juan Anderson may have had something to do with maintaining MU's APR.

Assuming Cadougan graduated, with Furgueson and Blue leaving, Mayo's first semester ineligibility, and the potential of Anderson and Thomas transfers, our single year APR would have dropped to .896.  

The APR gives you 4 points/year--one for remaining eligible, and one for returning the next semester (or graduating if you've used up eligiblity).  Had Anderson and Thomas both followed through on their transfers, we would have been below the 925 cutoff:

Player	Actual	Possible	Notes
Vander Blue	3	4	NBA
Junior Cadougan	4	4
Trent Lockett	4	4
Jamil Wilson	4	4
Davante Gardner	4	4
Chris Otule	4	4
Derrick Wilson	4	4
Juan Anderson	3	4	Transfer
Todd Mayo	3	4	Adademics
Steve Talylor	4	4
Jake Thomas	3	4	Transfer
Jamal Ferguson	3	4	Transfer
TOTAL	43	48
APR	43/48	0.895833333

With Anderson and Thomas back in the fold, our single year improves to .938

If only one of them returned, our single year would have been .916

This wouldn't have affected NCAA eligiblity or scholarship limits (I don't think) because we were high enough in prior years, and the NCAA uses a 4-year rolling average.  

Quote from: Benny B on June 10, 2013, 11:49:54 AM
It's hard to feel sorry for someone who goes somewhere and finds out "it wasn't all that" in this age.  I may have had a different opinion up to the late 1990s/early 2000s when there was no facebook, twitter, ratemyprofessor.com, etc. and a campus could have spit-shined itself for recruiting visits without anyone ever being the wiser.  But today there are plenty of resources to vet a college and know what you're getting into, so the responsibility is on the SA to do their diligence before making a commitment.  If someone what fraudulently misled, that's another issue entirely, and one which I'm sure the NCAA would grant a waiver.

Nevertheless, D-III schools are non-scholarship, but they can receive "athletic-related" financial aid; moreover, D-III does permit a one-time transfer to all SAs already without having to sit a year, they simply can't take the "athletic-related" aid for one year.  That doesn't preclude a D-III school from awarding non-athletic, need-based or other financial aid to fill in the gap for that one year.  But even if that wasn't the case, the SA is typically only giving up a couple thousand in athletic financial aid, at most, so it's not nearly as much of an obstacle that the transfer rules for D-I revenue athletes.

I got the details wrong then.  She had a partial scholarship to a lower-level NCAA school.  The coach misled her about certain things during recruitment, and the reality of the situation was not the same.  It was nothing that she would have been granted a waiver for, and even if it was it was all verbal anyway, but it was enough that she no longer wanted to be there.  I don't know all the details at all, but it's just a broad example to show that this wouldn't affect only the star at Murray State.

As for "this age" - you are stuck on the major universities.  Outside the biggest 150 schools there are still hundreds of schools with scholarship (or partial) athletes that are affected by this rule.  It is not as easy as you think to find all of the details you need to know about Middle of Nowhere State.  

Plus we are again back to saying that 16-17 year olds shouldn't make a mistake and they can face the consequences if they do, but grown coaches and institutions should not be held liable in any way.  If a kid can be cut by a coach they should also be able to transfer without penalty, OR the coach should have to lose a scholarship for a year if he cuts someone.  The inequity is mind-boggling.

And before you start, I like Sultan do understand the NCAA has a vested interest in keeping the status quo.  Doesn't mean its right.  Pakuni brings up businesses that wouldn't do something against their interests, but businesses have to deal with labor that is allowed to unionize and fight back.  NCAA athletes have no such recourse.

Quote from: TJ on June 10, 2013, 12:18:43 PM
As for "this age" - you are stuck on the major universities.  Outside the biggest 150 schools there are still hundreds of schools with scholarship (or partial) athletes that are affected by this rule.  It is not as easy as you think to find all of the details you need to know about Middle of Nowhere State.  

Actually, there is plenty of information on Washington State University on the web.

