“95% certain” transfers will soon be allowed to play immediately in basketball & foot

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,579
Reaction score
15,659
Points
113
“95% certain” transfers will soon be allowed to play immediately in basketball & foot

Gopher07 posted this on the football board, I figured I'd post it here too:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
 

Holy crap the wild west will begin...coaches will have to recruit their own players every year and will have to walk on egg shells for them.

Go Gophers!!
 

Holy crap the wild west will begin...coaches will have to recruit their own players every year and will have to walk on egg shells for them.

Go Gophers!!

Disagree.

Coaches who treat their players poorly will be hurt by this. Coaches who treat their players well won’t be hurt at all. Why is it bad to give more rights to players?
 

I don’t like it.
 

If players can walk, coaches should be able to tell problem players to move on and find a new school more freely.
 


If players can walk, coaches should be able to tell problem players to move on and find a new school more freely.

Nothing is stopping that from happening now, and some coaches already do it.

Go Gophers!!
 

Nothing is stopping that from happening now, and some coaches already do it.

Go Gophers!!

It frowned upon.. Like I said, more freely.

Player could be told to get lost and be playing the next year. Less burden for the player and easier for the coach to do.
 

This will be a mess. The Kentucky's of the world will shift from getting top freshman (at least exclusively) to plucking the Jordan Murphy's of the world. Good way to ruin both sports.
 

This will be a mess. The Kentucky's of the world will shift from getting top freshman (at least exclusively) to plucking the Jordan Murphy's of the world. Good way to ruin both sports.
Right
 



I disagree, players form bonds with their teammates, so if you have a good group of guys that are close friends the likely hood of one of those players leaving are going to be low. In my opinion I think a rule like this could allow teams like the Gophers to get some pretty good players, because they will be wanting to move on.

Just like recruiting now, there won't be 12 deep on Dukes basketball team because good players are going to want to play. Very good if the NCAA takes this route
 

Maybe, I still think Kentucky keeps their freshmen model. I think that Villanova/Virginia/Xavier/MSU/Purdue/UCLA types would benefit most from this. in other words the schools that have been good but typically don't rely on the top 10 freshmen every year.

Personally i always thought it should have gone the other way. If you make kids sit out a year you should make head coaches sit out a year as well when they transfer. Wouldn't that be something hahaha.
 

I disagree, players form bonds with their teammates, so if you have a good group of guys that are close friends the likely hood of one of those players leaving are going to be low. In my opinion I think a rule like this could allow teams like the Gophers to get some pretty good players, because they will be wanting to move on.

Just like recruiting now, there won't be 12 deep on Dukes basketball team because good players are going to want to play. Very good if the NCAA takes this route

Duke taking Jordan Murphy and us getting their #8 or #9 player is not a good trade.
 

Maybe, I still think Kentucky keeps their freshmen model. I think that Villanova/Virginia/Xavier/MSU/Purdue/UCLA types would benefit most from this. in other words the schools that have been good but typically don't rely on the top 10 freshmen every year.

Personally i always thought it should have gone the other way. If you make kids sit out a year you should make head coaches sit out a year as well when they transfer. Wouldn't that be something hahaha.

If they just want to waive the transfer year when a coach leaves, that's one thing. Waiving it for everyone will be a circus.
 



Duke taking Jordan Murphy and us getting their #8 or #9 player is not a good trade.

Duke wouldn't be taking Jordan Murphy..They have two top 10 recruits in Carter and Bagley, and this rule wouldn't change any way the Duke or Kentuckys of the world recruit. Murphy wouldn't leave Minnesota where he is the main guy to go to a blue blood where he is is the 4th option. Many players wouldn't change teams anyways because of the relationships they have built at their school already. The people who would be changing are the big time stars at smaller schools who don't have the opportunities to use 5 star facilities or get a chance to play in big time arenas. Players like Steph Curry and Damian Lillard when they were in college.
 

This is going to be ugly on a lot of levels.

