Laugh you might but I think NCAA would have the best situation if it limited teams to 8 full scholarship players, with the rest being walk ons. This team has all engaged, seems totally happy with playing time and their situation. If all teams had the same you would have 400 less transfers per year, walk ons would be relied on for injuries, etc. Walk on quality would be great. As with other sports Abe you would have a couple of extra scholarships that are partials.
Each team would also save a couple hundred K per year.
No. Teams would kick players off far more often as people who didn't live up to expectation would be occupying a coveted position.
The walk on quality would not improve. You would just spread talent out further. Kids aren't just going to decide to pay tuition when they can get a scholarship elsewhere. It would also create an unfair advantage to low tuition schools as walk ons wouldn't have to pay as much.
It would only save money on paper, the marginal cost of an athlete is near zero.
So we pay a coach $2 to $3 million a year. Fly the team on a private jet and then limit to 8? The money we save is a rounding error.
Most top quality players cannot afford to walk-on. Transfers are not a problem, they are healthy. 18 to 20 year old kids need to go where they are wanted.
We should go the other way, to 15, not backwards to 8. And pay them!
It would also keep thousands of kids from going to college. Do you really think guys 9-13 could all afford to walk on? No way this would happen, and thank god because it would show a complete lack of caring about the kids this whole thing is supposed to be about.
I think there are not enough scholarships. Would prefer to see 15 . The walk on concept in basketball is simply not affordable for the vast majority of kids. The kids who are not playing either stay because they value the school experience or they transfer to the right fit for the sport. In either case it should be their choice not forced on them by a coach .
I can't stand that they do the walk ons in football at the state schools. Completely disingenuous when they have starters who are walk ons.
I think the NCAA is misguided in many ways.
No offense, but idiotic idea.
Did you smoke a crack pipe before coming up with this?
Perhaps the the NCAA should increase it to 15 so some students who are not NBA caliber athletes can get an education which is what this is all really about. How many basketball players actually succeed after basketball? Not many; but the few that do get their degrees are happy they have it. Here is an article about our own Joe Fulce.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/us/ncaa-basketball-graduation/
They could probably reduce the number of NCAA football scholarships. Isn't it something like 80+ scholarships per year?
This also does not account for several factors:
1) Kids get injured during the year. Fans expect consistent quality of play and with replacing injuries with walk-ons, the talent goes way down. That in turn, drives fans and intrest away.
2) Staging classes will be difficult. Any coach wants a mix of youthful freshmen and sophomores as well as mature juniors and seniors. Two per year will be light by most standards.
3) When the Hillbilly was with us, we routinely went 10 deep on our roster. Lot of kids got a good chance to play and show their stuff. The season is long and as the Hillbilly showed, that kind of depth can make a huge difference in March, when it matters.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on December 29, 2014, 07:00:51 AM
They could probably reduce the number of NCAA football scholarships. Isn't it something like 80+ scholarships per year?
85 for FBS. 63 in FCS. But football is very different than basketball. You have 22 starters, plus the injury rate is higher, plus most kids need a year in the program to physically be able to play the sport.
I think 8 scholarships is way too few. Think about what happens with injuries. Marquette could be in a world of hurt this year if just one of its players misses significant time due to injury.
But I also think 15 is too many. We have transfer issues now due to lack of playing time with 13 scholarship players. Adding two additional is just going to make that worse.
All good points but 13 certainly breeds discontent. Idiotic? Thanks.
I agree with all the above. Reducing to 8 prevents a lot of players from attending college, injuries can derail a season in a hurry, and NBA defections or transfers (they'd still happen under the 8 schollie rule) could make it hard to field a team the following year. Plus practice quality is worse. The 8 schollie players would practice either 5 on 3+2 walk-ons or 4+1 walk-on vs 4+1 walk-on. The 5 on 3 model would mean 2 scollie players aren't being challenged while 4 on 4 means your 5 starters can never practice together and form chemistry.
13 may breed discontent but even if that leads to a less than full roster, there is no reason to start short handed to begin with. And going 8 may not solve PT issues either. Someone could still be unhappy. This proposal is trying to fix a problem that doesn't need fixing. Yeah, there are a lot of transfers but there is nothing wrong with a little basketball Darwinism. The top players play and the others can find PT elsewhere with a transfer opportunity.
Quote from: Lazars Headband on December 29, 2014, 09:37:27 AM
I agree with all the above. Reducing to 8 prevents a lot of players from attending college, injuries can derail a season in a hurry, and NBA defections or transfers (they'd still happen under the 8 schollie rule) could make it hard to field a team the following year. Plus practice quality is worse. The 8 schollie players would practice either 5 on 3+2 walk-ons or 4+1 walk-on vs 4+1 walk-on. The 5 on 3 model would mean 2 scollie players aren't being challenged while 4 on 4 means your 5 starters can never practice together and form chemistry.
