MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Pakuni on January 31, 2020, 10:46:19 PM
-
Under their proposal, athletes in all sports would be allowed to transfer once without sitting out a year.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-proposal-would-allow-every-athlete-to-transfer-once-without-sitting-out-a-year/
-
all for it.
-
That would be a major improvement over the current setup.
-
Helps big conferences and totally screws smaller schools and conferences...yay for the rich and powerful.
-
Helps big conferences and totally screws smaller schools and conferences...yay for the rich and powerful.
Helps players who improved a lot *
-
It helps all sorts of schools. Players transfer up AND transfer down.
But that isn't really the point. The players shouldn't be expected to have their freedom restricted for the sake of lower level schools. We don't expect coaches to bear that responsibility by restricting their movement. We don't expect athletic departments to share this responsibility by sharing conference revenue. So why should expect that from players?
-
Helps big conferences and totally screws smaller schools and conferences...yay for the rich and powerful.
It's the American way
-
Helps big conferences and totally screws smaller schools and conferences...yay for the rich and powerful.
1..The NCAA setup already favors the rich and powerful schools.
2. A large majority of transfers involve kids either moving down a level or making a lateral move. Relatively few are kids going from a mid/low-major programs to a P6 school, and the ones that do are often grad transfers.
My sympathies, though. I imagine it's no fun watching the NCAA capitulate on these issues (transfers, NLI) for which you've carried their water for years.
You can commiserate with Mike DeCourcey, I suppose.
-
It helps all sorts of schools. Players transfer up AND transfer down.
But that isn't really the point. The players shouldn't be expected to have their freedom restricted for the sake of lower level schools. We don't expect coaches to bear that responsibility by restricting their movement. We don't expect athletic departments to share this responsibility by sharing conference revenue. So why should expect that from players?
Why give players free school and housing?
-
Why give players free school and housing?
Exactly, pay them and charge them room and board.
-
Why give players free school and housing?
Why make them go to school at all? Just make them employees that play basketball.
-
I believe TAMU provided some excellent facts and figures about the majority of transfers being kids who move down a level - something we've seen from Wojo's transfers. So, as others have pointed out, this actually would expand opportunities for the "non-rich."
Regardless ... freedom of movement, without onerous consequences, is generally a good thing.
-
Why make them go to school at all? Just make them employees that play basketball.
Really what it should be. The entire thing is a facade anyways.
-
Helps big conferences and totally screws smaller schools and conferences...yay for the rich and powerful.
Yep. It's a free market versus a cartel. Too many D1 schools anyway if they can't stand in there own.
Btw, how many big media contracts are there outside of the P6? Too bad for the rich and powerful that DTV has now decided to revenue share their conference sponsorships.
-
Why give players free school and housing?
Why give anyone free college, hey?
-
Izzo wishes it had been implemented 6 months ago.
-
Why give players free school and housing?
Excellent use of the straw man!!!
-
Jim Delany has to be rolling over in his grave
-
Why give anyone free college, hey?
Why give anyone free school? I think k-12 should have to be paid individually as well.
-
For those unsure, more sarcasm.
-
Why give anyone free college, hey?
All college should be free, as well as healthcare, housing, and Arby's
-
If its free, it has no value, hey?
-
If its free, it has no value, hey?
Guess you’ve never used a library ai’na
-
If its free, it has no value, hey?
Like Scoop?
-
If its free, it has no value, hey?
Fire departments.
Police departments.
Libraries.
Public schools.
Interstate highway system.
All of those (and many others we take for granted) are "free." All have value.
Of course, none of it really is free. You and I and millions of others help pay for them. We also use taxpayer money to give stadiums to billionaires, welfare to farmers, incentives to corporations, tax cuts to billionaires, etc, etc, etc.
-
All college should be free, as well as healthcare, housing, and Arby's
So my grand daughter just shows up at Harvard and takes classes and gets her Harvard degree in 4 years; sounds great.
-
So my grand daughter just shows up at Harvard and takes classes and gets her Harvard degree in 4 years; sounds great.
if she is admitted, yes
-
Jim Delany has to be rolling over in his grave
He is still alive.
-
Such a piss poor idea that will benefit the haves and hurt everyone else. Reap what you sow.
-
Such a piss poor idea that will benefit the haves and hurt everyone else. Reap what you sow.
Cheeks really cares about have and have nots.
Disparity in conference media and tournament payouts? Cheeks: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Coaching contracts that allow them to leave for "haves"? Cheeks: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Transfer rules that allow students to be immediately eligible? Cheeks: OUTRAGE!!!
Of course the one thing he is outraged about is the item that gives additional power to those who have the least. Very surprising.
-
All college should be free, as well as healthcare, housing, and Arby's
The academics should be paid in free money, too.
-
Buzz Williams left MU to a have not...Right Sultan?
Conference payouts are a product of the success of the conference.
What this rule change will do if enough conferences start to do it is wide open tampering, full free agency. It is beyond stupid. If you are any good at a program that is a step back, you are likely to lose players. It makes rebuilding very difficult, and the major programs simply have to target who they want to pull up from other teams.
Brutally bad. Senseless. And yeah, life isn’t always fair or comparable.
-
Buzz Williams left MU to a have not...Right Sultan?
Conference payouts are a product of the success of the conference.
What this rule change will do if enough conferences start to do it is wide open tampering, full free agency. It is beyond stupid. If you are any good at a program that is a step back, you are likely to lose players. It makes rebuilding very difficult, and the major programs simply have to target who they want to pull up from other teams.
Brutally bad. Senseless. And yeah, life isn’t always fair or comparable.
We get it. You care so much about have and have nots that you go on endlessly about players.
Never the underlying cause of the disparity.
Forgive me if I don't take you seriously no matter how many adjectives you use.
-
Fire departments.
Police departments.
Libraries.
Public schools.
Interstate highway system.
All of those (and many others we take for granted) are "free." All have value.
Of course, none of it really is free. You and I and millions of others help pay for them. We also use taxpayer money to give stadiums to billionaires, welfare to farmers, incentives to corporations, tax cuts to billionaires, etc, etc, etc.
yep, not free... but I gladly pay my taxes to get them. Having lived in countries which don't have these, I see the value. Paying more, however, to get more stuff for "free"... no thanks.
