MUScoop

This is exactly what would happen if you didn't make regular transfers sit out a year.....it ends up killing other programs as players "trade up" to other programs.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2015/04/ncaa_college_fifth-year_transf.html

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 01:39:24 AM
This is exactly what would happen if you didn't make regular transfers sit out a year.....it ends up killing other programs as players "trade up" to other programs.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2015/04/ncaa_college_fifth-year_transf.html

There are maybe 20-40 kids on the list every year who use the rule to "move up" as the coach says. Most 5th years actually move down or sideways looking for more playing time. I know this contradicts the article but I tracked every grad transfer last year and this year. The article is wrong. With such a low number "abusing" the rule, I am ok with it.

Quote from: TAMU Lee on April 16, 2015, 07:40:18 AM
There are maybe 20-40 kids on the list every year who use the rule to "move up" as the coach says. Most 5th years actually move down or sideways looking for more playing time. I know this contradicts the article but I tracked every grad transfer last year and this year. The article is wrong. With such a low number "abusing" the rule, I am ok with it.

But I think to Chico's point, you would have a ton more players looking to "move up" if there was no requirement to sit out a year.  You would probably have just as many "moving down" to either get more playing time, especially as spots are taken up by those "moving up".

Ipso facto, transferring would be even more out of control than it is today.

It's a rule that rewards players for playing well and graduating in four years.  But of course mid-major coaches view that as "bad business." 

My heart weeps. 

Quote from: WarriorInNYLee on April 16, 2015, 07:57:23 AM
But I think to Chico's point, you would have a ton more players looking to "move up" if there was no requirement to sit out a year.  You would probably have just as many "moving down" to either get more playing time, especially as spots are taken up by those "moving up".

Ipso facto, transferring would be even more out of control than it is today.

I'm not talking about regular transfers. Just the the graduate transfer rule

It bugs me that people call this a transfer. It is really transferring if you GRADUATE and then enroll at another institution to pursue your master's degree?

Everyone should be proud that the student-athlete graduated and they should be able to enroll at whatever school they want to as their reward.

Quote from: speri on April 16, 2015, 08:30:25 AM
It bugs me that people call this a transfer. It is really transferring if you GRADUATE and then enroll at another institution to pursue your master's degree?

Everyone should be proud that the student-athlete graduated and they should be able to enroll at whatever school they want to as their reward.

Great point.  I also transferred after graduating from Marquette, four year of eligibility still intact.  Funny, U of C somehow never asked about it or utilized them.  Crazy, I know.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 16, 2015, 08:21:10 AM
It's a rule that rewards players for playing well and graduating in four years.  But of course mid-major coaches view that as "bad business." 

My heart weeps. 

Yep. Exactly one class of student-athletes -- those smart and dedicated enough to graduate early -- has the upper hand. Nevertheless, the poor, abused, multimillionaire coaches want to rein them in.

I'd laugh, but it's actually too pathetic to laugh about.

A lot of redundant heavy breathing in that piece, without much reasoning.

With all the noise around early entries, poor graduation rates, and poor academic progress, this rule is great as a reward those who not only graduate, but have eligibility remaining.  It's about them as students, not about the schools gaining or losing the player. 

Only part I'm not a fan of - I don't think it should apply to those who have already transferred.  Realize we had the benefit with Carlino.  Just don't like a Villanova providing a scholarship to Ennis for three years to get two years of playing time, while that year of sitting out is leveraged into graduating with eligibility remaining to transfer again.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 16, 2015, 08:21:10 AM
It's a rule that rewards players for playing well and graduating in four years.  But of course mid-major coaches view that as "bad business." 

My heart weeps. 

Tom Izzo is not a mid major coach....he hates the rule, says it needs to be changed.

Not sure why so many think this is just a midmajor thing.  We took two of our last 5th year students from Arizona State and BYU.  I guess you can argue BYU is in a midmajor league, but I wouldn't say they are a midmajor program.

TAMU, I'd love to see your data.


Point in my mind is this proves out what would happen in full free agency if kids didn't have to sit out a year...it disrupts teams, the very programs that took a chance on these kids in the first place, developed them, etc and then they are left high and dry.

What a coach makes, is so utterly irrelevent to the discussion I have no idea why it is mentioned at all.  The poster will have to explain that.  All kinds of things in life some people get to do that others can't....that's part of life.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
Tom Izzo is not a mid major coach....he hates the rule, says it needs to be changed.

Why do you think I care about Tom Izzo's opinion on the matter?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 09:24:03 AM
Point in my mind is this proves out what would happen in full free agency if kids didn't have to sit out a year...it disrupts teams, the very programs that took a chance on these kids in the first place, developed them, etc and then they are left high and dry.

And if they don't develop, it can be "suggested" that they look elsewhere. 

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 16, 2015, 09:38:34 AM

Why do you think I care about Tom Izzo's opinion on the matter?

Because he is one of those "multi-millionaire" coaches, as successful as any in the country, widely viewed to at least try and do the right thing. 

He isn't a midmajor coach or even a coach of a team that is losing kids to this rule.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 01:39:24 AM
This is exactly what would happen if you didn't make regular transfers sit out a year.....it ends up killing other programs as players "trade up" to other programs.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2015/04/ncaa_college_fifth-year_transf.html

When do we make coaches start sitting out a year after taking a new job?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 09:41:27 AM
Because he is one of those "multi-millionaire" coaches, as successful as any in the country, widely viewed to at least try and do the right thing.  

He isn't a midmajor coach or even a coach of a team that is losing kids to this rule.

I guess I should be more clear.  I never brought up his contract.  I only brought up mid-major coaches because they quoted one in the article.

I don't care what *any* coach thinks of the rule.  They are biased against it for a reason.  Since it is a rule that benefits solid academic and athletic performance, I think it should be kept.

Quote from: MUsoxfan on April 16, 2015, 09:49:15 AM
When do we make coaches start sitting out a year after taking a new job?

Non-sequitor.  Has nothing to do with it.  An employee has a contract with a university that grants him rights of movement or forced to pay to get out of the contract.  Student athlete signs their own contract with grant in aid.  Don't like the terms, change it.

Tell you what, if a player wants to move, fine....player should have to reimburse original university for development work they put into him, room and board, tuition.  US military academies do this if you bail out on them since they are paying your freight.

I'm all for that.  You want full freedom, pay back the school.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 16, 2015, 09:50:44 AM

I guess I should be more clear.  I never brought up his contract.  I only brought up mid-major coaches because they quoted one in the article.

I don't care what *any* coach thinks of the rule.  They are biased against it for a reason.  Since it is a rule that benefits solid academic and athletic performance, I think it should be kept.

Never said you did bring up his contract, I was adding MU82's comments.  What a coach makes has nothing to do with this.

People are always biased one way or another around any rules, that's a given. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 10:01:03 AM
Non-sequitor.  Has nothing to do with it.  An employee has a contract with a university that grants him rights of movement or forced to pay to get out of the contract.  Student athlete signs their own contract with grant in aid.  Don't like the terms, change it.

Tell you what, if a player wants to move, fine....player should have to reimburse original university for development work they put into him, room and board, tuition.  US military academies do this if you bail out on them since they are paying your freight.

I'm all for that.  You want full freedom, pay back the school.

Huh .... so a player shouldn't be compensated for the revenue he helps a school produce, but the school should be compensated for allowing the student to produce revenue for it?
That's not bass ackwards at all.

Last I checked, 100,000+ people never paid $100+ each to fill a stadium to see a West Point cadet take a class.

People graduate from small unknown schools and go to big prestigious grad schools all the time. I don't think it should be different in basketball. Those who actually helped the ncaa maintain its claim that it's about academics deserve to move up. I definitely agree with the transfer rule unless there's a coaching change.  

This is the problem I have with the article. The premise is that the 5Th year transfers are generally hurting the mid-major programs and I have no problem with that statement. Further on it talks about regular transfers. The majority of which are transferring down in competition. So the lower level programs are benefiting from these transfers and than whining about the players that transfer up.  :'(

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 10:01:03 AM
Non-sequitor.  Has nothing to do with it.  An employee has a contract with a university that grants him rights of movement or forced to pay to get out of the contract.  Student athlete signs their own contract with grant in aid.  Don't like the terms, change it.

Tell you what, if a player wants to move, fine....player should have to reimburse original university for development work they put into him, room and board, tuition.  US military academies do this if you bail out on them since they are paying your freight.

I'm all for that.  You want full freedom, pay back the school.

How exactly would you like the student athlete to change the terms of the contract, and with what funds shall they use to do the negotiation?  The NCAA and the universities should be looking out for the students but they are really looking at revenue generation and they have a captive work force they can exploit.  It's in the schools best interest to allow coaches to move freely and players to remain captive....how would you propose the players get a better deal?

I support sitting out one year on a regular transfer....with the exception of a coaching change.  If the coach leaves, so can the players(I'd be fine with a provision banning transfer to the coaches new school).  The grad transfer is one of the most common sense reforms the NCAA has deployed.  It rewards academic achievement and allows a player to better themselves.

As far as your payback for development, do coaches have to payback schools for their promotional opportunities or exposure to better opportunities?  And even the academies give you a "free year"  if you drop prior to your sophomore year you don't owe anything.

Quote from: chapman on April 16, 2015, 09:17:34 AM
With all the noise around early entries, poor graduation rates, and poor academic progress, this rule is great as a reward those who not only graduate, but have eligibility remaining.  It's about them as students, not about the schools gaining or losing the player. 

Agree 100%.

I don't see it as a mid-major/high-major thing.  I see it as an additional option for that very small percentage of student-athletes who somehow manage to play college hoops and still graduate with eligibility remaining.  

The graduate transfer rule is a good rule. Shouldn't be changed. If you have done things the right way and graduated from your institution, you should be free to move to another without waiting a year. Its that simple.

Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 16, 2015, 10:46:29 AM
The graduate transfer rule is a good rule. Shouldn't be changed. If you have done things the right way and graduated from your institution, you should be free to move to another without waiting a year. Its that simple.

Do they still have to pick a school that has a graduate program not offered by their undergrad school?  If so, I think they should change that.  If a kid graduates, he should be free to transfer wherever he wants.  I don't see any point in the charade of finding some major that the new school offers that the old school doesn't.  Reward the kid for graduating and let him study whatever he wants at his new school.

Quote from: mu03LEE on April 16, 2015, 10:37:50 AM
I support sitting out one year on a regular transfer....with the exception of a coaching change.  If the coach leaves, so can the players(I'd be fine with a provision banning transfer to the coaches new school).  The grad transfer is one of the most common sense reforms the NCAA has deployed.  It rewards academic achievement and allows a player to better themselves.

Agree with all of this.

Quote from: PakunLee on April 16, 2015, 10:08:40 AM
Huh .... so a player shouldn't be compensated for the revenue he helps a school produce, but the school should be compensated for allowing the student to produce revenue for it?
That's not bass ackwards at all.

Last I checked, 100,000+ people never paid $100+ each to fill a stadium to see a West Point cadet take a class.

So players that sit on the bench and never play for Alabama A&M who is almost never on TV and doesn't go to the tournament, they should be compensated as well? 