In seriousness, I do get what you're saying, but caveat emptor.  If you're going somewhere small enough to not have a reputation at all, then you have to understand there may be consequences for going into uncharted territories.

Quote from: The Equalizer on June 10, 2013, 12:16:25 PM
I didn't think of this before, but the unexpected return of Jake Thomas and Juan Anderson may have had something to do with maintaining MU's APR.

Assuming Cadougan graduated, with Furgueson and Blue leaving, Mayo's first semester ineligibility, and the potential of Anderson and Thomas transfers, our single year APR would have dropped to .896.  

The APR gives you 4 points/year--one for remaining eligible, and one for returning the next semester (or graduating if you've used up eligiblity).  Had Anderson and Thomas both followed through on their transfers, we would have been below the 925 cutoff:

Player	Actual	Possible	Notes
Vander Blue	3	4	NBA
Junior Cadougan	4	4
Trent Lockett	4	4
Jamil Wilson	4	4
Davante Gardner	4	4
Chris Otule	4	4
Derrick Wilson	4	4
Juan Anderson	3	4	Transfer
Todd Mayo	3	4	Adademics
Steve Talylor	4	4
Jake Thomas	3	4	Transfer
Jamal Ferguson	3	4	Transfer
TOTAL	43	48
APR	43/48	0.895833333

With Anderson and Thomas back in the fold, our single year improves to .938

If only one of them returned, our single year would have been .916

This wouldn't have affected NCAA eligiblity or scholarship limits (I don't think) because we were high enough in prior years, and the NCAA uses a 4-year rolling average.  

Your understanding of the APR could use some work. Not going to give a long lesson here, but some comments:

Vander as of a 3/4 - I don't think that will be the case. Two likely scenarios: (1) didn't complete the semester and finished ineligible academically, is a 2/4, or (2) completes the semester's classes and is a 3/3.

Jake Thomas - I understand him to have graduated. Therefore, no matter what he did next year MU would get the retention point. 4/4 whether he transferred, stayed at MU or went to work at a steel mill.

Todd Mayo - eligibility issue was from 2011-12 (served fall semester of 2012-13) - could be a 4/4, I believe.

Juan Anderson (had he transferred) & Jamal Ferguson - as long as their cumulative GPAs were 2.6+, should be 3/3.

-------------
Some of the reason why I think the APR will be a struggle for some schools are because of kids leaving for pro without finishing up their semester (i.e, 2/4 or 3/4 [grad students]).. and <2.6 GPA transfers. Kid can be perfectly eligible his entire time at your school, but if you've got a couple of kids who leave school right after the season ends to go workout with trainers, you've going to be banned from postseason.

-------------
PS - there is no 925 cutoff. You're speaking on rules from years ago.

Quote from: Jay Bee on June 10, 2013, 12:32:49 AM
UCONN's horrid APR scores weren't mostly due to players not graduating. Not at all. It was mostly due to crappy grades and not going to class. Numerous kids became ineligible. It was not due to academic progress toward degree issues.

(Also the NCAA retroactively changing punishments was questionable.)

I believe the opposite is true. It's going to become a bigger issue. It's not yet phased-in. There are issues that are extremely difficult to address. Look at MU for examples.

(btw, I will dig into some APR numbers for MU and others this week. MU should be in fine shape, but a rough year or two can really put schools into a difficult spot.)

You are right, some of the issues will have a bigger effect, i.e. transfers <2.6 GPA.  However, that will likely be mitigated also, by making the athlete classes easier.  You'll just have schools making 2.6 the target GPA.

Quote from: Pakuni on June 08, 2013, 04:27:09 PM
Just what college athletics needs .... outright free agency.
No chance that would further corrupt the system.

+ 100000000000

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 08, 2013, 09:09:19 PM
My problem with this is it would give yet another advantage to the "haves". Kid blows up at Murray State, he's gone to Louisville or Kentucky after a year or two. Much less likely if he has to sit out a year.