And back to the subject... it's too bad it's a big 10 idea and not an NCAA idea.
-
If this passes transfers will increase, I see no way around that. If it is already 40%, it will be higher still. Probably a bad thing overall for the quality of play in college basketball (I think familiarity with your teammates is a big factor in quality) and I'd rather it not happen, but it is inevitable. A consistent rule that says you always sit out a year or are always allowed to play immediately would be preferable the current state, where it seems to an outsider like me that the granting or denying of a waiver is rather haphazardly applied.
-
If this passes transfers will increase, I see no way around that. If it is already 40%, it will be higher still. Probably a bad thing overall for the quality of play in college basketball (I think familiarity with your teammates is a big factor in quality) and I'd rather it not happen, but it is inevitable. A consistent rule that says you always sit out a year or are always allowed to play immediately would be preferable the current state, where it seems to an outsider like me that the granting or denying of a waiver is rather haphazardly applied.
This is a practical, intelligent way to look at this issue.
You personally would rather it not happen for a variety of reasons, but you realize it very well might happen and that, in some ways, a consistent policy would be preferable to the status quo.
That's a lot better, IMHO, than the hair-on-fire reaction of some. There were similar reactions to many other big changes that, over time, proved to have not warranted all the WE ARE DOOMED angst they inspired at the time.
-
This is a practical, intelligent way to look at this issue.
You personally would rather it not happen for a variety of reasons, but you realize it very well might happen and that, in some ways, a consistent policy would be preferable to the status quo.
That's a lot better, IMHO, than the hair-on-fire reaction of some. There were similar reactions to many other big changes that, over time, proved to have not warranted all the WE ARE DOOMED angst they inspired at the time.
Anybody marry their dog recently?
-
Anybody marry their dog recently?
Sources say it was the same transgender people who terrorized little girls in bathrooms that did the dog-marrying.
-
Helps big conferences and totally screws smaller schools and conferences...yay for the rich and powerful.
Boeheim admitted as much last year and said he would oppose it.
Mid-majors would become developmental leagues for the Power 5. Transfers up happen already with guys willing to sit (e.g. Rowsey, Curry), now imagine if they could move immediately, they wouldn't hesitate to do it and there would be a huge spike. A mid-major kid who puts up stats against a high-major team is going to be recruited in the handshake line.
Poaching by high-majors is a major issue in Men's Soccer with no year in residence requirement, basketball would be 100x worse.
-
Boeheim admitted as much last year and said he would oppose it.
Mid-majors would become developmental leagues for the Power 5. Transfers up happen already with guys willing to sit (e.g. Rowsey, Curry), now imagine if they could move immediately, they wouldn't hesitate to do it and there would be a huge spike. A mid-major kid who puts up stats against a high-major team is going to be recruited in the handshake line.
I don't disagree with this, although I think I lean toward supporting this rule.
I'm curious about something, though, and your background might make you uniquely able to comment. Are some schools that are not well funded reluctant to take transfers that will have to sit out a year? I've seem some schools in non-revenue sports that are pretty aggressive in trying to move athletes through in four years to avoid the additional costs of that fifth year. Redshirt years cost the program money without corresponding production on the court. I don't know if that would ever be a concern in MBB. Is it possible that a rule like this would benefit smaller schools by allowing them more flexibility to take incoming transfers without having to give them an extra year? If you take a junior transfer, you only have to give them two years, not three. And could this also benefit athletes who are in over their heads at high-majors by giving them more potential landing spots in a transfer?
-
Boeheim admitted as much last year and said he would oppose it.
Mid-majors would become developmental leagues for the Power 5. Transfers up happen already with guys willing to sit (e.g. Rowsey, Curry), now imagine if they could move immediately, they wouldn't hesitate to do it and there would be a huge spike. A mid-major kid who puts up stats against a high-major team is going to be recruited in the handshake line.
Poaching by high-majors is a major issue in Men's Soccer with no year in residence requirement, basketball would be 100x worse.
I am not doubting it will increase transfers of talented players to high major programs and harm mid major ones. But I have two responses.
First, why is that on the players to ensure competitiveness of mid-majro programs? We don't limit a coach's ability to move. We don't try to share revenue in a more equitable manner. Why do we bring up these issues ("have and have nots") only when we discuss players?
Second, collectively college basketball fans don't care about mid-majors. We SAY we do, especially when schools like Loyola and Sister Whateverhernameis make for a nice story, but even in the NCAA tournament, the big boys draw the most eyeballs. There are 80+ schools in the P6 conferences plus a handful of AAC, MVC and Gozaga type schools that can compete every year. That's plenty. If the other schools can't hack it, drop to D2.
-
I don't disagree with this, although I think I lean toward supporting this rule.
I'm curious about something, though, and your background might make you uniquely able to comment. Are some schools that are not well funded reluctant to take transfers that will have to sit out a year? I've seem some schools in non-revenue sports that are pretty aggressive in trying to move athletes through in four years to avoid the additional costs of that fifth year. Redshirt years cost the program money without corresponding production on the court. I don't know if that would ever be a concern in MBB. Is it possible that a rule like this would benefit smaller schools by allowing them more flexibility to take incoming transfers without having to give them an extra year? If you take a junior transfer, you only have to give them two years, not three. And could this also benefit athletes who are in over their heads at high-majors by giving them more potential landing spots in a transfer?
I would have been fine with immediate transfer eligibility with a GPA requirement. 2.6 is needed to get a APR point back so as to not penalize the school (particularly important now with the Shared Revenue Distribution program that began this year). But, commentators like Bilas killed that.
It's rare for any MBB program to not want to take a transfer due to concerns over having to pay for a fifth year. However, the bigger issue would be eligibility. After two years it's difficult to be eligible immediately, especially if one is transferring into Business, since entering the fifth semester is when the percentage towards degree requirements kick in. Private and religious schools like MU are at a disadvantage with public school transfers meeting those standards because of the number of prerequisite classes they wouldn't have taken elsewhere (e.g., Theology and Philosophy). If MU's graduation requirement is 128 credits for someone enrolling as a freshman it could increase significantly for a transfer and cause them to not meet immediate eligibility requirements.
-
I am not doubting it will increase transfers of talented players to high major programs and harm mid major ones. But I have two responses.