Question for you, does the military academies pour tremendous resources into shaping these men and women?  Yes.  Do schools pour tremendous resources into making these kids better basketball, football, soccer, golf, players?  Yes.

Did Al McGuire, or Phog Allen, or James Naismith help develop players?  Before TV revenues were in like they are today?  How about NJIT coach, or Monmoth?  Of course they did and do.  I'm offering a solution here.  Not just for 5th year transfers...if kids want to transfer and not sit out a year, then have them reimburse at least a year of that development.

I find it ironic that some complain here that the NCAA for high high level programs are being used as minor leagues for the NBA (which is the case to some degree) and yet they are just fine with high majors plucking kids off from midmajors....in this case aren't the mid-majors the "minor leagues" for the high majors?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 11:32:29 AM
So players that sit on the bench and never play for Alabama A&M who is almost never on TV and doesn't go to the tournament, they should be compensated as well?  

Sure. Or they should at least have the opportunity to seek compensation.

QuoteQuestion for you, does the military academies pour tremendous resources into shaping these men and women?  Yes.  Do schools pour tremendous resources into making these kids better basketball, football, soccer, golf, players?  Yes.

Big difference, though.
In return for these development opportunities, college athletes - particularly in revenue producing sports - provide labor from which their universities reap immediate and substantial direct and indirect benefits.
A regular student at a military academy provides no immediate benefits to the academy. The benefit - that cadet's later service as an officer - is in the future.
Therefore, it is reasonable for the academy to seek reimbursement. After all, they're not getting the benefit that was promised, and for which it invested its resources.
A college athletic department isn't waiting until a player turns pro to reap the benefit of their investment. They're getting the benefit immediately.
Hence, it's not a legitimate analogy.

Quote
I find it ironic that some complain here that the NCAA for high high level programs are being used as minor leagues for the NBA (which is the case to some degree) and yet they are just fine with high majors plucking kids off from midmajors....in this case aren't the mid-majors the "minor leagues" for the high majors?

Another bad analogy.
Every NBA team populates the large majority of its roster with players that come through the NCAA.
The large majority of NCAA teams have zero grad transfers from mid-major programs, much less build rosters around them.

I like the fact that Izzo admits to being a hypocrite on this, at least he's a straight shooter.  He hates the rule, but he's going to use if it while the rule is open.  That's a smart play.  No different than people taking tax deductions they thing are ludicrous.  Those are the rules, he's playing by the rules, but he also wants the rules to change.  He thinks it is going to harm college basketball and start to prey on other programs.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 11:47:09 AM
I like the fact that Izzo admits to being a hypocrite on this, at least he's a straight shooter.  He hates the rule, but he's going to use if it while the rule is open.  That's a smart play.  No different than people taking tax deductions they thing are ludicrous.  Those are the rules, he's playing by the rules, but he also wants the rules to change.  He thinks it is going to harm college basketball and start to prey on other programs.

Eh, it's an opinion from one coach and not a fact.  Plus he has a vested interest in wanting the rule eliminated....so if he's a hypocrite why can't he be selfish too?

Quote from: mu03LEE on April 16, 2015, 11:57:52 AM
Eh, it's an opinion from one coach and not a fact.  Plus he has a vested interest in wanting the rule eliminated....so if he's a hypocrite why can't he be selfish too?

What's his vested interest in wanting the rule eliminated?  Useful Michigan State players aren't leaving to go elsewhere.  He is one of the guys who benefits from the rule.

It is a good rule whose true intent was immediately bastardized by schools looking to get an edge.  I would rather keep the rule than remove it, though. 

As for non-graduates, I agree with the rule that the transferring player must sit out a year, but would leave a couple caveats.  I would allow an immediate eligibile transfer if a school goes on probation for reasons unrelated to the particular player or if the head coach leaves the school.  I would allow a kid to follow a fired coach, but would not allow a kid to follow a coach who left voluntarily for a different job.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 16, 2015, 09:50:44 AM

I guess I should be more clear.  I never brought up his contract.  I only brought up mid-major coaches because they quoted one in the article.

I don't care what *any* coach thinks of the rule.  They are biased against it for a reason.  Since it is a rule that benefits solid academic and athletic performance, I think it should be kept.

Exactly.

If coaches really cared about the "athlete-students," they would be in favor of a rule that rewards a student for an academic achievement that very, very few are able to accomplish.

This is a classic case of a problem that doesn't need fixing. And although I like Tom Izzo, I don't care what he or any other coach who faces no restrictions on his mobility thinks about it.

The exception does not apply if you have previously had been a 4-4 transfer, but a waiver is generally granted. Let's at least stop that forever

The NCAA has so many rules limiting student athletes.  This is like the one rule that empowers them.  They graduate in four years or less and get rewarded.  What's wrong with that?

I have no problem keeping the grad transfer rule as is but if they eliminate it, then so be it.  I'm not going to pretend it's some great academic benefit.  Many grad transfers, if not the vast majority, make their decisions based on anything but academics.  But I don't mind keeping the rule either so the option is at least there for those serious about the academic side.

Quote from: bilsu on April 16, 2015, 10:18:31 AM
This is the problem I have with the article. The premise is that the 5Th year transfers are generally hurting the mid-major programs and I have no problem with that statement. Further on it talks about regular transfers. The majority of which are transferring down in competition. So the lower level programs are benefiting from these transfers and than whining about the players that transfer up.  :'(

Especially the coach of Cleveland State complaining about Trey Lewis. CSU benefited when he transferred down from a Big 10 to a Horizon school. He has no problem with that and likely wouldn't have any problem taking a HM grad transfer, yet complains about how unfair it is when he's on the other end.

Quote from: brewcity77 on April 16, 2015, 01:26:03 PM
Especially the coach of Cleveland State complaining about Trey Lewis. CSU benefited when he transferred down from a Big 10 to a Horizon school. He has no problem with that and likely wouldn't have any problem taking a HM grad transfer, yet complains about how unfair it is when he's on the other end.

His issue is that when he took the kid in from Penn State, Cleveland State paid for it with a year of scholarship to the ineligible player.  They were expecting to get 3 years of play for 4 years of scholarship and instead got 2 years of play for 3 years of scholarship.  Louisville gets to reap the benefits of an experienced kid at his college zenith for one season with absolutely no down side for them.

Not saying that Cleveland State deserves more consideration than the kid, but CSU didn't benefit from the rule, and is not likely to ever benefit from the rule because what good player is going to transfer to Cleveland State for his 5th year?

Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 16, 2015, 10:46:29 AM
The graduate transfer rule is a good rule. Shouldn't be changed. If you have done things the right way and graduated from your institution, you should be free to move to another without waiting a year. Its that simple.

I don't disagree with idea behind it, but I fear Izzo is right that things are going to get out of hand.....they seemingly do more often.  We shall see what the NCAA does with this.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 09:41:27 AM
Because he is one of those "multi-millionaire" coaches, as successful as any in the country, widely viewed to at least try and do the right thing. 

I suspect is has to do more with limiting his competition than doing the right thing.  Izzo knows how to take HS kids and develop them. He doesn't want coaches without that particular set of skills to compensate by taking graduate transfers.

Quote from: The Equalizer on April 16, 2015, 03:06:07 PM
I suspect is has to do more with limiting his competition than doing the right thing.  Izzo knows how to take HS kids and develop them. He doesn't want coaches without that particular set of skills to compensate by taking graduate transfers.

That might be part of it, but I also think he is generally a steward of the college game and he feels that recruiting kids off of existing teams is not a good idea.


"I don't think it is a good precedent for us to set, and I don't think it's good for what we are looking to do," Michigan State men's basketball Coach Tom Izzo said in general about the rule during a recent Big Ten coaches' teleconference. "The negatives could far outweigh the positives. I really, really do believe that."

"Like it or not, desperate times means desperate measures, and we are going to be recruiting kids off other schools' campuses," Izzo said. "I just think you are putting things in kids' minds now."



He opined today on a number of issues which I hope the NBA and NCAA do sit down and start to talk this stuff through.  "Like it or not, desperate times means desperate measures, and we are going to be recruiting kids off other schools' campuses," Izzo said. "I just think you are putting things in kids' minds now."

Well, I guess I disagree with him that the graduate transfer issue is a sign of "desperate times."

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 10:01:03 AM
Non-sequitor.  Has nothing to do with it.  An employee has a contract with a university that grants him rights of movement or forced to pay to get out of the contract.  Student athlete signs their own contract with grant in aid.  Don't like the terms, change it.

Tell you what, if a player wants to move, fine....player should have to reimburse original university for development work they put into him, room and board, tuition.  US military academies do this if you bail out on them since they are paying your freight.

I'm all for that.  You want full freedom, pay back the school.

For a guy who doesn't like paying for "entitlements" for others, you sure have strong expectations that others will pay for your entitlements.

Quote from: LittleWade on April 16, 2015, 03:33:59 PM
For a guy who doesn't like paying for "entitlements" for others, you sure have strong expectations that others will pay for your entitlements.

"A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal. "

Quote from: mu03LEE on April 16, 2015, 11:57:52 AM
Eh, it's an opinion from one coach and not a fact.  Plus he has a vested interest in wanting the rule eliminated....so if he's a hypocrite why can't he be selfish too?

I'm pretty sure it's a fact that he admitted to be a hypocrite on it.  :)   He admits to being selfish about it, too.  He may have a vested interest in wanting the rule eliminated, he may also think that it's just bad ju-ju to be tampering with kids (which some coaches do) to entice them to leave for their last year.  I'm not sure why people have a hard time with this being a real cause for concern for him and other coaches because of what it will ultimately do, which is starting to tamper with kids and recruiting them in their last year. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 04:30:11 PM
I'm pretty sure it's a fact that he admitted to be a hypocrite on it.  :)   He admits to being selfish about it, too.  He may have a vested interest in wanting the rule eliminated, he may also think that it's just bad ju-ju to be tampering with kids (which some coaches do) to entice them to leave for their last year.  I'm not sure why people have a hard time with this being a real cause for concern for him and other coaches because of what it will ultimately do, which is starting to tamper with kids and recruiting them in their last year. 

Why do you care?

People come and go from all kinds of pursuits without restriction. Lots of friends from MU transferred to different schools, sometimes "trading up" to Ivies...even those who were on (gasp!) scholarship. They didn't have to pay MU back for the tuition and weren't restricted. It's ludicrous to portray universities as the victim where they benefit exponentially more from a high-performing player than the high-performing player benefits from them.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 16, 2015, 03:16:43 PM
Well, I guess I disagree with him that the graduate transfer issue is a sign of "desperate times."

Exactly. Scare tactics do not become Mr. Izzo. College sports as we know it have far more problems going forward than the existence of this rule.

You and I have a scary level of agreement on this issue, Sultan!

Quote from: brewcity77 on April 16, 2015, 01:26:03 PM
Especially the coach of Cleveland State complaining about Trey Lewis. CSU benefited when he transferred down from a Big 10 to a Horizon school. He has no problem with that and likely wouldn't have any problem taking a HM grad transfer, yet complains about how unfair it is when he's on the other end.

But that kid had to sit out a year to transfer down.  In other words, the kid had to make a very disciplined decision that came with a ramification.  For a grad transfer, no such ramification exists.  There is a significant difference between the two.

