Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64
  1. #21
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    10,147
    Quote Originally Posted by MHettel View Post
    Sounds great. Would never work.

    The thing that gets me is when someone says they are in favor of the transfer rule change because "I support whatever is in the best interest of the player."

    That's such a freaking bleeding heart take, it makes me laugh. Lets see how far we can take it...

    These items are in the best interest of the player:

    -Midyear transfer, immediate eligibility.
    -No restrictive recruiting windows. Coaches can contact players whenever and however they choose.
    -Players can get paid, without limit, and there is no disclosure requirement. Players can accept with money with no expectation that they will play at the school.
    -No cumbersome LOIs or any type of binding paperwork. We get to find out who is on the roster at the first practice.

    All solid ideas that are in the best interest of the players.

    Supporting what is in the best interest of the player is something the NCAA says all the time. It's not so much a bleeding hear take as it is demonstrating that what the NCAA says and what the NCAA does do not always match up.

    The stated reason for the Year in Residency rule is nonsense. Even the NCAA knows it's nonsense. It's that high risk academic sports need their transfers to not play for a year so they can become academically acclimated and increase their chances of graduating. Data (and rather extensive data) has shown that sitting a year doesn't help, and not sitting a year doesn't hurt. So, seeing that data year after year after year prompted the question Why does this rule still exist?"

    It has actually moved more quickly than I thought it would. Even if it's voted down this year, it will be proposed again next year, and the year after that, and it will eventually pass. There are just too many people in college sports who think it's dumb.

    I think every current indication is that sometime within the next ten years this rule will be gone, and that making money off of name, image, and likeness will be allowed. And, BTW, midyear transfers will be eligible right away if it's their first time transferring (as they are in all other sports), and NLI's are not requirements. So even though you're trying to use hyperbole, you're probably not that far off.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  2. #22
    Supporting Member AviatorX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,007
    Quote Originally Posted by MHettel View Post
    Sounds great. Would never work.

    The thing that gets me is when someone says they are in favor of the transfer rule change because "I support whatever is in the best interest of the player."

    That's such a freaking bleeding heart take, it makes me laugh. Lets see how far we can take it...

    These items are in the best interest of the player:

    -Midyear transfer, immediate eligibility.
    -No restrictive recruiting windows. Coaches can contact players whenever and however they choose.
    -Players can get paid, without limit, and there is no disclosure requirement. Players can accept with money with no expectation that they will play at the school.
    -No cumbersome LOIs or any type of binding paperwork. We get to find out who is on the roster at the first practice.

    All solid ideas that are in the best interest of the players.
    Yeah, I don't think anyone is pursuing this argument, but you are right that would be the extreme place to take the "in the interest of the player" line of thinking.

  3. #23
    Supporting Member XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post
    However, since we aren’t dealing with perfect situations or perfect people most of the time, there needs to be some rules and regulations in place so that it doesn’t get out of control.
    Ya kinda left that part of my statement when ya quoted me, didn’t ya?

  4. #24
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,767
    The current grad transfer rule I'm in favor of for many reasons; I actually can't see anything negative about it. The free transfer rule for all I believe there are pros and cons with the pros outweighing the cons. I'm not too worried about it. However, at the end of the day, there is finite number of teams and thus a set number of starters and minutes each year. So, as someone transfers up, there will be a transfer down in all likelihood. It will balance out. Over the course of time, I think teams will gain as much as they lose. I see Xavier as we'll win some, lose some but it will average out over time.
    The only thing I worry about really is Duke & Kentucky currently. They seem to have almost a monopoly on every freshman class each year. They basically get whoever they want. I could see them now using all available players to stack a team. Basically takes it up a notch. Hell, maybe they tell certain high profile but not one-and-done freshman recruits, go park yourself somewhere for a year and I'll bring you in the following season after these guys leave. Maybe they make an alliance with a higher level non-Power 6 school/coach (A10, AAC, MtWest) to act like a AAA team to feed freshman to them with the understanding they will call them up to the majors as sophomores or juniors.

  5. #25
    Sophomore Mrs. Garrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    With Tootie, Blair, Natalie & Jo
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by MHettel View Post
    Sounds great. Would never work.

    The thing that gets me is when someone says they are in favor of the transfer rule change because "I support whatever is in the best interest of the player."

    That's such a freaking bleeding heart take, it makes me laugh. Lets see how far we can take it...

    These items are in the best interest of the player:

    -Midyear transfer, immediate eligibility.
    -No restrictive recruiting windows. Coaches can contact players whenever and however they choose.
    -Players can get paid, without limit, and there is no disclosure requirement. Players can accept with money with no expectation that they will play at the school.
    -No cumbersome LOIs or any type of binding paperwork. We get to find out who is on the roster at the first practice.