First, why is that on the players to ensure competitiveness of mid-majro programs? We don't limit a coach's ability to move. We don't try to share revenue in a more equitable manner. Why do we bring up these issues ("have and have nots") only when we discuss players?
Second, collectively college basketball fans don't care about mid-majors. We SAY we do, especially when schools like Loyola and Sister Whateverhernameis make for a nice story, but even in the NCAA tournament, the big boys draw the most eyeballs. There are 80+ schools in the P6 conferences plus a handful of AAC, MVC and Gozaga type schools that can compete every year. That's plenty. If the other schools can't hack it, drop to D2.
That is a terribly broad statement to say they don’t care. I remember Xavier, Gonzaga, Creighton and others drawing very good crowds for their mid major programs.
What you eventually see with all the pilfering is schools dropping out of D1, which means less opportunities for minorities, women, etc.
It is a horrific idea.
Now, as a cynic I believe a major conference will do it to bolster recruiting by saying you can leave whenever you want with no penalty. Come on down.
Some people think players are soft now, you just wait until this process rule is put into place....the ENTITLEMENT it creates is off the charts. Sorry kiddos, life ain’t easy all the time and you will find situations where the coach is mean, or your boss, or your colleagues. Use it to grow yourself and learn to handle adversity, do not run away from it.
-
Boeheim admitted as much last year and said he would oppose it.
Mid-majors would become developmental leagues for the Power 5. Transfers up happen already with guys willing to sit (e.g. Rowsey, Curry), now imagine if they could move immediately, they wouldn't hesitate to do it and there would be a huge spike. A mid-major kid who puts up stats against a high-major team is going to be recruited in the handshake line.
Poaching by high-majors is a major issue in Men's Soccer with no year in residence requirement, basketball would be 100x worse.
Yup....but a lot of people that have no idea the impacts don’t care if it is a way to somehow take down the man.
It would effectively consolidate more power at the top....considering those for this is always makes wonder if they get the irony
-
That is a terribly broad statement to say they don’t care.
Of course it is a broad statement. But it's an accurate one taken as a whole.
What you eventually see with all the pilfering is schools dropping out of D1, which means less opportunities for minorities, women, etc.
I think we should be providing more such opportunities, but not tie them to athletic ability. That is why I think we should reinstitute many of the federal grant programs for higher education that have disappeared over the last 30 years. But that's politics...
Some people think players are soft now, you just wait until this process rule is put into place....the ENTITLEMENT it creates is off the charts. Sorry kiddos, life ain’t easy all the time and you will find situations where the coach is mean, or your boss, or your colleagues. Use it to grow yourself and learn to handle adversity, do not run away from it.
Oh God not this bullsh*t again. A bunch of adults who have switched jobs repeatedly are going to tell kids that they should handle adversity better. <yawn>
-
The idea that a bunch of programs are going to drop sports or drop to a lower division because of this is palpably stupid.
You're going to see just as many - and perhaps more, as is the case today - lateral and downward transfers as you do upward moves. The low- and mid-majors will thrive by being able to offer immediate playing time to kids stuck on the bench in the better conferences.
Frankly, this has the potential of hurting the power schools as much as helping. Plenty of 9th-10th guys at a school in the Big East or Pac 12 might be happy to leave for starters minutes at a smaller program if they don't have to sit out a year first. That's the real reason a guy like Boeheim is against it. It makes his job harder.
Conversely, P6 schools aren't going to be able to raid the smaller programs for their top players unless they can get those kids minutes. Kids starting in the Missouri Valley or Big West aren't transferring to a bigger school to play 10 minutes a night.
At the end of the day, players want to play.
But again, for all the talk of how much NCAA athletics benefits athletes, some of you can only frame this discussion in terms of how it affects the schools. How it affects the players isn't secondary for you. It's not even worthy of consideration.
-
The idea that a bunch of programs are going to drop sports or drop to a lower division because of this is palpably stupid.
You're going to see just as many - and perhaps more, as is the case today - lateral and downward transfers as you do upward moves. The low- and mid-majors will thrive by being able to offer immediate playing time to kids stuck on the bench in the better conferences.
Frankly, this has the potential of hurting the power schools as much as helping. Plenty of 9th-10th guys at a school in the Big East or Pac 12 might be happy to leave for starters minutes at a smaller program if they don't have to sit out a year first. That's the real reason a guy like Boeheim is against it. It makes his job harder.
Conversely, P6 schools aren't going to be able to raid the smaller programs for their top players unless they can get those kids minutes. Kids starting in the Missouri Valley or Big West aren't transferring to a bigger school to play 10 minutes a night.
At the end of the day, players want to play.
But again, for all the talk of how much NCAA athletics benefits athletes, some of you can only frame this discussion in terms of how it affects the schools. How it affects the players isn't secondary for you. It's not even worthy of consideration.
Yep and yep.
-
Of course it is a broad statement. But it's an accurate one taken as a whole.
I think we should be providing more such opportunities, but not tie them to athletic ability. That is why I think we should reinstitute many of the federal grant programs for higher education that have disappeared over the last 30 years. But that's politics...
Oh God not this bullsh*t again. A bunch of adults who have switched jobs repeatedly are going to tell kids that they should handle adversity better. <yawn>
It’s not about switching jobs, it’s about handling personalities.
Good luck with your other proposals.
-
The idea that a bunch of programs are going to drop sports or drop to a lower division because of this is palpably stupid.
You're going to see just as many - and perhaps more, as is the case today - lateral and downward transfers as you do upward moves. The low- and mid-majors will thrive by being able to offer immediate playing time to kids stuck on the bench in the better conferences.
Frankly, this has the potential of hurting the power schools as much as helping. Plenty of 9th-10th guys at a school in the Big East or Pac 12 might be happy to leave for starters minutes at a smaller program if they don't have to sit out a year first. That's the real reason a guy like Boeheim is against it. It makes his job harder.
Conversely, P6 schools aren't going to be able to raid the smaller programs for their top players unless they can get those kids minutes. Kids starting in the Missouri Valley or Big West aren't transferring to a bigger school to play 10 minutes a night.
At the end of the day, players want to play.
But again, for all the talk of how much NCAA athletics benefits athletes, some of you can only frame this discussion in terms of how it affects the schools. How it affects the players isn't secondary for you. It's not even worthy of consideration.