Quote from: Babybluejeans on April 16, 2015, 04:39:11 PM
Why do you care?

People come and go from all kinds of pursuits without restriction. Lots of friends from MU transferred to different schools, sometimes "trading up" to Ivies...even those who were on (gasp!) scholarship. They didn't have to pay MU back for the tuition and weren't restricted. It's ludicrous to portray universities as the victim where they benefit exponentially more from a high-performing player than the high-performing player benefits from them.

Because regular students are paying to be developed, not the other way around.  Your comparison is silly. Scholarship athletes are being developed on the university's dime.  They are putting significant resources into these kids, I don't find it ludicrous at all that they want to protect that investment of time, money, etc. 

I care because of the tampering issue. It's only going to make the underbelly even seedier. 

Quote from: MU82 on April 16, 2015, 04:52:09 PM
Exactly. Scare tactics do not become Mr. Izzo. College sports as we know it have far more problems going forward than the existence of this rule.

You and I have a scary level of agreement on this issue, Sultan!

Which Mr. Izzo addresses in the link I provided.  Many things wrong with college sports, this is just one of many that he is concerned about.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 04:56:18 PM
But that kid had to sit out a year to transfer down.  In other words, the kid had to make a very disciplined decision that came with a ramification.  For a grad transfer, no such ramification exists.  There is a significant difference between the two.

They still benefit from the year the kid spent at the high-major school. And thinking that all transfers are "a very disciplined decision" is massive overstatement. The transfer list is over 460, my guess is not all of these are marginally disciplined, much less very disciplined.

Further, there have been quite a few mentions on Twitter that of these transfers, more than half are not the student-athlete's decision. For whatever reason, the staff doesn't want them. So the staffs can force the kids out, but the kids can't make the decision to move on of their own accord?

Everyone knows the system. When you take a player that sits out a year, you know there is the chance he will be eligible to move on as a graduate transfer. No one is being blindsided by this. If you don't want this to happen to your program, don't take transfers, don't use redshirts. Problem solved.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 01:39:24 AM
This is exactly what would happen if you didn't make regular transfers sit out a year.....it ends up killing other programs as players "trade up" to other programs.

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2015/04/ncaa_college_fifth-year_transf.html

This is one of the few rules that actually benefit a student athlete so I think it is a good thing. Most evidence points in the opposite direction of the article.

Quote from: LittleWade on April 16, 2015, 03:33:59 PM
For a guy who doesn't like paying for "entitlements" for others, you sure have strong expectations that others will pay for your entitlements.

I said many times, I'm 100% socialist when it comes to sports.

Quote from: brewcity77 on April 16, 2015, 05:24:48 PM
They still benefit from the year the kid spent at the high-major school. And thinking that all transfers are "a very disciplined decision" is massive overstatement. The transfer list is over 460, my guess is not all of these are marginally disciplined, much less very disciplined.

Further, there have been quite a few mentions on Twitter that of these transfers, more than half are not the student-athlete's decision. For whatever reason, the staff doesn't want them. So the staffs can force the kids out, but the kids can't make the decision to move on of their own accord?

Everyone knows the system. When you take a player that sits out a year, you know there is the chance he will be eligible to move on as a graduate transfer. No one is being blindsided by this. If you don't want this to happen to your program, don't take transfers, don't use redshirts. Problem solved.

Let's put it another way, that transfer list of 460 would be 3X that if they didn't have to sit out a year, thus it is disciplined to the point they have to understand what it means, what the ramifications are.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 04:58:04 PM
Because regular students are paying to be developed, not the other way around.  Your comparison is silly. Scholarship athletes are being developed on the university's dime.  They are putting significant resources into these kids, I don't find it ludicrous at all that they want to protect that investment of time, money, etc. 

I care because of the tampering issue. It's only going to make the underbelly even seedier. 

By your logic, scholarship students should be penalized for transferring to a different school. At least with an athlete that performs well and leaves, the school got a tangible return on the investment. A student, hardly. Yet no reasonable person would argue a student should be limited from a transfer.

In virtually every other facet of life people can trade up or down as they choose. It's often the motivation and reward for good performance. But college athletes should be subjected to a different standard? Because universities may lose money otherwise? It's illogical and, time will demonstrate, untenable.

Quote from: brewcity77 on April 16, 2015, 05:24:48 PM


Everyone knows the system. When you take a player that sits out a year, you know there is the chance he will be eligible to move on as a graduate transfer. No one is being blindsided by this. If you don't want this to happen to your program, don't take transfers, don't use redshirts. Problem solved.

Someone can correct me, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to be in your 4th year to do this and you also don't have to be redshirted previously either.  Players have done this after 3 years, no sitting.  If you have completed your degree and "graduated" and your school doesn't have that graduate program, you can change.  I think.  Feel free to correct me.

FCS coaches weigh in    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/12/fcs-coach-montana-state-rob-ash-lobbies-to-end-ncaas-graduate-transfer-rule/


Coach K certainly doesn't like it, calls it a farce....clearly Wojo as pupil doesn't agree.  Alford and a few others weigh in as well. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/29/sports/la-sp-0130-college-basketball-graduates-20140130  


I find it rather interesting that the Michigan State, Duke, UCLA coaches are against this.  It's not like they would lose a player late in the game to another school to a graduate transfer.  Doesn't really impact them IMO.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 07:38:09 PM
Someone can correct me, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to be in your 4th year to do this and you also don't have to be redshirted previously either.  Players have done this after 3 years, no sitting.  If you have completed your degree and "graduated" and your school doesn't have that graduate program, you can change.  I think.  Feel free to correct me.

You are almost correct, but it's less restrictive than you think: the "your school doesn't have that graduate program" isn't a requirement. Under a scenario (Trent Lockett is an example) where a kid has met all degree requirements for graduation (but prior not have to have received a degree is OK, interestingly), he qualifies for the graduate transfer exception. Whether he did it in 4 years, didn't play a year, did it in 2 years, 3, etc.. doesn't matter.




FCS coaches weigh in    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/12/fcs-coach-montana-state-rob-ash-lobbies-to-end-ncaas-graduate-transfer-rule/

Quote from: ChicosCoach K certainly doesn't like it, calls it a farce....clearly Wojo as pupil doesn't agree.  Alford and a few others weigh in as well. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/29/sports/la-sp-0130-college-basketball-graduates-20140130  

I find it rather interesting that the Michigan State, Duke, UCLA coaches are against this.  It's not like they would lose a player late in the game to another school to a graduate transfer.  Doesn't really impact them IMO.

I think you're confused or just playing around - you know better than to take what a coach says at face value and word-for-word truth. Think of many Americans - they don't like many laws and are disturbed by them... but they may still utilize them when advantageous to themselves. No different for some of these coaches. Think back to last offseason.. Octeus and UCLA.

I am "against the rules" of graduate transfers (especially the waiver), but as long as it's there I'm fine with teams taking advantage of it.

Now, the thing to remember is that there are two different things - a graduate transfer EXCEPTION and a graduate transfer WAIVER. Many times the traditional media will report on a graduate transfer who previously made a 4-4 transfer and therefore is not eligible for the EXCEPTION as a "done deal" to be immediately eligible. This is not true - with a few exceptions, these types have ultimately been granted a graduate transfer WAIVER to be immediately eligible, but an exception and waiver are different things with different requirements.

The new legislation carved out graduate transfers... they are not affected is my understanding.

However, the NCAA will continue to look at transfer "issues" and my hope is that at least the graduate transfer WAIVER is the next to fall - but would be fine with the EXCEPTION going away too. Give the graduate transfers an extra year on their clock. In a scenario where a kid goes to grad school at a new school, give 'em two years to complete the degree - one sitting out, one playing.

Otherwise, you've just got a bunch of kids taking 6 credits in grad per semester, then dropping out of the program after a year (or a little less than a year). It's about the education, right? If true, then change the damn rule. But it's more about perception/numbers... so until the masses start talking about the crappy graduate transfer dropout rate, it's not as important to address.

Once a kid gives a verbal commitment, even if he's only in 9th grade, he should be bound to that school forever. Even if the coach leaves, even if there's a series of deaths in his family, even if the school drops sports, whatever, he can never leave. Because it's about protecting the integrity of the system.

And then, after his eligibility is up, he must tithe 40% of whatever he makes to the school -- regardless of whether he becomes a pro athlete or a guy who hands out the fries (at $10.10 an effen hour; talk about ruining America!).

Oh, and he needs to tithe another 40% to the coach because, well, how is a poor schlub of a coach supposed to get by on the $4 million he got from School A, the $8 million he got from School B and the $17.5 million he got from School C over a five-year span?

Sure the coach jumped around a little, but nobody ever said the system was supposed to be "fair." I mean, what is "fair," anyway? And besides, it's not as if the coach ever preached loyalty and brotherhood and "team" to his players.

Because, see, coaches can say anything and nobody really needs to take what they say at face value. Unless they're discussing how the grad transfer rule must go. That we should take at face value.

Quote from: MU82 on April 16, 2015, 09:50:06 PM
Once a kid gives a verbal commitment, even if he's only in 9th grade, he should be bound to that school forever. Even if the coach leaves, even if there's a series of deaths in his family, even if the school drops sports, whatever, he can never leave. Because it's about protecting the integrity of the system.

And then, after his eligibility is up, he must tithe 40% of whatever he makes to the school -- regardless of whether he becomes a pro athlete or a guy who hands out the fries (at $10.10 an effen hour; talk about ruining America!).

Oh, and he needs to tithe another 40% to the coach because, well, how is a poor schlub of a coach supposed to get by on the $4 million he got from School A, the $8 million he got from School B and the $17.5 million he got from School C over a five-year span?

Sure the coach jumped around a little, but nobody ever said the system was supposed to be "fair." I mean, what is "fair," anyway? And besides, it's not as if the coach ever preached loyalty and brotherhood and "team" to his players.

Because, see, coaches can say anything and nobody really needs to take what they say at face value. Unless they're discussing how the grad transfer rule must go. That we should take at face value.

Hear, hear.

Kids make a decision that looks like it's in their best interest when they are 17 years old. They go to school for (usually) four years, graduate, and want to play one year somewhere else and should be penalized? Whether it's to improve their draft stock, overseas options, or just to get playing time at a lower level school, they did what they were supposed to do. They got their degree and should be given options on how they wish to further their careers, whether that is their academic or athletic career.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time feeling bad for these coaches that for the most part use these kids as stepping stones to bigger and better jobs. If Bill Self took the OKC job and for some reason Kansas offered their job to Gary Waters, he would climb over a pile of writhing college kids to get to Lawrence and no one would bat an eye, yet we're supposed to bleed our hearts for him because his best players applied themselves in the classroom and on the court to better their own situation?

Give me a break. The kids worked for the chance to better their situation. You benefited from that work. Let them make their own decisions, don't handcuff them to a school they already graduated from.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 06:14:47 PM
I said many times, I'm 100% socialist when it comes to sports.

No, you are an oligarchist.

Anytime there is an issue that pits those with power versus those without power, you land on the side of the former pretty much every time.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 17, 2015, 08:10:21 AM

No, you are an oligarchist.