    All solid ideas that are in the best interest of the players.
    Have you ever changed jobs?

  6. #26
    Sophomore Mrs. Garrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    With Tootie, Blair, Natalie & Jo
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by SM#24 View Post
    The current grad transfer rule I'm in favor of for many reasons; I actually can't see anything negative about it. The free transfer rule for all I believe there are pros and cons with the pros outweighing the cons. I'm not too worried about it. However, at the end of the day, there is finite number of teams and thus a set number of starters and minutes each year. So, as someone transfers up, there will be a transfer down in all likelihood. It will balance out. Over the course of time, I think teams will gain as much as they lose. I see Xavier as we'll win some, lose some but it will average out over time.
    The only thing I worry about really is Duke & Kentucky currently. They seem to have almost a monopoly on every freshman class each year. They basically get whoever they want. I could see them now using all available players to stack a team. Basically takes it up a notch. Hell, maybe they tell certain high profile but not one-and-done freshman recruits, go park yourself somewhere for a year and I'll bring you in the following season after these guys leave. Maybe they make an alliance with a higher level non-Power 6 school/coach (A10, AAC, MtWest) to act like a AAA team to feed freshman to them with the understanding they will call them up to the majors as sophomores or juniors.
    Maybe there needs to be different categories of transfer:

    1. Grad transfer - immediate eligibilty (Seriously, what % of grad transfer actually complete their MBA?)
    2. Coach's decision - Immediate
    3. Player's decision - sit

    But my guess is that a lot of coaches don't want the world to know how many players they run off because it will hurt recruiting.

    My gut tells me the majority of transfers are either coach run-off or a minor contributor who may not have been run off, but the coach doesn't actually mind having that scholarship back for a better fit.
    Last edited by Mrs. Garrett; 05-18-2020 at 04:54 PM.

  7. #27
    Supporting Member AviatorX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrett View Post
    Maybe there needs to be different categories of transfer:

    1. Grad transfer - immediate eligibilty (Seriously, what % of grad transfer actually complete their MBA?)
    2. Coach's decision - Immediate
    3. Player's decision - sit

    But my guess is that a lot of coaches don't want the world to know how many players they run off because it will hurt recruiting.

    My gut tells me the majority of transfers are either coach run-off or a minor contributor who may not have been run off, but the coach doesn't actually mind having that scholarship back for a better fit.
    The less judgment calls the NCAA makes the better. Not sure how it's taken them this long to realize that, especially when they are so bad at it and handling the optics. That's why bright line rules like the grad transfer and one time free transfer rule make sense.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by AviatorX View Post
    The less judgment calls the NCAA makes the better. Not sure how it's taken them this long to realize that, especially when they are so bad at it and handling the optics. That's why bright line rules like the grad transfer and one time free transfer rule make sense.
    It can be a black and white situation if they coach can grant a waiver. If the coach cuts a kid, then for SURE he would grant a waiver every time. If a kid just bails on a mid-major to jump up to a top team, then they coach may NOT grant the waiver.

    I also think there needs to be a limit on how many of these waiver transfers you can have at any one time. Grade trans and sit out transfers don't count.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrett View Post
    Have you ever changed jobs?
    Funny. Yes I have. And I had an employment agreement that forbid me to recruit anyone. But I did. And I received a cease and desist order. Real life. why not let a college kid get ready for the real world?

  10. #30
    Supporting Member XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,522
    The NCAA needs to:

    Get rid of the rule that basically says that you have 4 years of eligibility to be used within a 5 year period. That takes away them having to make a decision about granting a waiver in cases where someone wants/needs a 6th year because of injury or other problems. In “Olympic” sports the best kids have been known to take an “Olympic year” off of school to train with the national team and they don’t lose any eligibility. The old 4 years of college and then graduate is becoming less and less normal for the general population. More and more kids are taking longer than 4 years to get a degree. The NCAA rule makes no sense any more.

    Get rid of the rule in BB where a year of eligibility is used up as soon as they play in one NCAA game. Football now allows them to play 3-4 games (I forget which) before having to redshirt for the year with no loss of eligibility. Hasn’t hurt football, won’t hurt basketball. Let the kids play some (5 games? Six? Figure it out) and see if they need to sit and develop or can compete right now.

    Allow players to transfer 1X without having to sit out...but only 1 time. After that they can still transfer, but have to sit out a year. If the NCAA gets rid of the 4 in 5 year rule, then nobody is getting hurt. Kids can transfer without losing a year of playing time and everyone is happy.

    As someone else said....the less decisions the NCAA has to make judgment calls on, the better for everyone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •