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

[forgetful]

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

(Also the NCAA retroactively changing punishments was questionable.)

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

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

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

+ 100000000000

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

BINGO

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[keefe]

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

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

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

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

[GGGG]

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

[keefe]

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

Wheat.

[martyconlonontherun]

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

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

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

[GGGG]

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

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

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

[Spotcheck Billy]

the wallpaper pic has been photoshopped

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

[Benny B]

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

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

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

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

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

[TJ]

the current system unduly penalizes players and coaches

Fixed it for you.

[The Equalizer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TJ]

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

That's an interesting idea.

[WarriorInNYC]

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

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

[Benny B]

Fixed it for you.

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

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

[The Equalizer]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jay Bee]

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

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

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

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

[GGGG]

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

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

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

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

[TJ]

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

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

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

[Benny B]

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

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

Two other examples:

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

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

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

[Jay Bee]

That's plenty incentive for a coach to break the rules, and when coaches start breaking the rules, the players start getting screwed...That's a broken system.

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

[Benny B]

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

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

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

[TJ]

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

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

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

[Benny B]

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

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

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