Anytime there is an issue that pits those with power versus those without power, you land on the side of the former pretty much every time.

(https://mmcneuro.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the-natural-home-run-o.gif)

Pay for play would fix this issue right up.

I know a lot of you aren't going to like it.......

It's coming.  Izzo, Coach K, small  program coaches, etc, support the change


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/division-chief-puts-transfer-rules-priority-list-185137288--ncaab.html

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 26, 2015, 09:33:13 PM
I know a lot of you aren't going to like it.......

It's coming.  Izzo, Coach K, small  program coaches, etc, support the change


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/division-chief-puts-transfer-rules-priority-list-185137288--ncaab.html

''No one is happy with the transfer rate, particularly in the sport of men's basketball,'' Lennon said. ''When 40 percent of your students are leaving after their second year, that's a signal something's wrong.''

But obviously, nothing is wrong with the universities or administrations, something is wrong with those gosh darn students who don't know what's best for themselves.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 17, 2015, 08:10:21 AM

No, you are an oligarchist.

Anytime there is an issue that pits those with power versus those without power, you land on the side of the former pretty much every time.

Anytime...pretty much every time.  Make up your mind.

You are also incorrect.  Sports has a limited talent pool, unlike the pool that can flip burgers.  You are trying to cross over an economics discussion with a political analogy. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 26, 2015, 09:33:13 PM
I know a lot of you aren't going to like it.......

It's coming.  Izzo, Coach K, small  program coaches, etc, support the change


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/division-chief-puts-transfer-rules-priority-list-185137288--ncaab.html

Yep.  The powerful coaches are going to get their way again, and Chicos is all on board.

Quote from: Chicago_inferiority_complexes on April 27, 2015, 08:21:59 AM
''No one is happy with the transfer rate, particularly in the sport of men's basketball,'' Lennon said. ''When 40 percent of your students are leaving after their second year, that's a signal something's wrong.''

But they are doing *nothing* different for students after their second year.  They are talking about limiting the movement of graduate transfers - you know - the guys that actually were successful in school and have a degree to show for it.

Unbelievable.  

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 08:50:02 AM
Anytime...pretty much every time.  Make up your mind.

You are also incorrect.  Sports has a limited talent pool, unlike the pool that can flip burgers.  You are trying to cross over an economics discussion with a political analogy. 

Oligarchy is an economics definition as well.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 27, 2015, 08:54:06 AM

Oligarchy is an economics definition as well.

Correct, but you are using it incorrectly in this case.

I can't think of a sports league or conference that doesn't have a hierarchy of control.  They set the rules, the guidelines, etc.  It's called order.  Because one supports SOME of the rules or guidelines they are making does not mean one supports ALL of what they are doing.  Nevertheless, that control structure is needed or chaos ensues.   

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 27, 2015, 08:53:46 AM
Yep.  The powerful coaches are going to get their way again, and Chicos is all on board.



But they are doing *nothing* different for students after their second year.  They are talking about limiting the movement of graduate transfers - you know - the guys that actually were successful in school and have a degree to show for it.

Unbelievable.  

Yes, those powerful mid major coaches that are mentioned in this article and in this thread.  Nothing screams power than the head coach at Drexel that if you gave 100 sports fans 1 minute to name who he was and spotted them the first letter of the coaches name, likely 95% or higher couldn't do it.  Power baby.   Or the coach at Belmont.  So on and so forther.

Unbelievable is that they are trying to prevent the 1% from destroying middle class of college basketball.  You know, trying to prevent an Oligarchy situation.  Ironic.   

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 09:02:29 AM
Yes, those powerful mid major coaches that are mentioned in this article and in this thread.  Nothing screams power than the head coach at Drexel that if you gave 100 sports fans 1 minute to name who he was and spotted them the first letter of the coaches name, likely 95% or higher couldn't do it.  Power baby.   Or the coach at Belmont.  So on and so forther.

Unbelievable is that they are trying to prevent the 1% from destroying middle class of college basketball.  You know, trying to prevent an Oligarchy situation.  Ironic.   

The coaches are more powerful than the student athletes.  Period.  And they will get their way.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 08:59:37 AM
Correct, but you are using it incorrectly in this case.

I can't think of a sports league or conference that doesn't have a hierarchy of control.  They set the rules, the guidelines, etc.  It's called order.  Because one supports SOME of the rules or guidelines they are making does not mean one supports ALL of what they are doing.  Nevertheless, that control structure is needed or chaos ensues.   

Actually most sports leagues these days act with both management and players coming to an agreement over their working relationship.  That is why professional athletes get a say in their working limitations, compensation and ability to be placed on the free market.  It is a negotiated arrangement.

Except in the case of the NCAA, the student athlete does not have such representation.  And when they do the right thing (receive undergraduate degree) which allows them more freedom (graduate transfer), those with the power (NCAA and its coaches) fight to restrict it further.

Oligarchy.  Correctly used.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 27, 2015, 09:05:32 AM

The coaches are more powerful than the student athletes.  Period.  And they will get their way.

Yup, and your boss is more powerful than you.  Just as my boss is.  Oligarchy.


If you want the players to be more powerful than the coaches....I suggest watching the NBA.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 16, 2015, 09:39:45 AM

And if they don't develop, it can be "suggested" that they look elsewhere. 

+1

Until the day when players can't be easily pushed out on a coach's whim - and have to sit out a year at his new school for the privilege - I have no sympathy for coaches in the only situation where the inverse is possible.  Not to mention the fact that it only affects a handful of players.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 10:01:03 AM
Non-sequitor.  Has nothing to do with it.  An employee has a contract with a university that grants him rights of movement or forced to pay to get out of the contract.  Student athlete signs their own contract with grant in aid.  Don't like the terms, change it.

Tell you what, if a player wants to move, fine....player should have to reimburse original university for development work they put into him, room and board, tuition.  US military academies do this if you bail out on them since they are paying your freight.

I'm all for that.  You want full freedom, pay back the school.

Come on, we all know that the part in bold is not possible for incoming players.  Silly thing to say.

Quote from: TJ on April 27, 2015, 09:13:27 AM
Come on, we all know that the part in bold is not possible for incoming players.  Silly thing to say.

Why is it silly, didn't Northwestern try to unionize two years ago?  Most student athletes are getting a great deal on college scholarships.  440,000 of them.   People here want to focus on the .1%. 

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 17, 2015, 08:10:21 AM

No, you are an oligarchist.

Anytime there is an issue that pits those with power versus those without power, you land on the side of the former pretty much every time.

His constant name dropping is testimony to his infatuation with the powerful. He's been awarded in his career for sucking up to the powerful and actually believes being their toady is something to brag about.

He despises the powerless, thinks they're trying to steal his money and his kid's acceptance letter to college. Doesn't like jucos, they devalue his degree.

There's no reason for him to be an elitist but he is. Or at least he comes across as one. Likely he's compensating.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 08:59:37 AM
Correct, but you are using it incorrectly in this case.

I can't think of a sports league or conference that doesn't have a hierarchy of control.  They set the rules, the guidelines, etc.  It's called order.  Because one supports SOME of the rules or guidelines they are making does not mean one supports ALL of what they are doing.  Nevertheless, that control structure is needed or chaos ensues.   

That's just false. Ever heard of a players' union? Clown show.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 09:21:04 AM
Why is it silly, didn't Northwestern try to unionize two years ago?  Most student athletes are getting a great deal on college scholarships.  440,000 of them.   People here want to focus on the .1%. 

True, we want to focus on the collegiate professional athletes.  BTW, isn't that who the 5th year transfer rule (thread title) affects?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 09:10:20 AM
Yup, and your boss is more powerful than you.  Just as my boss is.  Oligarchy.

False analogy. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 09:10:20 AM
Yup, and your boss is more powerful than you.  Just as my boss is.  Oligarchy.


If you want the players to be more powerful than the coaches....I suggest watching the NBA.

Eureka! When a guy who claims to love basketball hates the best basketball played on the planet their has to be an explanation. For you , it's POLITICS! Those uppity players in the NBA just don't know their place, a'ina?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 09:21:04 AM
Why is it silly, didn't Northwestern try to unionize two years ago?  Most student athletes are getting a great deal on college scholarships.  440,000 of them.   People here want to focus on the .1%. 

Ok, when the first student-athlete is able to successfully negotiate a new contract with no transfer restrictions (basically in violation of NCAA rules) I'll bow to your greatness.

The more I think about the rule, the more I think it's the most common sense and logical rule in the NCAA rule book today.  Forget about sports, think about the kids as students - it's extremely common for graduate students to choose a different institution than their undergrad for their studies.  The whole point of going to college is to get a degree; these students have done that.  Now the move on to the next chapter of their life - in this case pursuing a graduate degree at the institution of their choice.  I can think of no logical reason why the rule should be changed, besides protecting coaches and basketball teams - so of course it will be changed.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 09:21:04 AM
Most student athletes are getting a great deal on college scholarships.  440,000 of them.   People here want to focus on the .1%. 

Most student athletes are not getting full rides, but are still tied to the same restrictions.   My coworker's son is a baseball player at a smaller school.  They have a number of scholarships (5-6) to split among the team.  When his son was a freshman, he wasn't allowed to buy him a TV for his dorm room during move in cause his roommate was a fellow baseball player and that TV in their room would have been an impermissible benefit.

Quote from: TJ on April 27, 2015, 10:12:08 AMI can think of no logical reason why the rule should be changed, besides protecting coaches and basketball teams - so of course it will be changed.

I see a little more advantages and disadvantages on this...

The Good
Incentives for students to graduate

With immediate transfer allows.student to get graduate degree at a different institution with no break in playing time

If they have to sit out a year thats another schollie they take from someone else (since they will get two years instead of one)

The Bad
We always think of the four year student. How bout the six year guy who reshirted one year and sat out another due to an earlier transfer

Guys who dont care about about grad degree but use it as an excuse to go to Power School from small school to showcase skills

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on April 27, 2015, 09:24:13 AM
That's just false. Ever heard of a players' union? Clown show.

Yes, and those unions have to agree to a CBA.  The CBA is administered and executed, by in large, by the league.  Certainly there are agreed upon limits, but the Commissioner or other officers have the responsibility to enforce the rules, to penalize schools, teams, owners, players, etc.  There is still a hierarchy, regardless if a union exists.  

Quote from: TJ on April 27, 2015, 10:12:08 AM
The more I think about the rule, the more I think it's the most common sense and logical rule in the NCAA rule book today.  Forget about sports, think about the kids as students - it's extremely common for graduate students to choose a different institution than their undergrad for their studies.  The whole point of going to college is to get a degree; these students have done that.  Now the move on to the next chapter of their life - in this case pursuing a graduate degree at the institution of their choice.  I can think of no logical reason why the rule should be changed, besides protecting coaches and basketball teams - so of course it will be changed.

I suspect you don't know 95% of the rules in the NCAA rule book or you wouldn't have made that statement.  Most of the rules are common sense, but people are too lazy to know what they are. 

Quote from: JWags85 on April 27, 2015, 12:41:47 PM
Most student athletes are not getting full rides, but are still tied to the same restrictions.   My coworker's son is a baseball player at a smaller school.  They have a number of scholarships (5-6) to split among the team.  When his son was a freshman, he wasn't allowed to buy him a TV for his dorm room during move in cause his roommate was a fellow baseball player and that TV in their room would have been an impermissible benefit.

Then whomever was working compliance messed up big on that one.  A parent is absolutely allowed to buy or provide a television for their child, regardless of who their roommate is.  That is just a horrible reading of the rule.  If the roommate had brought a tv from home, would it not be allowed?  Of course it would.  Or a little refrigerator, or a stereo, etc.   Sounds like that compliance group at that school needs to get reeducated. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 12:45:43 PM
Yes, and those unions have to agree to a CBA.  The CBA is administered and executed, by in large, by the league.  Certainly there are agreed up limits, but the Commissioner or other officers have the responsibility to enforce the rules, to penalize schools, teams, owners, players, etc.  There is still a hierarchy, regardless if a union exists. 

Yes, clown show, it is collectively bargained and the players union will advocate for the individual players when it comes to league discipline matters or when league rules are changed. There's nothing similar in the NCAA which makes your comparison silly. Since you're against pay for play, you should avoid trying to make comparisons to professional leagues. Although in that case I believe you know football and basketball players are being taken advantage of and you simply don't care. Doesn't matter though, the NCAA is losing in the courts and the whole thing will get blown up within the next decade.

Even if 95% of graduate transfers are using the rule to find a better basketball situation for themselves, I'd still fight to keep the rule for the 5% who legitimately are looking to continue their graduate education.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 12:46:54 PM
I suspect you don't know 95% of the rules in the NCAA rule book or you wouldn't have made that statement.  Most of the rules are common sense, but people are too lazy to know what they are. 

It was hyperbole.  But it's still a common sense rule - it's quite common for students pursuing graduate degrees to do so at an institution other than their undergrad institution.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on April 27, 2015, 12:54:38 PM
Yes, clown show, it is collectively bargained and the players union will advocate for the individual players when it comes to league discipline matters or when league rules are changed. There's nothing similar in the NCAA which makes your comparison silly. Since you're against pay for play, you should avoid trying to make comparisons to professional leagues. Although in that case I believe you know football and basketball players are being taken advantage of and you simply don't care. Doesn't matter though, the NCAA is losing in the courts and the whole thing will get blown up within the next decade.

I don't think they are being taken advantage of.  Not one iota.  Free tuition, free food, free clothes, free shelter, best coaching, chance to show their wares for their next gig, travel, etc.  99% of college football and basketball players do not play professionally in the United States.  This is a great deal for them. 

Whether the NCAA loses in the courts doesn't mean the outcomes will be what people want.  Those courts are also wanting to protect Title IX, chances for non-revenue sports to continue and they don't if you blow up system.  So any "losses" won't amount to the drastic changes some want, but rather smaller changes on the fringes in my opinion. 

Quote from: TJ on April 27, 2015, 02:01:32 PM
It was hyperbole.  But it's still a common sense rule - it's quite common for students pursuing graduate degrees to do so at an institution other than their undergrad institution.

Absolutely agree...for students.  For Student-Athletes, if the goal was to truly go and get a graduate degree from another school one would expect many more to actually earn that graduate degree.  Instead, that's not what is happening.  They aren't earning that graduate degree, they are using it as a pit stop, essentially abusing the rule and its intent.  In the process, the rule is also taking away from smaller schools that took chances on kids, developed them, paid greatly to train, educate, etc only to have them leave without any repercussions.  That's the other side of the argument here. 

So are these kids truly going on to get their graduate degree?  Or are they not?

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 27, 2015, 01:01:17 PM
Even if 95% of graduate transfers are using the rule to find a better basketball situation for themselves, I'd still fight to keep the rule for the 5% who legitimately are looking to continue their graduate education.

How does changing the rules like they are talking about impact that 5% at all? They will still get their graduate education and still get to play, but they just have to sit out a year.  They get to do both...the 5% is not harmed at all.  The 95% that are screwing with the rule and abusing it and taking advantage of smaller programs then have to decide were they truly going after that graduate degree or not?  I suspect their true intentions will be exposed rather quickly.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 03:28:55 PM
Absolutely agree...for students.  For Student-Athletes, if the goal was to truly go and get a graduate degree from another school one would expect many more to actually earn that graduate degree.  Instead, that's not what is happening.  They aren't earning that graduate degree, they are using it as a pit stop, essentially abusing the rule and its intent.  In the process, the rule is also taking away from smaller schools that took chances on kids, developed them, paid greatly to train, educate, etc only to have them leave without any repercussions.  That's the other side of the argument here.  

So are these kids truly going on to get their graduate degree?  Or are they not?

I agree that this loophole/rule has seemed to gotten over-exploited - not too dissimilar to the 'special family circumstance' waiver they are now clamping down on.  However what you paint above as a burden of proof would be kind of silly considering the number of athletes that don't get their undergraduate degrees.  Not sure if a fix is truly needed but maybe a higher burden of proof is ultimately needed.  

According to Goodman, there are 74 grad transfers this year. Of those, 25 have committed. 11 have "transferred up", 9 have "transferred down", & 5 stayed at about the same level. 6 are Ivy transfers that must transfer to keep playing because of league rules.

Looking at the remaining names, many are high major washouts and most will either transfer level or down. So maybe 15-20 kids transfer up. The majority of grad transfers are kids that just want a chance to keep playing and won't get it at their current school. But because of 15-20 kids (3% of transfers) the system needs to be fixed and the loophole closed?

My real issue is that this is all blamed on the kids. Everyone forgets that scholarships are 1-year commitments. You want to see the transfers slow down? Require schools to give a 4-year commitment. More than half of transfers are coaches telling kids they aren't welcome back. Yet every time, the kid gets blamed.

This is a just tilting at windmills.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 27, 2015, 03:30:37 PM
How does changing the rules like they are talking about impact that 5% at all? They will still get their graduate education and still get to play, but they just have to sit out a year.  They get to do both...the 5% is not harmed at all.  The 95% that are screwing with the rule and abusing it and taking advantage of smaller programs then have to decide were they truly going after that graduate degree or not?  I suspect their true intentions will be exposed rather quickly.

I see your point, but it does impact the 5% (completely made up number BTW). Look at Steve Taylor. Signs seem to indicate that he will end up at UIC. He has the talent to play for a high major but he will end up playing for a horizon league bottomfeeder. Coaches don't want to spend two years of a scholarship on a kid who will only get to play one year. It will extremely limit where students have the ability to transfer to. Some of the lesser talented players won't be able to find any school willing to take them. Making them sit out a year will extremely limit their ability to seek a degree of their choice. The educational interests of the 5% are more important to me than the monetary interests of the coaches of the 95%. At least, they should be.

Quote from: brewcity77 on April 27, 2015, 04:10:27 PM
According to Goodman, there are 74 grad transfers this year. Of those, 25 have committed. 11 have "transferred up", 9 have "transferred down", & 5 stayed at about the same level. 6 are Ivy transfers that must transfer to keep playing because of league rules.

Looking at the remaining names, many are high major washouts and most will either transfer level or down. So maybe 15-20 kids transfer up. The majority of grad transfers are kids that just want a chance to keep playing and won't get it at their current school. But because of 15-20 kids (3% of transfers) the system needs to be fixed and the loophole closed?

My real issue is that this is all blamed on the kids. Everyone forgets that scholarships are 1-year commitments. You want to see the transfers slow down? Require schools to give a 4-year commitment. More than half of transfers are coaches telling kids they aren't welcome back. Yet every time, the kid gets blamed.

This is a just tilting at windmills.

What I'm not understanding is why we're supposed to be angry about these kids looking to "transfer up."
I understand not wanting the chaos that would come with unfettered transfers among undergrads. But that's not what we're talking about.

Nobody would get mad if an Illinois State University engineering student gets into the master's program at Stanford, yet we're supposed to be outraged if an ISU basketball player works hard on the court and in school and earns his way into a Big 10 program?

Quote from: Pakuni on April 27, 2015, 04:34:11 PM
What I'm not understanding is why we're supposed to be angry about these kids looking to "transfer up."
I understand not wanting the chaos that would come with unfettered transfers among undergrads. But that's not what we're talking about.

Nobody would get mad if an Illinois State University engineering student gets into the master's program at Stanford, yet we're supposed to be outraged if an ISU basketball player works hard on the court and in school and earns his way into a Big 10 program?

The complaints about this rule are all about the poor coaches. There's no concern for the kids. None. So what if they want to play on a bigger stage to enhance their professional prospects? That seems like making the most of your opportunity and they had to work on and off the court to get that chance.

And if their small school coaches got the same chance to go coach in the ACC, Big East, Pac-12, or other bigger job, no one would complain. This whole thing is hypocrisy.

And sorry, but the opinions of Coach K and Tom Izzo are irrelevant. They get the best freshmen in the country and would just be blocking their competition from using this. They aren't affected by this, positively or negatively, so why should their word be gospel?

Of graduate transfers that go from D-I to D-I, how many receive a graduate degree?

Quote from: brewcity77 on April 27, 2015, 05:07:39 PM
The complaints about this rule are all about the poor coaches. There's no concern for the kids. None. So what if they want to play on a bigger stage to enhance their professional prospects? That seems like making the most of your opportunity and they had to work on and off the court to get that chance.

And if their small school coaches got the same chance to go coach in the ACC, Big East, Pac-12, or other bigger job, no one would complain. This whole thing is hypocrisy.

And sorry, but the opinions of Coach K and Tom Izzo are irrelevant. They get the best freshmen in the country and would just be blocking their competition from using this. They aren't affected by this, positively or negatively, so why should their word be gospel?

Who provided that opportunity to that kid?  That small school, who put tremendous resources into developing that kid.  That is especially difficult for a small school with a small budget.  No one is saying you can't transfer out and move on up, but they're saying you need to sit out to do it.  The hypocrisy, as you state it, is that they are going for a graduate degree.  That's laughable.  No they aren't.  If they are, it takes two years anyway so there is no harm.  Get a year of that graduate work under your belt, practice with your new team and then play.  But we all know the vast vast majority of these transfers have no intent of getting a graduate degree, thus they are abusing the rule....as are the coaches that go after kids in that scenario.  That's the hypocrisy.

Comparing if a coach can go from a small school to a larger school is totally irrelevent.  He has to buy his way out of a contract, there are repercussions for him as well.  I've offered that same solution here, and no one wants it.  If a kid wants to transfer out and not sit, then he should have to do what the coach has to do....pay the buyout....or in this case, reimburse the scholarship. Everyone is even then.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 27, 2015, 04:20:07 PM
I see your point, but it does impact the 5% (completely made up number BTW). Look at Steve Taylor. Signs seem to indicate that he will end up at UIC. He has the talent to play for a high major but he will end up playing for a horizon league bottomfeeder. Coaches don't want to spend two years of a scholarship on a kid who will only get to play one year. It will extremely limit where students have the ability to transfer to. Some of the lesser talented players won't be able to find any school willing to take them. Making them sit out a year will extremely limit their ability to seek a degree of their choice. The educational interests of the 5% are more important to me than the monetary interests of the coaches of the 95%. At least, they should be.

