Fixing the 5th year transfer rule....coaches say must do it

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[WarriorInNYC]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[Pakuni]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[mu03eng]

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?

[CTWarrior]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[The Equalizer]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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."

[GGGG]

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

[Dawson Rental]

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.

[mu03eng]

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. "

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[Babybluejeans]

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.

[MU82]

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!

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.