BINGO

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 09, 2013, 09:37:26 AM
The whole scholarship issue sounds like baseball's old reserve clause. "Gee, I'm only signing you to a one-year contract, but you can't go anywhere I don't want you to!"

To that end, there is a simple solution to the transfer problem.

First, you can't transfer to any school in your conference without the signing school's consent. Period.

Second, you can't transfer to an in-state rival. For Marquette, that would mean Wisconsin. Period.

Thirdly, offer guaranteed four-year scholarships. That would change everything tomorrow and create a four-year contractual bond.

These rules would even out the playing field immediately and guarantee a kid a chance at a four-year degree, which is what he or she is there for anyway.

Remember, the NCAA changed the legislation last year where 4 year scholarships are now available.  It's up to the school to give them, but if a school wants a kid badly enough, they can offer a 4 year scholarship vs someone else offering a 1 year scholarship.

Quote from: Benny B on June 10, 2013, 12:38:19 PM
Actually, there is plenty of information on Washington State University on the web.

Hey! Son #2 went to Wazzou. He played ball there, too. I don't think he ever thought of transferring, even though the football team struggled mightily.

At any given second millions of people the world over are looking at The Palouse as it is the pre-set screen shot for Windows. It is the archtypal tableau of its rolling hills, the wheat in August, and the Sawtooths in the distance. That particular view is just north of the Wazzou campus.

I actually know the story behind its selection by MS as the stock backdrop. Bill Gates will drive himself over to The Palouse every July-August for an overnight visit for the simple reason he loves the quiet elegance of that region's topography. A bit of pandering by the MBD team, perhaps, but certainly a compelling illustration of America's immensity, vitality, and fortitude. I am partial to the works of Willa Cather and Mildred Walker and that vista evokes their chronicle of a people.




(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgnk42lfTeJaX7fAmH0n59uMwnrH3UHyyBZHx8ra4tw0mDNwRh)

The only times I have been there the grass has been brown. 

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 12, 2013, 02:13:21 PM
The only times I have been there the grass has been brown. 

Wheat.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 10, 2013, 06:58:40 PM
Remember, the NCAA changed the legislation last year where 4 year scholarships are now available.  It's up to the school to give them, but if a school wants a kid badly enough, they can offer a 4 year scholarship vs someone else offering a 1 year scholarship.

Why don't they take it one step further and add an incentive to the schools by allowing stricter transfer rules for 4-year scholarships? The choice would ultimately be up to the player on if he wants a long-term commitment, or go to a school that is more risky but allows him to back out. If he chooses the year-to-year scholarship, he would be penalty-free to go to a dream school but it also allows him to be Buzzed. From a 4-year perspective, teams lose if the player doesn't progress but gain without having to worry about transfers. Seems fair to me.

I bet most coaches would push for the 4-year schollie and this overall benefits the student athlete.

Quote from: martyconlonontherun on June 12, 2013, 09:27:56 PM
Why don't they take it one step further and add an incentive to the schools by allowing stricter transfer rules for 4-year scholarships? The choice would ultimately be up to the player on if he wants a long-term commitment, or go to a school that is more risky but allows him to back out. If he chooses the year-to-year scholarship, he would be penalty-free to go to a dream school but it also allows him to be Buzzed. From a 4-year perspective, teams lose if the player doesn't progress but gain without having to worry about transfers. Seems fair to me.

I bet most coaches would push for the 4-year schollie and this overall benefits the student athlete.

Right...because coaches can always find other reasons to encourage a player to transfer.

the wallpaper pic has been photoshopped

Quote from: Terror Skink on June 12, 2013, 02:13:21 PM
The only times I have been there the grass has been brown. 

Quote from: martyconlonontherun on June 12, 2013, 09:27:56 PM
Why don't they take it one step further and add an incentive to the schools by allowing stricter transfer rules for 4-year scholarships? The choice would ultimately be up to the player on if he wants a long-term commitment, or go to a school that is more risky but allows him to back out. If he chooses the year-to-year scholarship, he would be penalty-free to go to a dream school but it also allows him to be Buzzed. From a 4-year perspective, teams lose if the player doesn't progress but gain without having to worry about transfers. Seems fair to me.