Taylor should have transfered last year or stuck it out at MU.  There are repercussions with everything in life.  Taking a new job, staying with the old one, transfering schools, calling off the wedding, etc.  This is part of life. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 12:02:37 AM
Who provided that opportunity to that kid?  That small school, who put tremendous resources into developing that kid.  That is especially difficult for a small school with a small budget.  No one is saying you can't transfer out and move on up, but they're saying you need to sit out to do it.  The hypocrisy, as you state it, is that they are going for a graduate degree.  That's laughable.  No they aren't.  If they are, it takes two years anyway so there is no harm.  Get a year of that graduate work under your belt, practice with your new team and then play.  But we all know the vast vast majority of these transfers have no intent of getting a graduate degree, thus they are abusing the rule....as are the coaches that go after kids in that scenario.  That's the hypocrisy.

Comparing if a coach can go from a small school to a larger school is totally irrelevent.  He has to buy his way out of a contract, there are repercussions for him as well.  I've offered that same solution here, and no one wants it.  If a kid wants to transfer out and not sit, then he should have to do what the coach has to do....pay the buyout....or in this case, reimburse the scholarship. Everyone is even then.

Rationalizations. If scholarships had a four year commitment you'd have a leg to stand on. But if the player doesn't perform, no matter the level, they'll find a way to take his scholarship or force a transfer.

Until the schools guarantee a 4-year scholarship contract from day one there's no reason to block these. Amazing how it's only the schools that lose good players crying foul. None of the high majors complain when they can shuffle off a fifth year that never performed using the same rule.

The reality is scholarships are a series of one year contracts, and if the schools don't have to honor them, the students that did the work on and off the court shouldn't be bound more stringently than the school.

And again, even if this is a way to improve their professional stock, isn't that acceptable? Most of these kids aren't getting scholarships for the college education anyway. Improving their game to play professionally IS their graduate degree.

Quote from: Jay Bee on April 27, 2015, 06:06:34 PM
Of graduate transfers that go from D-I to D-I, how many receive a graduate degree?

Trent Lockett, a'nia?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 12:12:19 AM
Taylor should have transfered last year or stuck it out at MU.  There are repercussions with everything in life.  Taking a new job, staying with the old one, transfering schools, calling off the wedding, etc.  This is part of life. 

You didn't address my point. I'm talking about students who's primary motivation for transferring is pursuing a graduate degree not offered by their current constitution. Making them sit a year will extremely limit the number of schools they'd be able to pursue their degree it. That is a fact. I know its not the way the world works, but that educational interest should be more important than the schools' financial concerns. Usually, the NCAA favors the schools over the players. This is one of the only places where the players win. This is worth protecting.

Quote from: brewcity77 on April 28, 2015, 12:21:40 AM
Rationalizations. If scholarships had a four year commitment you'd have a leg to stand on. But if the player doesn't perform, no matter the level, they'll find a way to take his scholarship or force a transfer.

Until the schools guarantee a 4-year scholarship contract from day one there's no reason to block these. Amazing how it's only the schools that lose good players crying foul. None of the high majors complain when they can shuffle off a fifth year that never performed using the same rule.

The reality is scholarships are a series of one year contracts, and if the schools don't have to honor them, the students that did the work on and off the court shouldn't be bound more stringently than the school.

And again, even if this is a way to improve their professional stock, isn't that acceptable? Most of these kids aren't getting scholarships for the college education anyway. Improving their game to play professionally IS their graduate degree.

+1000

Universities offer 1 year contracts. Play for us, make money for us and we will give you a year's worth of college education (and everything that entails) and a year's worth of development as a basketball player. Players owe their universities nothing after that year is up. If a university offers a four year scholarship, then sure, make them sit a year. That is an actual breach of contract by the player.

Ethically, the most right thing is to allow all transfers to play immediately. No sitting out a year.

Practically, the most right thing is to make all transfers sit.

Personally, I'd rather go with the ethical practice and find a way to make it more practical. That's better than trying to justify the practical one as ethical.

We know the base graduation rates at most schools aren't that great. Just look at Wisconsin, or even our own players the last 5-6 years. The grad transfer rule makes sure these kids Gerry degrees before they can use it. Even if it only guarantees the first degree, isn't that a step in the right direction? For as little as is actually done to truly educate these kids, giving them the grad transfer carrot makes sure their athletic career ends with a diploma. That, to me, is a big positive.

Scholarships now do have a 4 year commitment at a number of schools......the leg I'm standing on is fine.

Secondly, by the time you get to your 3rd or 4th year, you are going to keep your scholarship 99.9% of the time so it's not even relevant to this example.

Again...the rule was created to allow a kid to transfer to a school that had already graduated and earn a graduate degree because his current school doesn't have that program.  Instead, they have made a mockery of that rule because that isn't happening at all....surprise surprise. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 09:47:14 AM
Scholarships now do have a 4 year commitment at a number of schools......the leg I'm standing on is fine.

Secondly, by the time you get to your 3rd or 4th year, you are going to keep your scholarship 99.9% of the time so it's not even relevant to this example.

Again...the rule was created to allow a kid to transfer to a school that had already graduated and earn a graduate degree because his current school doesn't have that program.  Instead, they have made a mockery of that rule because that isn't happening at all....surprise surprise. 

How many schools did you go to?  What if you were limited to your undergrad unless it didn't offer the program you wanted?  The rule is fine as is... when a person finishes college they should have the freedom to pursue their post-graduate studies at the institution of their choice.  And they should be able to participate in athletics while they do so without penalty.

I wish I could find the tweet but one of the recruiting experts, talking about the "transfer epidemic" said today weekday most don't realize is more than half of these transfers are the schools telling kids they are not welcome to come back. So no, these aren't four year contracts. They are one year contracts that the schools are exploiting more often to get rid of kids they don't want than the kids are exploiting to get somewhere they do.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 12:02:37 AM
Who provided that opportunity to that kid?  That small school, who put tremendous resources into developing that kid.  That is especially difficult for a small school with a small budget.  No one is saying you can't transfer out and move on up, but they're saying you need to sit out to do it.  The hypocrisy, as you state it, is that they are going for a graduate degree.  That's laughable.  No they aren't.  If they are, it takes two years anyway so there is no harm.  Get a year of that graduate work under your belt, practice with your new team and then play.  But we all know the vast vast majority of these transfers have no intent of getting a graduate degree, thus they are abusing the rule....as are the coaches that go after kids in that scenario.  That's the hypocrisy.

Comparing if a coach can go from a small school to a larger school is totally irrelevent.  He has to buy his way out of a contract, there are repercussions for him as well.  I've offered that same solution here, and no one wants it.  If a kid wants to transfer out and not sit, then he should have to do what the coach has to do....pay the buyout....or in this case, reimburse the scholarship. Everyone is even then.

You act as if the school gets nothing in return for their investment developing the players.  If that was the case this would not be a multi-billion dollar industry.  The players provide ample return to the school, even if it is just as a practice player.  They owe nothing to the school after each year is complete.

Also a coach can have his new school pay his buyout for him... so let's take the analogy all the way.  The school that the grad student transfers into has to reimburse the previous school for 1 year of scholarship in order to take a grad transfer and then he can play right away.          (do I need teal?)

Quote from: brewcity77 on April 27, 2015, 04:10:27 PM
According to Goodman, there are 74 grad transfers this year. Of those, 25 have committed. 11 have "transferred up", 9 have "transferred down", & 5 stayed at about the same level. 6 are Ivy transfers that must transfer to keep playing because of league rules.

Looking at the remaining names, many are high major washouts and most will either transfer level or down. So maybe 15-20 kids transfer up. The majority of grad transfers are kids that just want a chance to keep playing and won't get it at their current school. But because of 15-20 kids (3% of transfers) the system needs to be fixed and the loophole closed?

My real issue is that this is all blamed on the kids. Everyone forgets that scholarships are 1-year commitments. You want to see the transfers slow down? Require schools to give a 4-year commitment. More than half of transfers are coaches telling kids they aren't welcome back. Yet every time, the kid gets blamed.

This is a just tilting at windmills.

+1

I acknowledge that some schools now give 4 year scholarships.  But it isn't universal and schools can still cut players without repercussions while those same players are penalized by having to sit out a year at their new school

Quote from: TJ on April 28, 2015, 10:01:04 AM
You act as if the school gets nothing in return for their investment developing the players.  If that was the case this would not be a multi-billion dollar industry.  The players provide ample return to the school, even if it is just as a practice player.  They owe nothing to the school after each year is complete.

Also a coach can have his new school pay his buyout for him... so let's take the analogy all the way.  The school that the grad student transfers into has to reimburse the previous school for 1 year of scholarship in order to take a grad transfer and then he can play right away.          (do I need teal?)

Schools are "developing" these kids out of the kindness of their hearts. Has nothing to do with the millions of dollars of revenue their labor generates.

I'm wondering what Gary Waters "owes" his previous employers for their help developing him.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 28, 2015, 07:54:45 AM
You didn't address my point. I'm talking about students who's primary motivation for transferring is pursuing a graduate degree not offered by their current constitution. Making them sit a year will extremely limit the number of schools they'd be able to pursue their degree it. That is a fact. I know its not the way the world works, but that educational interest should be more important than the schools' financial concerns. Usually, the NCAA favors the schools over the players. This is one of the only places where the players win. This is worth protecting.

So we're saying that abusing the system by so many is causing those that play by the rules to get hurt?  Yup.  Happens all the time.  It's a shame.  We can extrapolate this to all kinds of things where fraud, or abuse, or taking advantage of programs (gov't, corporate, etc) lead to those truly needing it to get hurt.

I don't disagree with you at all.  There are laws of unintended consequences.  This rule helps the 5% as you estimated, but hurts a number of smaller schools who also have a say in this.  Why should those smaller schools invest all that time, money, effort on some of these kids just to have them leave?  At my company, I can get a PhD or MBA or whatever extra schooling, but I have to remain at the company or pay it back.  The company has made an investment.   

Quote from: TJ on April 28, 2015, 09:55:36 AM
How many schools did you go to?  What if you were limited to your undergrad unless it didn't offer the program you wanted?  The rule is fine as is... when a person finishes college they should have the freedom to pursue their post-graduate studies at the institution of their choice.  And they should be able to participate in athletics while they do so without penalty.

I went to one undergraduate...completed my degree with multiple majors and a minor. Then I chose to go to two different graduate schools for my post graduate work.

I wasn't on scholarship to play for my undergraduate institution, have them train me, sink a ton of resources into me.  That's the difference.    I've provided a solution.  You want to leave, pay back the last year of that scholarship to reimburse the school.  Free and clear.

My real issue is that this is all blamed on the kids. Everyone forgets that scholarships are 1-year commitments. You want to see the transfers slow down? Require schools to give a 4-year commitment. More than half of transfers are coaches telling kids they aren't welcome back. Yet every time, the kid gets blamed.


Scholarships CAN be 1 year commitments....in fact Marquette University voted to keep them that way.  That is no longer the case if a school wishes to provide a 4 year commitment, like the Big Ten is doing.   

