so how is free agency going to compensate the players more than a full ride with all the perks at any school?
Looks like NCAA transfer rule is changing
- Thread starter Dr.O1
- Start date
so how is free agency going to compensate the players more than a full ride with all the perks at any school?
There is a flipside to it. Someone like Ricky Doyle transferring from Michigan to FGCU shouldn't have to sit out a year IMO.
It doesn’t but there is no need to put a bogus 1 year penalty in place to change programs. That rule exists for no reason other than to further benefit the schools and TV networks who are clearly already far on the better end of the deal with the athletes. Other than your own personal butthurt over potentially your school’s players bailing with a coach, can you come up with a logical argument as to why there should be a 1 year transfer penalty in place? What benefit does it serve the athlete other than to bully them into staying put in a place that may not be ideal?
free agency, poaching schools for talent, 19 year old's chasing the next shiny thing, want me to go on
without some kind requirements and/or restrictions it will just be free agency without the paycheck
Because the decision at 18 is somehow different than the decision at 19?
It costs a person a lot of time, effort, stress, and money to transfer schools. Transferring is basically like moving, anyone voluntarily transferring is in all likelihood very uncomfortable in their current setting, and if they want to take on all of the noise that comes with a transfer because they are seeking a greener pasture they shouldnt be "penalized" because people who do not actually know them will be butthurt about it.
I will give you that coaches should not be trolling the leading scorers of the lesser conferences looking to lure them away. There should be a lot of restrictions on coaches reaching out to players under scholarship, but if theres a kid in the CAA who just averaged 28 PPG and he wants to send his tape to coach K, then so be it, let K decide if he wants to pursue.
Sure. But they then need to make updates to rules that affect the programs themselves. For example, if a program is at a serious scholarship # disadvantage, let them recruit over the minimum annual scholarships allowed in that particular class, so they can catch up. Especially in the event of a transfer...they should get that scholarship added to their minimum if they choose to use it.
Transfers able to be eligible immediately, will increase transfers in general and can/will put some programs at risk from a numbers perspective. They need a way to protect themselves if/when this happens.
Especially for football, the extremely deep college football rosters are necessary almost out of safety as the extra numbers are needed not just for games (and CFB games are much longer than NFL games due to the clock stoppage rules and quicker offenses) but also for practice. If 20 football players followed their coach somewhere else, a school should be covered somehow.
I said it with football in mind as much if not more than basketball. My Jayhawks are a perfect example. Say what you want about Beaty's performance, but the fact is, we were down to like 40 scholarship players, and have had to slowly build our roster back up from a #s standpoint, and still aren't anywhere near approaching 80, because we've been limited on the #s we can offer every year. Despite losing more than a dozen players to transfer and/or early departures. It's essentially like being put on probation.
I heard this argument from a radio personality-- I'm opposed to this new rule. I do not think it is the best interest of the student athlete. Most transfers in football and basketball occur because the player is not good enough to make the team and desires to transfer for more playing time. Approximately 90% of these transfers are transfers down. A recent example would be the QB Cooper at Clemson who is transferring to Jacksonville State.
These players are not going to the next level. They would be best served to stay at their current school and focus upon getting their degree instead of going somewhere to play two more years and most likely not get their degree.
Additionally, we open a Pandora's box for tampering and even more violations that will be much harder to monitor.
These players are not going to the next level. They would be best served to stay at their current school and focus upon getting their degree instead of going somewhere to play two more years and most likely not get their degree.
Additionally, we open a Pandora's box for tampering and even more violations that will be much harder to monitor.
Is it terrible for the players?
Yes, this. Coaches are free to jump up a tier when they outcoach their conference peers. Kids develop different, why limit them because they only had 4 low-major offers coming out of high school?
However, couldn't they hit 4 schools?
Year 1- School 1
Year 2- Transfer School 2
Year 3- Transfer Sit Year
Year 4 - School 3
Year 5- Grad Transfer School 4 ..?
Still 5 years to play 4.
I care about the kids playing the sport.
I will never understand some valuing the betterment of a school over the betterment of the athlete.
Imo, if a kid wants to better his opportunity (not just in basketball, but also in his degree), I think his skill in years 2, 3 and 4 should be able to dictate where he gets his degree, not just his skill level coming out of high school.
they can put a limit on how many time a player can transfer. most of these are transferring because they were passed over because they are not good enough to keep their playing time,
now if they want to transfer down to a FCS school let them with no sitting out a year.
this can be applied to FCS players that want to move up to the FBS level, then those player should transfer with no penalty of sitting out a year.
this no sitting out rule needs to be kept as it would mean the coaches and SCHOOLS that spend all that money on recruiting and 1st year development gets screwed. it is the school that gets it in the end as they are the one paying for everything. the coaches don't pay for anything, even their recruiting trips are paid for by the School.
so yes the school does have the right to say who can and does transfer as they pay for everything,
this rule only benefits the blue bloods as they don't have to pay for anything. they see a kid succeeding
and then they poach a player they never gave a 2nd thought about.
now if they want to transfer down to a FCS school let them with no sitting out a year.
this can be applied to FCS players that want to move up to the FBS level, then those player should transfer with no penalty of sitting out a year.
this no sitting out rule needs to be kept as it would mean the coaches and SCHOOLS that spend all that money on recruiting and 1st year development gets screwed. it is the school that gets it in the end as they are the one paying for everything. the coaches don't pay for anything, even their recruiting trips are paid for by the School.
so yes the school does have the right to say who can and does transfer as they pay for everything,
this rule only benefits the blue bloods as they don't have to pay for anything. they see a kid succeeding
and then they poach a player they never gave a 2nd thought about.