13 may breed discontent but even if that leads to a less than full roster, there is no reason to start short handed to begin with. And going 8 may not solve PT issues either. Someone could still be unhappy. This proposal is trying to fix a problem that doesn't need fixing. Yeah, there are a lot of transfers but there is nothing wrong with a little basketball Darwinism. The top players play and the others can find PT elsewhere with a transfer opportunity.
I agree with you and actually believe
more transfers should be encouraged. Let players move around and find their best possible situation. With this in mind ...
Put a ceiling on non-injury minutes allowing a player to transfer without sitting out. (non-injury means you suit up for the game). An example (explanation purposes only) Say you are in uniform for at least 80% of games and play less than 5 minutes a game, you can transfer without sitting out. Or if you play
less than 150 minutes in a season (again, not counting injury), you can transfer with out sitting. Yeah some details need to be ironed out but hopefully you get the general idea/concept.
The purpose is to let high D1 schools take a flayer on marginal kids (especially if you expand to 15) and let the back of the bench move on to a school more suitable to their skills. No one is going to miss the back of the bench and they are going to be happier with a program better suited for their skills.
I have always advocated one "free" transfer per college career, with the caveat that you can't play in the same season for two different teams. The free transfer allows a player to play immediately without having to sit a year.
No messy waiver process.
Any transfer after that requires a year to sit with no exceptions.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 29, 2014, 10:26:09 AM
I have always advocated one "free" transfer per college career, with the caveat that you can't play in the same season for two different teams. The free transfer allows a player to play immediately without having to sit a year.
No messy waiver process.
Any transfer after that requires a year to sit with no exceptions.
Sounds good to me.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 29, 2014, 10:26:09 AM
I have always advocated one "free" transfer per college career, with the caveat that you can't play in the same season for two different teams. The free transfer allows a player to play immediately without having to sit a year.
No messy waiver process.
Any transfer after that requires a year to sit with no exceptions.
I like it buy how do you respond to this idea ... it means players are constantly hounded and recruited by other programs even in college.
If we had a "one free transfer" rule and you spotted Fred Hoiberg in your town, talking with a player (or his parents) doesn't that continue with the chaos?
Do programs specialize in "going after" breakout freshman with cash and boosters?
If your answer is a free market/libertarian answer of "let the market decide" than why only one transfer? Why not unlimited?
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 29, 2014, 10:47:07 AM
I like it buy how do you respond to this idea ... it means players are constantly hounded and recruited by other programs even in college.
If we had a "one free transfer" rule and you spotted Fred Hoiberg in your town, talking with a player (or his parents) doesn't that continue with the chaos?
Do programs specialize in "going after" breakout freshman with cash and boosters?
If your answer is a free market/libertarian answer of "let the market decide" than why only one transfer? Why not unlimited?
I tend to believe the one-year residency requirement was put into place not so much to discourage students from transferring but to discourage coaches from "poaching" from other programs. Eliminating the residency would effectively turn every other program in D-I into a farm team for the blue-bloods. Guys like Calipari wouldn't have to recruit unproven HS players anymore... he could simply recruit proven underclassmen off the All-American list.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 29, 2014, 10:47:07 AM
I like it buy how do you respond to this idea ... it means players are constantly hounded and recruited by other programs even in college.
If we had a "one free transfer" rule and you spotted Fred Hoiberg in your town, talking with a player (or his parents) doesn't that continue with the chaos?
Do programs specialize in "going after" breakout freshman with cash and boosters?
If your answer is a free market/libertarian answer of "let the market decide" than why only one transfer? Why not unlimited?
Because I like to temper my free market thinking within boundaries.
Quote from: Benny B on December 29, 2014, 12:15:16 PM
I tend to believe the one-year residency requirement was put into place not so much to discourage students from transferring but to discourage coaches from "poaching" from other programs. Eliminating the residency would effectively turn every other program in D-I into a farm team for the blue-bloods. Guys like Calipari wouldn't have to recruit unproven HS players anymore... he could simply recruit proven underclassmen off the All-American list.
Yep. He could. So could Marquette.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 29, 2014, 12:19:23 PM
Yep. He could. So could Marquette.
Theoretically, so could IUPUI. But is anyone going to be worried about losing their breakout freshman to a team with four official colors?
Teams like Marquette (i.e. not quite blue-blood, but those in the second-tier) would stand to lose a lot more from elimination of residency than it would gain. Because we're in the second-tier, MU's success is highly reliant upon finding diamonds in the rough, not diamonds in the stone... MU does all the work to find an unheralded kid who turns into an all-conference player only to have UCLA, UK, KU or the like snatch them away. But sure, MU could then poach from the IUPUI's of the world... that's a great consolation prize!
Kyle O'Quinn comes to mind immediately. How many teams would have poached him away from NFSU after his junior year. Same thing with Stephan Curry. Think of all the tourney upsets that don't happen because the top players from those 11-15 seeds were poached.
Quote from: Benny B on December 29, 2014, 12:44:00 PM
Theoretically, so could IUPUI. But is anyone going to be worried about losing their breakout freshman to a team with four official colors?