I'd like a source on the underlined part.   Everything I've read or what people at league offices (Big Ten, Pac 12, Mountain West) or AD's I know well have said the driver is the kids.  Not wanting to wait, not wanting to wait their turn, not getting enough playing time.  No doubt that some kids aren't welcome back, but I find your "more than half" to be unsubstantiated.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 03:23:44 PM
I wasn't on scholarship to play for my undergraduate institution, have them train me, sink a ton of resources into me.  That's the difference.    I've provided a solution.  You want to leave, pay back the last year of that scholarship to reimburse the school.  Free and clear.

We know Chicos.

The poor schools, and their downtrodden coaches, are being exploited and taken advantage of by the powerful players.  #coacheslivesmatter.  

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 03:23:44 PM
I wasn't on scholarship to play for my undergraduate institution, have them train me, sink a ton of resources into me.  That's the difference.    I've provided a solution.  You want to leave, pay back the last year of that scholarship to reimburse the school. Free and clear.

How do you do this when the scholarship is 1 year renewable?  What are the implications if a scholarship is pulled?  Do you make 1 and done's do the same?  What about someone who is run off - do they owe too?

Maybe the best option/rule set is the current one.  I am ok contemplating changes - especially if it is being over-exploited.  I just don't know if it is an actual problem.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 03:26:33 PMI'd like a source on the underlined part.   Everything I've read or what people at league offices (Big Ten, Pac 12, Mountain West) or AD's I know well have said the driver is the kids.  Not wanting to wait, not wanting to wait their turn, not getting enough playing time.  No doubt that some kids aren't welcome back, but I find your "more than half" to be unsubstantiated.

I would too. Did you read my subsequent post? I'm hoping someone will write that article. Finding a small section of tweets is tough. Should have bookmarked it.

The payback idea is at best silly for many of these kids. Quite a few come from socioeconomic backgrounds that mean they don't have the resources to do this. The 3% of transfers that have you up in arms, the paltry few that transfer up, are often hoping to showcase their skills in hopes of improving their professional stock so they can't start making the money that would make that possible. Kind of a catch-22.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 03:23:44 PM
I wasn't on scholarship to play for my undergraduate institution, have them train me, sink a ton of resources into me.  That's the difference.    I've provided a solution.  You want to leave, pay back the last year of that scholarship to reimburse the school.  Free and clear.

How many people paid $50+ a pop to watch you be trained? How many more tuned into ESPN to do the same?
There are no words to describe exactly how silly it is for you to compare your situation as an undergrad with that of a revenue sport athlete.
The reality is, most of these kids in the revenue sports repay the cost of their scholarship many times over.

To me, this is a reward for graduating early - an opportunity to cherry pick an opportunity for exposure elsewhere while pursuing an advanced degree. Now granted, this is subject to abuse, but the alternative I see is a rule that a player's eligibility can extend no further than their undergraduate degree. That feels as though it wrongly punishes the masses for the transgressions of a few.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 28, 2015, 03:27:03 PM

We know Chicos.

The poor schools, and their downtrodden coaches, are being exploited and taken advantage of by the powerful players.  #coacheslivesmatter.  

The coaches pour so much blood, sweat and tears into developing these kids as players, students and men, and what do they get out of it?*

* = excluding seven-figure salaries, shoe contracts, contracts to do TV and radio shows, etc.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 03:21:10 PM
So we're saying that abusing the system by so many is causing those that play by the rules to get hurt?  Yup.  Happens all the time.  It's a shame.  We can extrapolate this to all kinds of things where fraud, or abuse, or taking advantage of programs (gov't, corporate, etc) lead to those truly needing it to get hurt.

I don't disagree with you at all.  There are laws of unintended consequences.  This rule helps the 5% as you estimated, but hurts a number of smaller schools who also have a say in this.  Why should those smaller schools invest all that time, money, effort on some of these kids just to have them leave?  At my company, I can get a PhD or MBA or whatever extra schooling, but I have to remain at the company or pay it back.  The company has made an investment.   

The students did them pay them back. The school offered them five separate one year contracts (Four years of eligibility and one redshirt year). The student accepted the first four offers, then declined the fifth. One year of scholarship for one year of representing the school on the court. That's the deal. If schools can choose to not renew these contracts with the students without penalty, then the students should be able to choose to not renew the contract without penalty. If the student is in a four year contract, then we can talk about penalties. But these are one year contracts. The players don't owe their former schools squat.

Quote from: Pakuni on April 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
The coaches pour so much blood, sweat and tears into developing these kids as players, students and men, and what do they get out of it?*

* = excluding seven-figure salaries, shoe contracts, contracts to do TV and radio shows, etc.

I'd like to see the coaches' reactions if they were forced to sit out a year if they change jobs. The schools allowed them to develop their craft so they should have ownership of the rest of their careers.

Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on April 28, 2015, 03:32:16 PM
How do you do this when the scholarship is 1 year renewable?  What are the implications if a scholarship is pulled?  Do you make 1 and done's do the same?  What about someone who is run off - do they owe too?

Maybe the best option/rule set is the current one.  I am ok contemplating changes - especially if it is being over-exploited.  I just don't know if it is an actual problem.

Why do people keep saying 1 year renewable when that isn't always the case.  Entire major conferences are pushing 4 or 5 year scholarships now.

Quote from: brewcity77 on April 28, 2015, 04:38:28 PM
I would too. Did you read my subsequent post? I'm hoping someone will write that article. Finding a small section of tweets is tough. Should have bookmarked it.

The payback idea is at best silly for many of these kids. Quite a few come from socioeconomic backgrounds that mean they don't have the resources to do this. The 3% of transfers that have you up in arms, the paltry few that transfer up, are often hoping to showcase their skills in hopes of improving their professional stock so they can't start making the money that would make that possible. Kind of a catch-22.

Most kids are not transfering because the coach doesn't want them there.  The evidence is just not there.  Players are transfering up, or looking for more playing time.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2014/04/25/college-basketball-transfers-proliferate-various-reasons/8150561/

At what point do we teach commitments and that commitments come with ramifications?  If a coach leaves, he has to pay a buyout.  That's a ramification.  When players leave, there are ramifications as well.  I'm offering a buy out option for the kids.  No different than the military academies or when you go to school on a company's dime....in both cases they are educational examples. 

Quote from: Pakuni on April 28, 2015, 04:45:40 PM
How many people paid $50+ a pop to watch you be trained? How many more tuned into ESPN to do the same?
There are no words to describe exactly how silly it is for you to compare your situation as an undergrad with that of a revenue sport athlete.
The reality is, most of these kids in the revenue sports repay the cost of their scholarship many times over.

Uhm, I didn't compare my situation....someone else did.  I answered the person's statement.  Good try....read again.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on April 28, 2015, 08:14:02 PM
I'd like to see the coaches' reactions if they were forced to sit out a year if they change jobs. The schools allowed them to develop their craft so they should have ownership of the rest of their careers.

The coaches already have ramifications if they leave, that's what buyout penalties are for.  There IS a ramification, why are you ignoring that?

Why you guys keep comparing coaches to players is erroneous on every level. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 09:57:57 PM
Why do people keep saying 1 year renewable when that isn't always the case.  Entire major conferences are pushing 4 or 5 year scholarships now.

They are pushing for the ability to give out multiyear scholarships. That doesn't mean that they are actually giving them out. Of the 43 programs who finished in the top 25 in either basketball or football last season, only 5 have given multiyear scholarships to 10% or more of their college athletes. Most of the multiyear scholarships don't go to college basketball. They are used as an exclusive recruiting tool for certain players, usually in football.

But all of that isn't relevant to the conversation we're having. I know I have said this. Brew has said this. And I imagine others would agree with this. If a player attempts to leave a multiyear scholarship before its term is up than yes, hit them with penalties. Make them sit a year. They have signed a contract and are attempting to leave early. That is a breach of contract and deserves some ramifications. 100% agree.

But that is not what we are saying. We are saying that if a player is on a 1 year renewable scholarship...like 95% of division 1 college basketball players, and he wants to leave after his contract is up, than the ethical thing would be to let him go without penalty. What about this statement do you think is wrong?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 10:05:03 PM
The coaches already have ramifications if they leave, that's what buyout penalties are for.  There IS a ramification, why are you ignoring that?

Why you guys keep comparing coaches to players is erroneous on every level.  

The coaches don't pay the buyout, their new employer does. Nice try. Also the coaches get to negotiate their "penalty" when they sign their contracts. The players are all forced to sign the same contract. If all coaches got paid with coupons from the campus book stores then maybe you'd have a point.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 09:57:57 PM
Why do people keep saying 1 year renewable when that isn't always the case.  Entire major conferences are pushing 4 or 5 year scholarships now.

Because the institutions you are advocating for (small schools getting 'robbed') don't have this mindset and pushing is not the same as it being an actual rule/setup.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 10:05:03 PM
The coaches already have ramifications if they leave, that's what buyout penalties are for.  There IS a ramification, why are you ignoring that?

 

The new school picks up the tab for the buyout. It IS NOT a ramification that hurts the coach. OTOH, a huge buy out can save a coach who's doing a crappy job. It's a nice insurance policy or (at worst) a huge severance package. Your boy at IU is exhibit A.

So, yeah, buy out provisions have ramifications. They're generally favorable to the coach.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on April 29, 2015, 07:00:25 AM
The coaches don't pay the buyout, their new employer does. Nice try. Also the coaches get to negotiate their "penalty" when they sign their contracts. The players are all forced to sign the same contract. If all coaches got paid with coupons from the campus book stores then maybe you'd have a point.

That depends on the situation, but yes some coaches pay the buyouts directly.  If the employer, or booster does, good for them.

Have the kids parents, rich uncle, whomever do the same.  Point is, school put a tremendous amount of resources into the kid to develop them, the rule was supposed to be for kids getting a grad degree and that is a complete farce, and mid level and even some high majors are losing kids to that farce.

Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on April 29, 2015, 07:57:44 AM
Because the institutions you are advocating for (small schools getting 'robbed') don't have this mindset and pushing is not the same as it being an actual rule/setup.

Some do, some don't.  It's not just small schools, either.  I wouldn't call Arizona State, a small school.  Indiana.  UNLV. Notre Dame.  Etc

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 01, 2015, 09:12:31 PM
That depends on the situation, but yes some coaches pay the buyouts directly.  If the employer, or booster does, good for them.

Have the kids parents, rich uncle, whomever do the same.  Point is, school put a tremendous amount of resources into the kid to develop them, the rule was supposed to be for kids getting a grad degree and that is a complete farce, and mid level and even some high majors are losing kids to that farce.

You keep ignoring the point about 1 year scholarships. I think most everyone agrees with you that if a player is on a multiyear scholarship then there should be some sort of penalty. But for the 95%+ of players who are one year scholarships, there shouldn't be. Schools invest for a year and get a year's worth of play out of the player. It's a completely fair trade. Those resources the school spent are meaningless to this conversation. The player doesn't owe the school jack.

Here's the thing. If you're going to play a game, do it consistently.

If it's about academics and kids committing to institutions, then great. Give a grad transfer an additional year on their clock, have them sit out a year in residence at the new school and you've made a nice, consistent and reasonable change.

Other paths fail to be principled and consistent in their reasoning - including the current exception (and waiver).

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 01, 2015, 09:12:31 PM
That depends on the situation, but yes some coaches pay the buyouts directly.  If the employer, or booster does, good for them.