In basketball all it takes is one or two guys to leave and you potentially crush their chances. Sure you will have some ladder up and down, it’s the degree of impact that matters.
A kid laddering down has much less impact to the school they leave than one laddering up. It isn’t about quantity, it is about quality.
-
In basketball all it takes is one or two guys to leave and you potentially crush their chances. Sure you will have some ladder up and down, it’s the degree of impact that matters.
A kid laddering down has much less impact to the school they leave than one laddering up. It isn’t about quantity, it is about quality.
Bull----
With extremely rare exceptions - Steph Curry, Marcus Camby - a single kid isn't going to drive a small program to major success. Northern Illinois and Stetson losing their best player to a transfer will become ... Northern Illinois and Stetson. Nothing changes.
The slippery slope chicken little stuff here is ridiculous. This changes the college basketball landscape little, if at all.
But it does give the players power, leverage and freedom of movement. And that's what really has some people scared.
-
Sources say it was the same transgender people who terrorized little girls in bathrooms that did the dog-marrying.
Ahhh politics by MU82 again....aren’t we all shocked by this rare occurrence. ::)
-
Bull----
With extremely rare exceptions - Steph Curry, Marcus Camby - a single kid isn't going to drive a small program to major success. Northern Illinois and Stetson losing their best player to a transfer will become ... Northern Illinois and Stetson. Nothing changes.
The slippery slope chicken little stuff here is ridiculous. This changes the college basketball landscape little, if at all.
But it does give the players power, leverage and freedom of movement. And that's what really has some people scared.
I’m not talking about major success, I’m talking regular success which you are now yanking out of those schools. They took a chance on a kid with resources, investment, etc, help develop the kid and now he gets to walk away. I’m all for it if he has to pay back the value of the scholarship.
-
“I’m being completely honest and serious. If the media doesn’t take hold of this right now, you can shut mid-major basketball and low-major basketball down. It’s over. That’s a strong quote, I stand by it, and I mean it. The coaches can’t do anything about this. We are getting ready to be a farm club system…If you think these guys aren’t going to be contacted, you’re living in a world that has faeries. And I’m telling you right now Tinkerbelle ain’t in college basketball. If the media doesn’t join hands, specifically mid-major and low-major schools, we are going to end up with two divisions and you can just shut this down.”
SIU Coach Barry Hinson
-
“I’m being completely honest and serious. If the media doesn’t take hold of this right now, you can shut mid-major basketball and low-major basketball down. It’s over. That’s a strong quote, I stand by it, and I mean it. The coaches can’t do anything about this. We are getting ready to be a farm club system…If you think these guys aren’t going to be contacted, you’re living in a world that has faeries. And I’m telling you right now Tinkerbelle ain’t in college basketball. If the media doesn’t join hands, specifically mid-major and low-major schools, we are going to end up with two divisions and you can just shut this down.”
SIU Coach Barry Hinson
Yep. Barry might be right here. And the successful coaches will be the ones not whining about the media not "joining hands" (???), but the ones who find a way to thrive in that envrionment.
-
if she is admitted, yes
So college bureaucrats decide who gets a "free" education and where they get that education. Sounds like a lot of law suits down the pike as to why my kid didn't make the cut.
-
So college bureaucrats decide who gets a "free" education and where they get that education. Sounds like a lot of law suits down the pike as to why my kid didn't make the cut.
Yes colleges by and large get to determine who gets in and who doesn't.
-
Yep. Barry might be right here. And the successful coaches will be the ones not whining about the media not "joining hands" (???), but the ones who find a way to thrive in that envrionment.
You are missing the point, there won’t be any more successful coaches at those levels, not like today, because as they develop kids they will leave. They are penalized for doing their job well.
-
So college bureaucrats decide who gets a "free" education and where they get that education. Sounds like a lot of law suits down the pike as to why my kid didn't make the cut.
Isn't that how it works already?]
-
You are missing the point, there won’t be any more successful coaches at those levels, not like today, because as they develop kids they will leave. They are penalized for doing their job well.
Are you really saying there will be no more successful coaches at those levels? There are numerous successful coaches at the D2 and D3 levels now.
Regardless, maybe Barry should think of this as an opportunity to recruit more transfers up from the low major level...or recruit those sitting on high major benches with the offer of more playing time. He's been a decidedly mediocre coach who has all of three NIT bids in his 16 years as a coach in the Missiouri Valley. One would think he would welcome a change like this, and try to be a leader and innovator. Because he certainly isn't succeeding in the current system.
But my guess is that he will whine and act the victim instead.
-
It’s not like there’s an unlimited amount of scholarship spots and minutes available for high majors. I’d buy into some of the doom and gloom if they expanded rosters above 13.
-
Ahhh politics by MU82 again....aren’t we all shocked by this rare occurrence. ::)
And yet somehow everyone else in the thread somehow managed to simply ignore it and not comment on it for almost 24 hours. Too bad you couldn't find the strength to do the same.
-
I’m not talking about major success, I’m talking regular success which you are now yanking out of those schools. They took a chance on a kid with resources, investment, etc, help develop the kid and now he gets to walk away. I’m all for it if he has to pay back the value of the scholarship.
Oh, please.
Duke and Kentucky aren't going to be mining the likes of Southern Illinois for their players. #Fakenews
-
I’m not talking about major success, I’m talking regular success which you are now yanking out of those schools. They took a chance on a kid with resources, investment, etc, help develop the kid and now he gets to walk away. I’m all for it if he has to pay back the value of the scholarship.
have you ever paid back part of your salary to a former employer after you worked there, they trained you and invested time and resources into you, helped develop you and then you left for a better opportunity?
And don't use the "but college students aren't employees" excuse. It's the same exact thing.
-
I have always believed that the rule that makes no sense is not the sit out rule, but the 5 to play 4 rule. Eliminate the 5 to play 4 rule and require every transfer to sit out a year. This way nobody loses any eligibility even if they want to transfer every year.
The sit out year prevents chaos every off season and also makes the kids transferring weigh the pros and cons of their decision which is a good life lesson. But they shouldn't be penalized an entire year of eligibility if they change their mind on more than one occasion. Even if someone transfers after every year they play, it will only take 7 years to exhaust their eligibility. What's the big difference between 5 and 7. Anyone that transfers 3 times and is still hanging around college at 25-26 probably isn't making that big of an impact anyway.
