Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 22303132
Results 311 to 315 of 315

Thread: Transfer Portal

  1. #311
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,861
    Quote Originally Posted by XUBison View Post
    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.
    1. Most (nearly all) of the Board of Governors seem to feel that way.

    2. Yes, there is actual data that the NCAA collected that shows that just under 2/3rds of men's basketball transfers were doing so because their coaches basically wanted someone else instead.


    Something else that most people don't realize. The actual stated reason for the Year in Residency rule was not to try to keep players from transferring. It was actually an academic one. They felt that men's basketball, women's basketball, football, and men's ice hockey were sports that were at an academic risk, and they felt sitting out a year would allow players to become assimilated more easily. Data has pretty much shown this theory to be bunk. It doesn't have any impact on graduation rates or academic performance at all. So, if data has shown that the stated reason for that rule has no actual impact, then why have the rule at all?
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  2. #312
    Sophomore XUGRAD80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,227
    Academic reasons were the explanation when the rule was first put into effect MANY years ago, but I think that was something most people knew was just an excuse. The real reason was to keep teams from stockpiling players and picking good players off of other teams rosters. The one-year sit out rule was just a way for the coaches to keep players from leaving for greener pastures. It will still do the same thing, only there will be ONE TIME exception given. Players will need to use it wisely because they may not get a 2nd chance.

    As far as the ďforcingĒ of players out....how is wanting a player to leave by not renewing a scholarship any different from ďcuttingĒ a player? Participation in intercollegiate sports is not something that everyone that wants to do, will get the opportunity to do. Some simply donít have the talent. Arenít there more players ďtrying outĒ for walk-on status every year than get that status? Donít high schools have cuts? Donít All-STAR, travel, and national/international teams have cuts? Scholarships are 1-year only contracts, arenít they? I really donít see anything wrong with a coach telling a player that they wonít ďmake the teamĒ and wonít have their scholarship renewed. But when that happens.....

    Something I would add to the new rules is that when the above happens...where the coach is the one that chooses to not renew the scholarship for a player.....that the player be granted an automatic waiver and be allowed to transfer with immediate eligibility elsewhere, even if they have already transferred before. That only seems fair to me.

    Id also get rid of the 5 years rule, where a athlete must use up their 4 years of eligibility within 5 years of their starting date.

  3. #313
    Supporting Member D-West & PO-Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montgomery
    Posts
    13,841
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post

    As far as the “forcing” of players out....how is wanting a player to leave by not renewing a scholarship any different from “cutting” a player? Participation in intercollegiate sports is not something that everyone that wants to do, will get the opportunity to do. Some simply don’t have the talent. Aren’t there more players “trying out” for walk-on status every year than get that status? Don’t high schools have cuts? Don’t All-STAR, travel, and national/international teams have cuts? Scholarships are 1-year only contracts, aren’t they? I really don’t see anything wrong with a coach telling a player that they won’t “make the team” and won’t have their scholarship renewed. But when that happens.....
    Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying anything is wrong with that. It is done all the time, Xavier has done it many times. It is just good now the player won't be punished when it happens and have to sit out. Well, at least as long as it doesnt happen at their second stop.

    This reasoning is the exact same reason why if players want to leave to transfer up because their talents have exceeded the school/conference/level of play they are currently at, that they should be able to do so without any obstacles.

    Can't say no bid deal when the school does it to their advantage and then cry when the player does it to theirs.
    Last edited by D-West & PO-Z; 04-18-2021 at 01:17 PM.
    "Iím willing to sacrifice everything for this team. Iím going to dive for every loose ball, close out harder on every shot, block out for every rebound. Iím going to play harder than Iíve ever played. And I need you all to follow me." -MB '17

  4. #314
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,861
    Quote Originally Posted by XUGRAD80 View Post
    Academic reasons were the explanation when the rule was first put into effect MANY years ago, but I think that was something most people knew was just an excuse. The real reason was to keep teams from stockpiling players and picking good players off of other teams rosters. The one-year sit out rule was just a way for the coaches to keep players from leaving for greener pastures. It will still do the same thing, only there will be ONE TIME exception given. Players will need to use it wisely because they may not get a 2nd chance.

    As far as the “forcing” of players out....how is wanting a player to leave by not renewing a scholarship any different from “cutting” a player? Participation in intercollegiate sports is not something that everyone that wants to do, will get the opportunity to do. Some simply don’t have the talent. Aren’t there more players “trying out” for walk-on status every year than get that status? Don’t high schools have cuts? Don’t All-STAR, travel, and national/international teams have cuts? Scholarships are 1-year only contracts, aren’t they? I really don’t see anything wrong with a coach telling a player that they won’t “make the team” and won’t have their scholarship renewed. But when that happens.....

    .
    I agree. And the fact that they're now being called on that is one of the reasons the rule will almost assuredly change.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  5. #315
    Hall of Famer GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    29,630
    Eastern Washington's Groves brothers are relocating to Oklahoma. That sucks for anyone who is a fan of all of college basketball and not just the major conferences. Thank God Xavier is in a major conference now.

Posting Permissions

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