Have the kids parents, rich uncle, whomever do the same.  Point is, school put a tremendous amount of resources into the kid to develop them, the rule was supposed to be for kids getting a grad degree and that is a complete farce, and mid level and even some high majors are losing kids to that farce.

Speaking of farces, amateurism is the biggest farce in the sporting universe today. You always talk about everything that's invested in the athlete and never acknowledge that the university sees an immediate return on this investment as soon as the player suits up for one practice. The return is much, much higher than the investment.

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on May 03, 2015, 09:25:18 AM
Speaking of farces, amateurism is the biggest farce in the sporting universe today. You always talk about everything that's invested in the athlete and never acknowledge that the university sees an immediate return on this investment as soon as the player suits up for one practice. The return is much, much higher than the investment.

Careful. You're talking about the poor, put-upon universities and their coaches, who are struggling just to get by.

Those who constantly root for the overdogs won't like that!

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 16, 2015, 07:40:18 AM
There are maybe 20-40 kids on the list every year who use the rule to "move up" as the coach says. Most 5th years actually move down or sideways looking for more playing time. I know this contradicts the article but I tracked every grad transfer last year and this year. The article is wrong. With such a low number "abusing" the rule, I am ok with it.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 16, 2015, 09:24:03 AM
TAMU, I'd love to see your data.

I said the above based on eyeballing the list of grad transfers from the summer of 2014. Since I didn't actually track it last year, I decided to this year.

As of this moment, 88 players D1 who qualify for either the grad transfer waiver or exception have selected where they will be taking their talents to next season. There are still a few dozen who remain uncommitted, but a majority of those are low level benchwarmers who will most likely be dropping a level of competition rather than going up.

I divided the conferences into High Major, Mid Major, Low Major, and Non D1. If a player went up, they got sorted in one pile. If a player went down they got sorted into one pile. If a player stayed at the same level they got sorted into another pile. This system is not perfect. Sometimes, players from a terrible high major transferred to a great mid major. This is probably a move up but because of conference affiliation it is recorded as a move down. It happened the opposite way as well.

As of right now, these 26 players moved up a level of competition:

Braeden Anderson   Fresno State   Seton Hall
Korey Billbury   Oral Roberts   VCU
Quentin Brewer   Bethune-Cookman   Illinois State
Anthony Collins   South Florida   Texas A&M
Jordan Gathers   St. Bonaventrue    Butler
Jimmy Gavin   Wisconsin-Parkside   Winthrop
Tomasz Gielo   Liberty   Ole Miss
Derrick Gordon   Umass   Seton Hall
Anton Grady   Cleveland State   Wichita State
Omari Grier   Bradley   Rutgers
Johnny Hill   UT Arlington   Purdue
Lenjo Kilo   District of Columbia   Savannah State
Damion Lee   Drexel   Louisville
Trey Lewis   Cleveland State   Louisville
Rafael Maia   Brown   Pittsburgh
Four McGlynn   Towson   Rhode Island
Shonn Miller   Cornell   Connecticut
Alex Mitola   Dartmouth    George Washington
Ron Mvouika   Missouri State   St. John's
Alonzo Nelson-Ododa   Richmond   Pittsburgh
Ike Nwamu   Mercer   UNLV
Shawn Smith   Marshall   Nevada
Sterling Smith   Coppin State   Pittsburgh
Mike Thorne Jr.   Charlotte   Illinois
Mark Tollefsen   San Francisco   Arizona
James White    Arkansas-Little Rock   Georgia Tech

These 40 players have moved down a level of competition:

Langston Burnett   Wagner   Glenville State
Aaron Cosby   Illinois   Western Kentucky
Gilles Dierickx   Washington   Seattle Pacific
Tony Dobbinson   Northwestern State   Metro State
Jeff Drew   Central Arkansas   William Penn University
Jimmie Duplessis   Southeastern Louisiana   Shorter
Sterling Gibbs   Seton Hall    Uconn
Tim Gill   Jacksonville   USC Aiken
Grandy Glaze   Saint Louis   Grand Canyon
Jure Gunjina   IPFW     Georgia Southwestern
Matt Hancock   Lamar   West Alabama
Charles Hill Jr.   TCU   Tarleton State
JaMarkus Horace   Nicholls State   Texas A&M-Kingsville
Lonnie Jackson   Boston College   Boise State
Jennard Jarreau   Washington   Tulane
Travis Julien   Nicholls State   Rogers State
Jalen Love    Denver   Newman
Tamron Manning   Marshall   Kentucky Wesleyan
Serigne Mboup   Austin Peay   Union
Austin McBroom   Saint Louis   Eastern Washington
Charles McKinney   DePaul   USC Aiken
Rawane Ndiaye   Tennesee   University of Regina
Kerwin Okoro   Rutgers   Norfolk State
Chauncey Orr   Bowling Green   Hawaii Pacific
Jalen Pendleton   Southern Illinois    Minnesota State
Durrell McDonald   DePaul   Mercyhurst
Tyler Rambo   Murray State   Indianapolis
Jarelle Reischel   Rhode Island   Eastern Kentucky
Denzel Richardson   Eastern Kentucky   Lynn
Jalen Robinson   Dayton   USC Aiken
Aaron Rountree III   Wake Forest   Iona
Ayinde Sprewell    Western Kentucky   St. Thomas University
Shaun Stewart   Youngstown State   Limestone
Gavin Thurman   Missouri State   Newman
Dakota Slaughter   Alabama   UT-Rio Grande Valley
Tavares Sledge   Wright State   USC Aiken
Antwan Space   Texas A&M     Massachussetts
Ricky Tarrant   Alabama   Memphis
Snoop Viser   Eastern Illinois   Minnesota State
Nate Wells     Bradley   Ball State

And these 22 made a lateral move to a school at the same level:

James Bourne   Winthrop   College of Charleston
DeVince Boykins    Marshall   Georgia Southern
Galal Cancer   Cornell   Kent State
Willie Clayton   Charlotte   Georgia State
Orlando Coleman   Kenneaw State   Texas Southern
Dylan Ennis   Villanova   Oregon
Tyler Harris   Providence    Auburn
Derrick Henry   Winthrop   The Citadel
Durand Johnson   Pittsburgh   St. John's
Iman Johnson   UMES   Samford
Scott King   Stony Brook   Fairfield
Denton Koon   Princeton   Hofstra
Uros Ljeskovic   Coastal Carolina    Grand Canyon
Chris Martin   Mount St. Mary's   Savannah State
Malcolm McMillan   Central Connecticut State   Canisius
Angel Nunez   Gonzaga   South Florida
Demetrius Pollard   Northeastern   Charleston Southern
Jermaine Ruttley   Florida A&M   Arkansas-Little Rock
Adam Smith   Virginia Tech   Georgia Tech
Rasheed Sulaimon   Duke     Maryland
Johan Van Zegeren   Virginia Tech   Northwestern
David Wishon   College of Charleston   Lipscomb

Now this doesn't mean that we should or shouldn't keep the 5th year transfer rule. But these does debunk the myth that a majority of grad transfers are jumping up a level of competition. For every top mid major grad transfer a high major steals, 1.5 are sent down to lower level conferences to replace that one. The only reason we think most grad transfers are trying to jump ship to better programs is because those are the only one the media covers. Everyone wants to hear about Damion Lee jumping from lowly Drexel all the way to Louisville. No one gives a rat's arse about Jeff Drew leaving Central Arkansas for William Penn.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 27, 2015, 08:56:57 AM

These 40 players have moved down a level of competition:

Sterling Gibbs   Seton Hall    Uconn

Nice work TAMU. 

Do you really consider going from SH to UCONN a move down though?

Quote from: TSmith34 on May 27, 2015, 09:06:14 AM
Nice work TAMU.  

Do you really consider going from SH to UCONN a move down though?

Big East to American is going down a level. UConn is bigger program wise, but the level of competition is lower.

I would also note that 3 of those that moved up were Ivy League transfers that had to go per league rules, which means 23/83 chose to move up a level (2 other Ivy League kids moved laterally). So this rampant problem of immediately eligible "free agents" accounts for 27.7% of  grad transfers and 3.5% of all transfers.

Bottom line, this perceived problem is not a problem, especially as the vast majority of kids using this rule are doing so to just give themselves one last chance at playing time at a lower or even level. But because a few big schools benefit, because a few exceptions exist, let's abolish this rule designed to actually reward the student athletes that are taking the student part seriously.

Quote from: TSmith34 on May 27, 2015, 09:06:14 AM
Nice work TAMU. 

Do you really consider going from SH to UCONN a move down though?

I mentioned this in the description. I only looked at conference affiliation. It's not prefect because of situations like this. But for every sterling Gibbs there is a Derrick Gordon who transferred from a good mid major to a bit as good high major

I feel bad for those coaches and universities that lost a bench warmer to a program from an inferior conference. Has anyone checked to make sure they are doing ok?

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2015, 12:52:21 AM
They are pushing for the ability to give out multiyear scholarships. That doesn't mean that they are actually giving them out. Of the 43 programs who finished in the top 25 in either basketball or football last season, only 5 have given multiyear scholarships to 10% or more of their college athletes. Most of the multiyear scholarships don't go to college basketball. They are used as an exclusive recruiting tool for certain players, usually in football.

But all of that isn't relevant to the conversation we're having. I know I have said this. Brew has said this. And I imagine others would agree with this. If a player attempts to leave a multiyear scholarship before its term is up than yes, hit them with penalties. Make them sit a year. They have signed a contract and are attempting to leave early. That is a breach of contract and deserves some ramifications. 100% agree.

But that is not what we are saying. We are saying that if a player is on a 1 year renewable scholarship...like 95% of division 1 college basketball players, and he wants to leave after his contract is up, than the ethical thing would be to let him go without penalty. What about this statement do you think is wrong?

I agree with you on terms of what seems fair in regards to a one year so called contract but do you think that the transfer numbers and what some call an epidemic would spiral even further out of control? It's almost like there is 2 seasons to recruiting these days for the coaching staffs. I have no solutions or answers but I just see it being a problem already and may be a bigger problem if players don't have to sit out a year.

As far as people saying the coaches don't have ramifications...for upping and leaving - I understand what you mean but most of them have also been players and went through that process and have worked their tails off to get where they are so I don't exactly see it as being apples to apples. And I'm not saying that the players don't work their tails off either to get where they are in terms of scholarships, schools, perks, etc...

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 27, 2015, 08:56:57 AM

Now this doesn't mean that we should or shouldn't keep the 5th year transfer rule. But these does debunk the myth that a majority of grad transfers are jumping up a level of competition. For every top mid major grad transfer a high major steals, 1.5 are sent down to lower level conferences to replace that one. The only reason we think most grad transfers are trying to jump ship to better programs is because those are the only one the media covers. Everyone wants to hear about Damion Lee jumping from lowly Drexel all the way to Louisville. No one gives a rat's arse about Jeff Drew leaving Central Arkansas for William Penn.

But wait, TAMU ... It is still paramount for the very survival of college basketball that this non-problem be solved!

There are a few dozen players -- wait, not just players but college graduates -- who actually have the "upper hand" and we can't allow that. They are ruining the sport!!!!!