I bet most coaches would push for the 4-year schollie and this overall benefits the student athlete.

Despite Sultan's cynicism, you're definitely on to something, but there are some pitfalls... the downside to a strict "Guaranteed-4" for the student is that he might very well have a scholarship, but he could be relegated to the bench for four years.  The downside of G4 to coaches is that more "middle-tier" recruits - which schools like MU depend upon but are also more prone to being busts - might start demanding G4 scholarships.

There would have to be some sort of meaningful incentive for a coach to sign a G4... something like a G4 only counts as .5 or .75 towards a scholarship limit of 13 (i.e. you could have more scholarship players provided that several are G4s).  There would also have to be some sort of "out" for a G4 in the event he isn't logging any playing time (e.g. if your MPG is less than the Xth percentile for D-I players in your academic class, then you are permitted to transfer).

I think the current system unduly penalizes players and coaches... there's got to be a better system out there that shifts the emphasis from "win at all costs" to fairness and level playing fields.  But even if that were the case, you're going to have to get past the blue-blood blockade, because anything that moves towards more fairness is going to take away from the UKs, UNCs and KUs of the world.  In that regard, my pessimism rises to the level of Sultan's cynicism.

Quote from: Benny B on June 13, 2013, 10:53:40 AM
the current system unduly penalizes players and coaches

Fixed it for you.

Quote from: Benny B on June 13, 2013, 10:53:40 AM

I think the current system unduly penalizes players and coaches... there's got to be a better system out there that shifts the emphasis from "win at all costs" to fairness and level playing fields.  But even if that were the case, you're going to have to get past the blue-blood blockade, because anything that moves towards more fairness is going to take away from the UKs, UNCs and KUs of the world.  In that regard, my pessimism rises to the level of Sultan's cynicism.

The problem is not that the system unduly penalizes players & coaches--its that nobody can come up with an objective, univerally applied rule that fairly separates those who should be duly penalized from those who are unduly penalized.

The same rule that would permit a player to transfer becuase he's deep at the end of his team's bench would allow a coach trying to run a player off becuase he has a chance to land someone better.   

The NCAA could stop this if they tightened up all the waivers, and implemented a one-year lockout on both parties.  Player wants to transfer (or get out of an NLI)--fine, he sits out a year, no matter what.  No exceptions. 

Sick relative?  If the relative is so sick you need to be closer to home, then spend a year tending to that relative.
Coach is fired or takes a new job?  You signed with the school, not the coach.  Graduated with eligiblity remaining?  Good for you--you're still covered by the transfer rule.  Play where you were, or sit a year.

At the same time, the team you leave can't fill that scholarship for the year you sit out. Yeah, this might hurt a coach if a player unexpectedly leaves. But I sense there are more players being run off than those who simply decide on their own that they would be happier elsewhere. 

But from a practical person, does it really matter?  If the player is trying to "screw" his former team, he's going to sit out a year as well.  If a coach is trying to "run off" a player, he isn't going to be able to bring in someone else for a full year.  Both sides are going to think long and hard before letting the situation reach that point.

Quote from: The Equalizer on June 13, 2013, 02:58:17 PM
At the same time, the team you leave can't fill that scholarship for the year you sit out. Yeah, this might hurt a coach if a player unexpectedly leaves. But I sense there are more players being run off than those who simply decide on their own that they would be happier elsewhere. 

That's an interesting idea.

Quote from: The Equalizer on June 13, 2013, 02:58:17 PM
At the same time, the team you leave can't fill that scholarship for the year you sit out. Yeah, this might hurt a coach if a player unexpectedly leaves. But I sense there are more players being run off than those who simply decide on their own that they would be happier elsewhere. 

The problem with this is it still hurts the school more than it hurts the player.  The player does sit out a year, but they will still have 4 years of eligibility with the transfer year not counting.  Unless the rule was to be mended that the transfer has to count as a year of eligibility.