I believe this would be fair to the student athlete without turning every off season into a free for all.
-
I have always believed that the rule that makes no sense is not the sit out rule, but the 5 to play 4 rule. Eliminate the 5 to play 4 rule and require every transfer to sit out a year. This way nobody loses any eligibility even if they want to transfer every year.
The sit out year prevents chaos every off season and also makes the kids transferring weigh the pros and cons of their decision which is a good life lesson. But they shouldn't be penalized an entire year of eligibility if they change their mind on more than one occasion. Even if someone transfers after every year they play, it will only take 7 years to exhaust their eligibility. What's the big difference between 5 and 7. Anyone that transfers 3 times and is still hanging around college at 25-26 probably isn't making that big of an impact anyway.
I believe this would be fair to the student athlete without turning every off season into a free for all.
Why should a kid have a penalty of sitting out a year in case they made the wrong decision at the age of 17? Why should a coach be able to bail a year after recruiting the player while the player has to determine if sitting out a year is worth improving their situation?
-
Why should a kid have a penalty of sitting out a year in case they made the wrong decision at the age of 17? Why should a coach be able to bail a year after recruiting the player while the player has to determine if sitting out a year is worth improving their situation?
I just don't think it's that big of a sacrifice if it doesn't cost you any eligibility. In fact if you play your cards right you can use it to your advantage. College basketball is a competition. And competitions have rules to maintain order that you need to obey if you want to participate in the competition.
In the current model kids are losing something. A year of eligibility is precious when you only have 4. This way they would not be losing anything. I also don't think a rule that makes a young adult stop and think before rushing into a big decision is necessarily a bad thing. But they shouldn't be punished because of that rule. Just my opinion. I think it would be better than an open recruiting season every off season.
-
Oh, please.
Duke and Kentucky aren't going to be mining the likes of Southern Illinois for their players. #Fakenews
Duke did mine Liberty for Seth Curry and Rice for Sean Obi. Kentucky currently has a transfer from Bucknell.
-
Duke did mine Liberty for Seth Curry and Rice for Sean Obi. Kentucky currently has a transfer from Bucknell.
So, basically in the last decade, you can name two instances of Duke taking a transfer from a smaller program. I can see why there's such panic.
The Bucknell kid is a grad transfer.
-
Look, we all know that Barry Hinson is setting up a strawman for when Southern Illinois runs him out of town for doing nothing notable during his tenure there. This is all to get some unsuspecting MVC school to sign him up for another five or six years of his mediocrity. Hello Evansville???
-
Look, we all know that Barry Hinson is setting up a strawman for when Southern Illinois runs him out of town for doing nothing notable during his tenure there. This is all to get some unsuspecting MVC school to sign him up for another five or six years of his mediocrity. Hello Evansville???
Hinson is already gone. He resigned last March at SIU. He's currently at Oklahoma St in a special assistant role to Mike Boynton, Jr.
-
Why should a kid have a penalty of sitting out a year in case they made the wrong decision at the age of 17? Why should a coach be able to bail a year after recruiting the player while the player has to determine if sitting out a year is worth improving their situation?
It's not a penalty. It is in place to help kids get acclimated to their new school. #StudentsFirst
Stop trying to use these kids for sports only! They are the children of this great country. Let them be educated.
PS - Southern Illinois is GREAT. Freshman Wisconsinite Marcus Domask has been tremendous. Next season they add Dawson's D1 MN teammate -- another Wisconsin kid - Dalton Banks.
I like the other poster's idea of changing the 5 year rule.. I would be OK with having a 6th year exception for people that lost a year or two because of transfer, so long a the academics are in order. Heck, maybe college bball starts producing MBAs instead of guys who take a couple of grad classes for show.
-
Hinson is already gone. He resigned last March at SIU. He's currently at Oklahoma St in a special assistant role to Mike Boynton, Jr.
So I don't know what's funnier....that Cheeks pulled up a quote from two years ago in support of his position, or that I completely misread Barry Hinson's Wikipedia page.
-
It's not a penalty. It is in place to help kids get acclimated to their new school. #StudentsFirst
Unless they play a bunch of other sports that aren't basketball or football.
-
Hinson is already gone. He resigned last March at SIU. He's currently at Oklahoma St in a special assistant role to Mike Boynton, Jr.
Yeah, Cheeks had to dredge up a two-year-old quote.
But Fluffy is right ... Hinson's comments are all about protecting his interests and his job. And, of course, no mention of the ways this would benefit a program like SIU (like, maybe the 10th guy at Illinois or Indiana would like some playing time and immediately becomes a difference maker at a lower level).
As usual, what's best for the athlete is irrelevant to most coaches and administrators.
-
Unless they play a bunch of other sports that aren't basketball or football.
Some things are far less demanding than others. Such as going to StN instead of MU
-
Duke did mine Liberty for Seth Curry and Rice for Sean Obi. Kentucky currently has a transfer from Bucknell.
Curry also transferred the year after his big bro set the world on fire and was a lottery pick (which undoubtedly gave him visibility he otherwise wouldnt have had) and also may have realized that he didn't want to spend 4 years at an uber restrictive school like Liberty when he had options elsewhere.
-
Unless they play a bunch of other sports that aren't basketball or football.
Yeah, kinda weird how soccer and volleyball players don't need to get acclimated.
-
So I don't know what's funnier....that Cheeks pulled up a quote from two years ago in support of his position, or that I completely misread Barry Hinson's Wikipedia page.
Yeah, I follow the Valley, so I was confused when saw that quote attributed to Hinson as SIU's coach.
And, JayBee is right about SIU. Bryan Mullins is definitely a name to watch in the future.
-
It's not a penalty. It is in place to help kids get acclimated to their new school. #StudentsFirst
Stop trying to use these kids for sports only! They are the children of this great country. Let them be educated.
PS - Southern Illinois is GREAT. Freshman Wisconsinite Marcus Domask has been tremendous. Next season they add Dawson's D1 MN teammate -- another Wisconsin kid - Dalton Banks.
I like the other poster's idea of changing the 5 year rule.. I would be OK with having a 6th year exception for people that lost a year or two because of transfer, so long a the academics are in order. Heck, maybe college bball starts producing MBAs instead of guys who take a couple of grad classes for show.