Teams like Marquette (i.e. not quite blue-blood, but those in the second-tier) would stand to lose a lot more from elimination of residency than it would gain. Because we're in the second-tier, MU's success is highly reliant upon finding diamonds in the rough, not diamonds in the stone... MU does all the work to find an unheralded kid who turns into an all-conference player only to have UCLA, UK, KU or the like snatch them away. But sure, MU could then poach from the IUPUI's of the world... that's a great consolation prize!
Kyle O'Quinn comes to mind immediately. How many teams would have poached him away from NFSU after his junior year. Same thing with Stephan Curry. Think of all the tourney upsets that don't happen because the top players from those 11-15 seeds were poached.
Oh well...
Really I care more about the player's and their interest in transferring and playing than I do about a mid-major losing a player.
perfect thread after crean's brother-in-law is reportedly going to ink $8 million a year to coach college kids in a state where public education institutions are taking on huge budget cuts due to economic woes mostly out of its control. give teams 15 scholarships (not really sure how it would effect parity), more kids go to school, more four-year players, give them one free transfer without having to sit, give them free education for life at the school they played for (and any school for which they meet entrance requirements)...give them a retirement savings account, give them better stipends when in school, give them a couple travel vouchers for each game for family/friends, give them a couple tuition waivers they can give to family/friends who qualify, give them better healthcare when in school, etc... obviously i haven't put much thought into it, but there is so much the NCAA could do (much at little cost) yet they refuse to do so, and it's all BS when a school offers $8 million a year to a football coach. harbaugh will be making nearly twice as much as the average NFL head coach makes...and the bill is paid for by taxpayers and students, on the backs of players.
we put salary caps and max contracts in place on players all the time....time to do it on coaches at all levels. people debate transfers on this thread all the time...if a kid has a good year and can get to a better school he has to sit for a year...if a coach does the same he gets a pay raise while the players have to deal with a new coach. utterly ridiculous.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 29, 2014, 12:55:04 PM
Oh well...
Really I care more about the player's and their interest in transferring and playing than I do about a mid-major losing a player.
Well... if it were about tipping the system more towards the players' interests, then I would suggest doing so in the context of a four-year scholarship, i.e. if a coach signs you to a four-year schollie and decides to "release" you before you matriculate, then you get a free transfer. If you decide to transfer on your own, you sit for a year.
The primary benefit here that differentiates it from the current system is that if you're released, you can stay put and finish school on scholarship (even if you're no longer on the team) in lieu of transferring; the schollie wouldn't count towards the school's NCAA max, but the school itself is still on the hook for the cost. Sure, this might not be the most preferable option for a guy who might want (and actually has a chance) to play in the league some day, but for the tens of thousands of student-athletes who don't go pro, that'd be a pretty nice safety net to have.
Quote from: Benny B on December 29, 2014, 03:56:53 PM
Well... if it were about tipping the system more towards the players' interests, then I would suggest doing so in the context of a four-year scholarship, i.e. if a coach signs you to a four-year schollie and decides to "release" you before you matriculate, then you get a free transfer. If you decide to transfer on your own, you sit for a year.
I think this would be completely unworkable.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 29, 2014, 03:59:37 PM
I think this would be completely unworkable.
And I believe such to be the case with eliminating residency. It may very well be the case that the nature of the system itself is what stands in the way of improving the system.
Since the Big 4 conferences will start dictating all governance of the NCAA, the Big E should star leading the gang of lesser with out of the box thinking and schemes to create parity or superiority at least in basketball.
The rich will rule. Start figuring out ways to profitably compete. If it means tightening budgets to increase academic scholarships, so be it.
Quote from: WarhawkWarrior on December 29, 2014, 04:19:18 PM
Since the Big 4 conferences will start dictating all governance of the NCAA, the Big E should star leading the gang of lesser with out of the box thinking and schemes to create parity or superiority at least in basketball.
The rich will rule. Start figuring out ways to profitably compete. If it means tightening budgets to increase academic scholarships, so be it.
Well they still have to operate within the constructs of the NCAA. Nevermind the fact that you can't outspend those who make more money than you do.
The Big East is fine right now. There is no need for "schemes" that cost a lot of money.
Quote from: WarhawkWarrior on December 29, 2014, 04:19:18 PM
Since the Big 4 conferences will start dictating all governance of the NCAA, the Big E should star leading the gang of lesser with out of the box thinking and schemes to create parity or superiority at least in basketball.
The rich will rule. Start figuring out ways to profitably compete. If it means tightening budgets to increase academic scholarships, so be it.
See also: Gavitt Tipoff Games vs the Big Ten.
Quote from: WarhawkWarrior on December 29, 2014, 04:19:18 PM
Since the Big 4 conferences will start dictating all governance of the NCAA, the Big E should star leading the gang of lesser with out of the box thinking and schemes to create parity or superiority at least in basketball.
The rich will rule. Start figuring out ways to profitably compete. If it means tightening budgets to increase academic scholarships, so be it.
Are you suggesting schools tighten budgets to things like education so they can increase the scholarships for sports? You're out of your mind.