Transfer Portal

[D-West & PO-Z]

Marquette is not chopped liver. But Duke is Duke.

Marquette is also not a great example for the point you are trying to make as they are going through a coaching change.

[xubrew]

Ok. Shit is off the rails.

This is EXACTLY why I was against this change.

The "Big boys" are just going to cannibalize the other 300 teams. Recruiting HS players wont even matter. Why put in tons of miles and hours chasing kids all around the country to watch them play against some high school talent? And then wait however long to see if they pick you?

Why not just build your team each year using freshmen and sophs out of the portal? Just pick off the unexpected stars from a team like Akron or ECU or Fordham. Well, maybe Fordham is a bad example.

But this is what I was concerned about. Marquette is not chopped liver. But Duke is Duke.

The other side of the coin is that players who were being recruited over, or forced out, or not having their scholarships renewed were having to sit out a year. That is what constitutes the vast majority of transfers. They've decided it's better to not make players sit, and that good players "transferring up" not having to sit is less shitty than players having to sit after being forced out.

There is also the whole "amateurism" thing that they're trying to hold on to. The NCAA's transfer rules was one of many things that kind of made it hard for them to argue that players are amateurs, which didn't go well. So the changes may be too little too late anyway.

[XUGRAD80]

This is not how I understand it. this article says differently as well.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...-rule.amp.html

"Some players are giving new meaning to the term “well-traveled.” DePaul guard Charlie Moore entered the portal, and his next college will be his fourth, including previous stops at California and Kansas. Because he is not a first-time transfer, he will need a waiver at his new college, but that is expected to be a formality."

None of the articles I’ve read from other sites and publications mention anything about that restriction. But there also seems to be some confusion on exactly when the new rules will take effect.....immediately or next year. Guess it’s best to wait and see what the NCAA itself says after it is ratified.

[D-West & PO-Z]

None of the articles I’ve read from other sites and publications mention anything about that restriction. But there also seems to be some confusion on exactly when the new rules will take effect.....immediately or next year. Guess it’s best to wait and see what the NCAA itself says after it is ratified.

Doesnt the quote you posted from SI say the exact same thing?

I agree, a lot of confusion. Sounds like even if a waiver required this first time, will just be a formality, but if that is the case why even require it?

[Drew]

Ok. Shit is off the rails.

This is EXACTLY why I was against this change.

The "Big boys" are just going to cannibalize the other 300 teams. Recruiting HS players wont even matter. Why put in tons of miles and hours chasing kids all around the country to watch them play against some high school talent? And then wait however long to see if they pick you?

Why not just build your team each year using freshmen and sophs out of the portal? Just pick off the unexpected stars from a team like Akron or ECU or Fordham. Well, maybe Fordham is a bad example.

But this is what I was concerned about. Marquette is not chopped liver. But Duke is Duke.

Agree with you here. But like another poster said, its pretty hard for "amateurism" and "non-competes" to exist in the same sentence. Hopefully when the dust settles after the new NIL laws etc. people will seriously revisit the chaos the transfer situation is causing.

[XUGRAD80]

Doesnt the quote you posted from SI say the exact same thing?

Not exactly, because that was taken out of context and according to SI is what the rule will be in the FUTURE, not currently. All I’ve been reading for the last month or so is that the NCAA had already said that anyone wishing to transfer this year could do so, and would be granted immediate eligibility. That it was a 1-year exception. A year blanket waiver. That’s what I’ve been reading from virtually every source.

Like I said, there is debate over when exactly the new rule takes effect.....right away, or starting next year? We will have to wait for the official NCAA announcement to be sure. However, I don’t see why they will want to deal with all of the waivers that will be needed if they have to do them on an individual case by case basis. Not with 1500-2000 cases to be investigated and determined. If they have NOT done so already, I can’t imagine them doing anything else but granting a blanket waiver to everyone in the transfer portal by May 1st.

[MHettel]

The other side of the coin is that players who were being recruited over, or forced out, or not having their scholarships renewed were having to sit out a year. That is what constitutes the vast majority of transfers.

Let me sharpen that up for you....

That is what USED TO constitute the vast majority of transfers.

New rules will lead to a new reality. Whatever USED TO be the case is no longer the case.

[xubrew]

Let me sharpen that up for you....

That is what USED TO constitute the vast majority of transfers.

New rules will lead to a new reality. Whatever USED TO be the case is no longer the case.

Um, yes? That is how they wanted it, and why they changed the rule. Most feel it’s a good thing that most transfers aren’t forced upon the players, and that they don’t have to sit out a year after being forced to transfer. The majority of players transferring because they want to and not because they have to is a good thing.

[XUBison]

Um, yes? That is how they wanted it, and why they changed the rule. Most feel it’s a good thing that most transfers aren’t forced upon the players, and that they don’t have to sit out a year after being forced to transfer. The majority of players transferring because they want to and not because they have to is a good thing.

OK, so a couple of questions… “Most“ of whom feel this way? And is there really a case that most players who transferred did so only because they were forced to do so? Is there anything concrete to support that narrative, or is it simply based on conjecture? I thought the prevailing narrative was the NCAA was capitulating on the year-in-residence rule in an effort to protect its amateur status.

Far be it for me to defend the NCAA, but I have a hard time understanding why it is not entitled to set rules that govern its competitive balance. Part of the problem is that we use words like “forced“, when the reality is none of these players are forced to do a damn thing.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Far be it for me to defend the NCAA, but I have a hard time understanding why it is not entitled to set rules that govern its competitive balance. Part of the problem is that we use words like “forced“, when the reality is none of these players are forced to do a damn thing.

1. With the persona the NCAA wants everyone to buy there should never be a time where they concern about "competitive balance" (which really doesnt exist anyway) overrules their concern about the "student athlete".

2. Players are truly forced out every year. Forced off the team, scholarship not renewed etc.

This move was long overdue.