When the NCAA grants a waiver, it’s due to a review of the student that they are the type of person that doesn’t need a year to be acclimated to the school?
-
When the NCAA grants a waiver, it’s due to a review of the student that they are the type of person that doesn’t need a year to be acclimated to the school?
No. We don't get to see the arguments and reasoning.
Rules should be followed. Would make it easier to understand.
-
Unless they play a bunch of other sports that aren't basketball or football.
GOTTEM
-
No. We don't get to see the arguments and reasoning.
Rules should be followed. Would make it easier to understand.
The waiver process is part of the rules.
-
So, basically in the last decade, you can name two instances of Duke taking a transfer from a smaller program. I can see why there's such panic.
The Bucknell kid is a grad transfer.
those are ones that come to mind immediately for Duke, there may be more, I don't care to look right now. We had Rowsey transfer up.
-
those are ones that come to mind immediately for Duke, there may be more, I don't care to look right now. We had Rowsey transfer up.
No one is saying upward transfers don't happen.
There's just no reason to believe that mid- and low-major rosters are going to be picked clean of all their talent every year - even to the point they shut down their programs - as some here are arguing. Some programs will lose players some years. They'll also pick up players who are looking to move down a level for more minutes.
-
And yet somehow everyone else in the thread somehow managed to simply ignore it and not comment on it for almost 24 hours. Too bad you couldn't find the strength to do the same.
Yessir. I guess he misses me.
-
And, JayBee is right about SIU. Bryan Mullins is definitely a name to watch in the future.
Hopefully he levels up in time unlike the last "name to watch" from SIU. Thank god MU avoided Lowery.
Also, SIU is "great"? Pretty liberal use of the term for a team that is 140 in the NET and has a largely unremarkable season outside of sneaking past a really tough UNI team at home. The MVC is pretty soft this year. Looks more like the MAC than the WCC or MWC. Even the SoCon is better this year.
-
Hopefully he levels up in time unlike the last "name to watch" from SIU. Thank god MU avoided Lowery.
Also, SIU is "great"? Pretty liberal use of the term for a team that is 140 in the NET and has a largely unremarkable season outside of sneaking past a really tough UNI team at home. The MVC is pretty soft this year. Looks more like the MAC than the WCC or MWC. Even the SoCon is better this year.
Great in this case is relative.. but, yeah... I'm a huge Marcus Domask fan.. was trying to tell people he was the better prospect than Days years ago. Crazy, as a frosh he's already got 9 KenPom mvp's.
Not sure I care about the Net, but in KenPom Southern Illinois started off at ~220 and is now 157..they've won 5 in a row and stand at 7-3 in conference. Lots of solid MM teams in the MVC.
Dalton Banks is legit as well.. they've got some young guns getting nice minutes this season..
-
Hopefully he levels up in time unlike the last "name to watch" from SIU. Thank god MU avoided Lowery.
Also, SIU is "great"? Pretty liberal use of the term for a team that is 140 in the NET and has a largely unremarkable season outside of sneaking past a really tough UNI team at home. The MVC is pretty soft this year. Looks more like the MAC than the WCC or MWC. Even the SoCon is better this year.
The Valley has been softer for awhile now. Losing Creighton and Wichita State will do that. According to KenPom, they’re the 11th best conference. They are ahead of the SoCon pretty comfortably in that particular matrix and just ahead of the MAC. KenPom has the Mountain West just ahead of them and the WCC 3 spots ahead.
From 2005-2009, they were the 7th best league in KenPom. That was their high water mark. They fell all the way down to 15 last year, so they are better this year. They’ve been around 9-11 the last decade or so for the most part. The days of the multi-bid Valley are probably over. That has more to with realignment than transfers.
-
Are you really saying there will be no more successful coaches at those levels? There are numerous successful coaches at the D2 and D3 levels now.
Regardless, maybe Barry should think of this as an opportunity to recruit more transfers up from the low major level...or recruit those sitting on high major benches with the offer of more playing time. He's been a decidedly mediocre coach who has all of three NIT bids in his 16 years as a coach in the Missiouri Valley. One would think he would welcome a change like this, and try to be a leader and innovator. Because he certainly isn't succeeding in the current system.
But my guess is that he will whine and act the victim instead.
I am happy to use other examples if you wish. Hinson was an easy one from a few years ago. I think you are still missing the overall point and Billy (who actually is at a mid major and does this for a living) knows more about this stuff than 99% of the people on this board. The issue of tampering will absolutely EXPLODE....and please do not start with the tired trope that "it is already happening". Not like this it won't. Today it of course happens to some extent, but the player still has to sit out so there is a built in control against it. If this nonsense is passed, there will be active free agency recruiting all the time. Who wins? The haves. Who loses? Everyone else.
This notion by Pakuni about players going down....who cares. Are the Dodgers suddenly hurting when a player is demoted to Triple A? Uhm, no. It's the upward bound players that provide the benefit and the teams they LEAVE that are harmed. In a baseball example it doesn't matter because they are working in alignment with the big club. That's not what is going to happen here. Teams will have their guts ripped out by upper echelon teams, and they will then try to do the same to someone else to fill the void. Horrible outcomes.
JUST DUMB.
-
And yet somehow everyone else in the thread somehow managed to simply ignore it and not comment on it for almost 24 hours. Too bad you couldn't find the strength to do the same.
And yet somehow others have managed not to commit the same actions he continuously does....but he couldn't find the internal strength...again...to do it. Meanwhile he'll send me countless PMs to show me how wonderful he is in not doing something he continues to do. Maybe if you were receiving his PMs you would feel differently.
-
have you ever paid back part of your salary to a former employer after you worked there, they trained you and invested time and resources into you, helped develop you and then you left for a better opportunity?
And don't use the "but college students aren't employees" excuse. It's the same exact thing.
I have not, but my brother-in-law has. A non-compete clause that if he left he would owe the company money. Same for his MBA....had to agree to stay with the company for 3 years in return for them paying for his MBA education.
-
So, basically in the last decade, you can name two instances of Duke taking a transfer from a smaller program. I can see why there's such panic.
The Bucknell kid is a grad transfer.
THIS IS SUCH TORTURED LOGIC. First off, they didn't mine because the kid had to sit out a year. The market opportunity wasn't there. Not the case with grad transfers where this is happening more and more. You think for a second an upper level school wouldn't want a chance to grab a stud player on a team that was in "rebuild" mode because kids were graduating ahead of him? Etc? Give me a damn break. You are not comparing apples to apples because the rules aren't the same.
-
For the record and for anybody who cares (and I don't know why anybody would), I haven't sent hoopaloop a single PM -- let alone "countless PMs" -- in more than a month.
And I haven't interacted with him in a thread in almost 6 weeks.
I have, however, had several very nice PMs with StillAWarrior. Seems like a good guy.
We now can get back to transfer rules hopefully changing soon to favor the athletes, which is how it should be. I'd love to see the Big East take the leadership on being on the right side of history here, and not let the Big 14 get all the glory.
-
For the record and for anybody who cares (and I don't know why anybody would), I haven't sent hoopaloop a single PM -- let alone "countless PMs" -- in more than a month.
And I haven't interacted with him in a thread in almost 6 weeks.
I have, however, had several very nice PMs with StillAWarrior. Seems like a good guy.
We now can get back to transfer rules hopefully changing soon to favor the athletes, which is how it should be. I'd love to see the Big East take the leadership on being on the right side of history here, and not let the Big 14 get all the glory.
Stillwarrior is a good guy. You can be at times, too. You sent me 17 PMs over a two week period. You also claimed in several of those PMs how you had and would stop the political stuff....but you didn't, and I called you out for it. I'm sorry Stillwarrior and others didn't like it. It's funny I get the blame for that, when if you hadn't done it in the first place no reaction would have happened at all. Weird.
Now, about transfer rules....not very smart and harm the game. Tampering will be out of control, some programs will be decimated and to suggest that will not happen to SOME programs it the ultimate head in the sand.
-
Stillwarrior is a good guy. You can be at times, too. You sent me 17 PMs over a two week period. You also claimed in several of those PMs how you had and would stop the political stuff....but you didn't, and I called you out for it. I'm sorry Stillwarrior and others didn't like it. It's funny I get the blame for that, when if you hadn't done it in the first place no reaction would have happened at all. Weird.
Now, about transfer rules....not very smart and harm the game. Tampering will be out of control, some programs will be decimated and to suggest that will not happen to SOME programs it the ultimate head in the sand.
You really want to be the person to call out someone who says they are going to change their behavior?
I believe there's a mea culpa post on this board from you
-
I am happy to use other examples if you wish. Hinson was an easy one from a few years ago. I think you are still missing the overall point and Billy (who actually is at a mid major and does this for a living) knows more about this stuff than 99% of the people on this board. The issue of tampering will absolutely EXPLODE....and please do not start with the tired trope that "it is already happening". Not like this it won't. Today it of course happens to some extent, but the player still has to sit out so there is a built in control against it. If this nonsense is passed, there will be active free agency recruiting all the time. Who wins? The haves. Who loses? Everyone else.
This notion by Pakuni about players going down....who cares. Are the Dodgers suddenly hurting when a player is demoted to Triple A? Uhm, no. It's the upward bound players that provide the benefit and the teams they LEAVE that are harmed. In a baseball example it doesn't matter because they are working in alignment with the big club. That's not what is going to happen here. Teams will have their guts ripped out by upper echelon teams, and they will then try to do the same to someone else to fill the void. Horrible outcomes.
JUST DUMB.
I'm not missing anything.
I don't care about the fate of whiney mid-major programs. Those who are innovative will find a way. I don't really care about tampering. Such is life. I care more about the players ability to play where they want to play without sitting out.
-
You really want to be the person to call out someone who says they are going to change their behavior?
I believe there's a mea culpa post on this board from you
When that same person is PMing me about changing mine and he continues to do it.....you bet. He can show by example, he cannot do it...is incapable.
-
I'm not missing anything.
I don't care about the fate of whiney mid-major programs. Those who are innovative will find a way. I don't really care about tampering. Such is life. I care more about the players ability to play where they want to play without sitting out.
I always knew you cared about the haves.
-
When that same person is PMing me about changing mine and he continues to do it.....you bet. He can show by example, he cannot do it...is incapable.
Post them! Transparency!
-
THIS IS SUCH TORTURED LOGIC. First off, they didn't mine because the kid had to sit out a year. The market opportunity wasn't there. Not the case with grad transfers where this is happening more and more. You think for a second an upper level school wouldn't want a chance to grab a stud player on a team that was in "rebuild" mode because kids were graduating ahead of him? Etc? Give me a damn break. You are not comparing apples to apples because the rules aren't the same.
Not quite sure what this gibberish means ... but if you want to believe that top programs are really going to re-stock their rosters annually with kids from the MAC and Southland, enjoy that delusion. It certainly won't be the first time one of your predictions of doom has been woefully wrong.
By the way ... notice how one of the guys you frequently quote in your full-throated defenses of the status quo came out yesterday ranting about how badly college basketball needs to change the status quo?
https://sports.yahoo.com/coach-k-on-college-hoops-i-wish-the-whole-thing-would-change-084051665.html
-
I always knew you cared about the haves.
I believe those in favor of this mostly care about the players having the freedom to go to their school of choice without sitting out a year. I wonder if more MU players would have transferred down a level if they didn’t have to sit a year. Maybe they didn’t want to stay in school more than 4 years, so thought being a role player was better than needing a 5th year.
Is a likely result that it benefits the high majors more than mid-majors? I’d say most likely. However, that’s not the motivation to do it. It’s more about letting students make the best choice for themselves without a need to sit out a year.
-
I believe those in favor of this mostly care about the players having the freedom to go to their school of choice without sitting out a year. I wonder if more MU players would have transferred down a level if they didn’t have to sit a year. Maybe they didn’t want to stay in school more than 4 years, so thought being a role player was better than needing a 5th year.
Is a likely result that it benefits the high majors more than mid-majors? I’d say most likely. However, that’s not the motivation to do it. It’s more about letting students make the best choice for themselves without a need to sit out a year.
Yep. Personal freedom. Personal choice. Those used to be seen as good things. I guess they still are, but only when they fit each debater's chosen narrative.