Quote from: TJ on June 13, 2013, 01:11:53 PM
Fixed it for you.

It unduly penalizes coaches... meaning it penalizes coaches more than is necessary.

I'm not saying it penalizes every coach or that coaches and athletes are penalized equally, but if you're a coach that plays by the rules, what's fair about having a recruit barred from transferring to your school simply because the former coach is exacting spite (see Uthoff, Jared).

Quote from: WarriorInDC on June 13, 2013, 03:59:00 PM
The problem with this is it still hurts the school more than it hurts the player.  The player does sit out a year, but they will still have 4 years of eligibility with the transfer year not counting.  Unless the rule was to be mended that the transfer has to count as a year of eligibility.

Potentially.  But the school does have 13 scholarships to give.  A player has just one career.   Sitting out one year affects 100% of his year, but only 1/13th of the teams.   

And a transfer or two still leaves the team with more than sufficient depth if they're managing their roster appropriately overall. 

However the big benefit in my mind is that it would help reduce oversigning and churning through players. Coaches won't be able to take an extra player or two in the fall knowing they have no seniors on the roster.  They won't fall back on a scholarship problem "working itself out" if they know the transferring player can't be replaced the same year.  They'll have to actually better manage their evaluation, rosters, etc. over multiple seasons.

And ultimately, even if a transfer does "hurt" a team more than the player, I still beleive its an advantage to the teams that better evaluate talent, manage rosters over time, develop players, etc. 

Quote from: The Equalizer on June 13, 2013, 05:13:11 PM
Potentially.  But the school does have 13 scholarships to give.  A player has just one career.   Sitting out one year affects 100% of his year, but only 1/13th of the teams.

Extreme example, but it's relevant: If a basketball team has five players and one fouls out. Does this mean the player fouling out hurt the team by 1/5th? No. Same thing with 1/13th. Not an appropriate measurement - it's larger than 1/13th.

Also, the theory that we play by is that these are STUDENT-athletes, not basketball players. Sitting out one year doesn't affect 100% of his year - it ENHANCES his student's academic experience.
--------------

If you guys want to change the entire landscape of college basketball, go ahead. But until then your arguments and reasoning should not ignore the academic side of things.

Quote from: Jay Bee on June 13, 2013, 06:32:43 PM
Extreme example, but it's relevant: If a basketball team has five players and one fouls out. Does this mean the player fouling out hurt the team by 1/5th? No. Same thing with 1/13th. Not an appropriate measurement - it's larger than 1/13th.

Also, the theory that we play by is that these are STUDENT-athletes, not basketball players. Sitting out one year doesn't affect 100% of his year - it ENHANCES his student's academic experience.
--------------

If you guys want to change the entire landscape of college basketball, go ahead. But until then your arguments and reasoning should not ignore the academic side of things.

If it such an enhancement for the player, why don't we give them the option to sit out the year?

Quote from: Benny B on June 13, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
It unduly penalizes coaches... meaning it penalizes coaches more than is necessary.

I'm not saying it penalizes every coach or that coaches and athletes are penalized equally, but if you're a coach that plays by the rules, what's fair about having a recruit barred from transferring to your school simply because the former coach is exacting spite (see Uthoff, Jared).

?-(  That's it?  You analyzed the Jared Utoff situation and concluded that the person being penalized was the coach of Iowa State?  That's really grasping at straws there.  Is that best example you can come up with to show that coaches are unfairly penalized when players transfer?

Quote from: TJ on June 13, 2013, 09:13:13 PM
?-(  That's it?  You analyzed the Jared Utoff situation and concluded that the person being penalized was the coach of Iowa State?  That's really grasping at straws there.  Is that best example you can come up with to show that coaches are unfairly penalized when players transfer?

It's not about Iowa State or Uthoff specifically... the point is that Jared Uthoff's situation is not one that is uncommon in D-I sports today.  What if Rotnei Clark wanted to transfer to MU, but had to "settle" for Butler because Arkansas wouldn't let him go to a BCS school.  Not only would Buzz have been screwed out of a prized transfer, both Rotnei and Buzz also very likely got screwed out of a Maui Invite title and a Final Four last year.