-
Not quite sure what this gibberish means ... but if you want to believe that top programs are really going to re-stock their rosters annually with kids from the MAC and Southland, enjoy that delusion. It certainly won't be the first time one of your predictions of doom has been woefully wrong.
By the way ... notice how one of the guys you frequently quote in your full-throated defenses of the status quo came out yesterday ranting about how badly college basketball needs to change the status quo?
https://sports.yahoo.com/coach-k-on-college-hoops-i-wish-the-whole-thing-would-change-084051665.html
That is a really great article.
-
Interesting article. But until I see a multi-year pattern, I am sticking with "sports are cyclical."
College basketball was great last season. This season, not. It might be great again next season or two years from now. Or not. We'll see.
Regardless of the subject, I've heard a few too many "such-and-such is doomed" angles to buy in until I see a lot more evidence.
-
Not quite sure what this gibberish means ... but if you want to believe that top programs are really going to re-stock their rosters annually with kids from the MAC and Southland, enjoy that delusion. It certainly won't be the first time one of your predictions of doom has been woefully wrong.
By the way ... notice how one of the guys you frequently quote in your full-throated defenses of the status quo came out yesterday ranting about how badly college basketball needs to change the status quo?
https://sports.yahoo.com/coach-k-on-college-hoops-i-wish-the-whole-thing-would-change-084051665.html
Except I think Coach K wants to limit players movement more than they are now. Thats how I read the article anyway. He wants kids to stop leaving for the NBA. I suspect he'd want something similar to baseball. Come to college, ineligible for the draft for three years, or something like that. Maybe 2. THat would build up JC basketball, anyway. Sad thing is, what's best for the players is not what's best for the coaches, the fans, etc. I think unfortunately the correct answer to that issue is "so what?"
-
Except I think Coach K wants to limit players movement more than they are now. Thats how I read the article anyway. He wants kids to stop leaving for the NBA. I suspect he'd want something similar to baseball. Come to college, ineligible for the draft for three years, or something like that. Maybe 2. THat would build up JC basketball, anyway. Sad thing is, what's best for the players is not what's best for the coaches, the fans, etc. I think unfortunately the correct answer to that issue is "so what?"
I had a very different reading.
He doesn't want kids to stop leaving for the NBA. He wants kids to stop leaving for places other than the NBA.
As he said here:
“I think the whole state of college basketball has been hurt by how many kids have tested the waters,” Krzyzewski said. “It’s not the one-and-dones. We’ve lost about 70 or 80 kids who weren’t even drafted.”
As some have said for some time - and Coach K is realizing - because of the way the NCAA runs it, college basketball is now a less attractive option for a lot of kids than not just the NBA (it'll always be less attractive than the NBA), but also Europe, China, Australia and even the G League.
Dozens of really good players leave college early every year now not because they're expecting NBA riches, but because earning a low six-figure salary in Europe or Australia, or even $40-50K in the G, is a better alternative than playing for nothing in college.
I'm sure some will say "That's fine, we want the kids who want to get an education." And that is fine if you're a hardcore fan willing to spend your time and money on a mediocre product.
But casual fans and those who want the sport to grow and thrive and be popular - like the people who rely on it for a living - want to see great players with whom they're familiar. And that's not going to happen with the current direction of the NCAA.
-
I think he is also saying that there should be a path back to college for those who are undrafted, or even allowing a player to go back to college even if they are drafted. Back in the 90s, the NCAA allowed that. The Bucks drafted Voshawn Lenard back in 1994, but he opted to go back to college. The Bucks did not retain his rights, but perhaps the NBA could retain the rights and work with the player to continue at the college.
The ridiculousness of the amateurism rule prevents a lot of good ideas from coming forward. What would have been the harm had a team chosen Markus in the second round last year, have him sign a contract with some compensation, but then had him go back to Marquette for a final season?
I'm not saying that's a perfect idea, but the NCAA is shooting itself in the foot.
-
I think he is also saying that there should be a path back to college for those who are undrafted, or even allowing a player to go back to college even if they are drafted. Back in the 90s, the NCAA allowed that. The Bucks drafted Voshawn Lenard back in 1994, but he opted to go back to college. The Bucks did not retain his rights, but perhaps the NBA could retain the rights and work with the player to continue at the college.
The ridiculousness of the amateurism rule prevents a lot of good ideas from coming forward. What would have been the harm had a team chosen Markus in the second round last year, have him sign a contract with some compensation, but then had him go back to Marquette for a final season?
I'm not saying that's a perfect idea, but the NCAA is shooting itself in the foot.
Made all the more weird by the fact they allow drafted and undrafted players to return in other sports.
-
The Bucks drafted Voshawn Lenard back in 1994, but he opted to go back to college.
Put some respeck on my man’s name. his name isn’t “Voshawn”.
-
Not quite sure what this gibberish means ... but if you want to believe that top programs are really going to re-stock their rosters annually with kids from the MAC and Southland, enjoy that delusion. It certainly won't be the first time one of your predictions of doom has been woefully wrong.
By the way ... notice how one of the guys you frequently quote in your full-throated defenses of the status quo came out yesterday ranting about how badly college basketball needs to change the status quo?
https://sports.yahoo.com/coach-k-on-college-hoops-i-wish-the-whole-thing-would-change-084051665.html
I think the top programs will restock from the next level....including P6 schools....then those schools from the next level and on and on. It becomes a domino effect and injures the mids the most.
A guy I frequently quote about a crapshoot nature...yes. Not about other things. Duke is the ultimate have and they will ask for what benefits them most. His primary complaints about the NCAA on this where they have no control. If the nba wants one and done, nothing the ncaa can do about it. That’s a nba issue. Poor mike not getting his nba players anymore....good. Let the pros go pro, let the college kids play in college.
-
Yep. Personal freedom. Personal choice. Those used to be seen as good things. I guess they still are, but only when they fit each debater's chosen narrative.
Lol.....I could list many personal choice options here that you have been against from day one, but that gets into politics so I won’t.
-
Post them! Transparency!
I want to apologize to MU 82, I said 17 posts over a two week period. I was wrong. It was 18. I blacked out a few non-MU82, but left Billy in there as just another of many samples of evidence that he and I are not the same person for those idiotic enough to still believe that.
(https://i.imgur.com/9kHDYhV.jpg)