Two other examples:

1) A prized four- or five-star wants to play at school.  However, school is already at 13 schollies.  Coach decides not to oversign.  Recruit signs with other school during fall period.  A player transfers in May.  Coach's only option is to offer a no-star or walk-on.

2) Coach is recruiting two elite players, has only one scholarship to give.  Coach decides to sign recruit A.  Recruit B then signs with another school.  Someone transfers at southern school.  Coach Calamari from southern school starts recruiting A despite NLI being in-place.  Recruit A asks for release from NLI and goes to other school.

In either option above, the coach gets screwed either by playing by the rules or by another coach not playing by the rules.  That's plenty incentive for a coach to break the rules, and when coaches start breaking the rules, the players start getting screwed.  Players that get screwed then have to take measures to protect themselves, and end up screwing other players and coaches.  That's a broken system.

Quote from: Benny B on June 14, 2013, 10:22:00 AM
That's plenty incentive for a coach to break the rules, and when coaches start breaking the rules, the players start getting screwed...That's a broken system.

No, that's not a broken system. That is cheating.

Quote from: Jay Bee on June 14, 2013, 10:27:28 AM
No, that's not a broken system. That is cheating.

Tomayto, tomahto.  The system encourages cheating.  If you can't get a fair shake by playing by the rules, the system is broken.

Not to mention, we're currently living in a time where the NCAA's enforcement staff is a bunch of interns.

Quote from: Benny B on June 14, 2013, 10:22:00 AM
It's not about Iowa State or Uthoff specifically... the point is that Jared Uthoff's situation is not one that is uncommon in D-I sports today.  What if Rotnei Clark wanted to transfer to MU, but had to "settle" for Butler because Arkansas wouldn't let him go to a BCS school.  Not only would Buzz have been screwed out of a prized transfer, both Rotnei and Buzz also very likely got screwed out of a Maui Invite title and a Final Four last year.

In your scenario, I don't see Buzz as having been screwed out of anything.  Clark is getting screwed by Arkansas and that's it.  The 60 coaches that would have tried to get him aren't losing anything.  I'm really not sure how to even discuss this because it's crazy to me that you can compare the hypothetical screw-job Clark has gotten in your scenario by being restricted from transferring to virtually every single major university around the country to the hypothetical minor disappointment for Buzz that he never really even noticed 2 years ago and has long since forgotten about - and discuss them as if they are on the same level.

Your examples are 0) screwing the player exclusively and I don't understand how you are arguing otherwise, 1) an unfortunate result of the fact that roster space is limited and simply part of the coaches job, and 2) cheating.

Quote from: TJ on June 14, 2013, 12:52:28 PM
In your scenario, I don't see Buzz as having been screwed out of anything.  Clark is getting screwed by Arkansas and that's it.  The 60 coaches that would have tried to get him aren't losing anything.  I'm really not sure how to even discuss this because it's crazy to me that you can compare the hypothetical screw-job Clark has gotten in your scenario by being restricted from transferring to virtually every single major university around the country to the hypothetical minor disappointment for Buzz that he never really even noticed 2 years ago and has long since forgotten about - and discuss them as if they are on the same level.

Your examples are 0) screwing the player exclusively and I don't understand how you are arguing otherwise, 1) an unfortunate result of the fact that roster space is limited and simply part of the coaches job, and 2) cheating.

Dude.... you're provoking an argument where none exists.  I made it quite clear that I am not comparing the level of "screw-job," I'm merely stating that the parties are getting screwed more than they should.  If you want to argue about who's getting the bigger screw, I'm not your adversary.

If anything I think it encourages coaches to recruit players who are likely to stay and fit their system. Each spot becomes more valuable and each player becomes more valuable. You are right, if coaches run off players by being dicks like Rice or over promising minutes they deserve to be penalized. Keep the players happy and develop them and you won't have a problem. Stricter transfer rules will stop players from just leaving for no reason.