There will be tales of coaches recruiting other team's players.
Players will be tougher to control by coaches- disciplined players thinking they can move on to greener pastures. Coaches afraid to lose them...
This could create more of a "me attitude" by players- if team is temporary and free agency is always just around the bend.
It could hurt the competitive balance, the rich will get richer and the schools trying to improve have a tougher time climbing the ladder. Imagine the exodus that could have taken place here two years ago when we went 2-16...Instead the players came back and succeeded.
 

Duke wouldn't be taking Jordan Murphy..They have two top 10 recruits in Carter and Bagley, and this rule wouldn't change any way the Duke or Kentuckys of the world recruit. Murphy wouldn't leave Minnesota where he is the main guy to go to a blue blood where he is is the 4th option. Many players wouldn't change teams anyways because of the relationships they have built at their school already. The people who would be changing are the big time stars at smaller schools who don't have the opportunities to use 5 star facilities or get a chance to play in big time arenas. Players like Steph Curry and Damian Lillard when they were in college.

Perhaps not Duke, but it would be hard to pass up going somewhere that has a better chance at a title for his senior season. And he wouldn't be the 4th best player on many teams, if any.
 

Disagree.

Coaches who treat their players poorly will be hurt by this. Coaches who treat their players well won’t be hurt at all. Why is it bad to give more rights to players?

For some players, they base how they are being treated mostly by how many minutes they are getting.
 

While I find myself agreeing more with those saying it will be bad for the two sports, I think people have raised good points on both sides. If it happened, I'd want to see how it played out. If it goes through, I would hope the NCAA would have a set time to revisit the issue, and in advance come up with some outcomes that would cause them to return to the current standard, or to a middle ground (i.e., transfer without sitting upon a coaching change).
 

For some players, they base how they are being treated mostly by how many minutes they are getting.

Yup.

If a guy isn’t playing, why shouldn’t he be able to leave?
If a science major isn’t getting to go to a science lab, wouldn’t they be able to transfer without sitting out a year?


I don’t like that athletes have more restrictions than regular students.


I don’t like paying players idea. But I am in favor of giving players more power and leverage with almost anything short of that.
 

Perhaps not Duke, but it would be hard to pass up going somewhere that has a better chance at a title for his senior season. And he wouldn't be the 4th best player on many teams, if any.

Same could be said for the Gophers though..Top teams are still going to get recruits. With the new facilities the Gophers are going to be put in a position to try and land some players. Imagine with the players that we have coming back next year the ability to get a good PG into Minnesota. It would be pretty appealing to a good player wanting to make an impact. Its easy to look at the things that would be bad about it, but it could be a plus.
 

Honestly, University's responsibilities are not to appease the desires of fans. It is to educate young people to become the best that they can be, and to become better contributors to society, even if that contribution is entertainment related. And if a student thinks that transferring out of Minnesota and to UC-Berkeley is better for their future, they can do that. If a student thinks that transferring out of NDSU to Minnesota is better for their future, they can do that. Why shouldn't an athlete be given the same opportunities? When it comes to the students, you could argue its their money, they should have the right to go wherever is best for them. And Universities benefit financially from athletes playing for them, so why shouldn't their athletic talents be treated as an asset, the same as the cash students pay to go to colleges??


Whether this is good for Minnesota specifically or not, should not be the deciding factor.
 

I can see this ruining whatever love I have left for college sports if it has a big impact to the middle of the pack schools.
 

Hopefully if they do this there is a time restraint so players must announce intent to transfer by x date so teams can prepare for it.
 



Yup.

If a guy isn’t playing, why shouldn’t he be able to leave?
If a science major isn’t getting to go to a science lab, wouldn’t they be able to transfer without sitting out a year?


I don’t like that athletes have more restrictions than regular students.


I don’t like paying players idea. But I am in favor of giving players more power and leverage with almost anything short of that.

You'd be in favor of a player being able to transfer mid-season and being able to play right away then? Like Jordan Murphy saying screw this and transferring to another program that is much better but had a PF just get hurt? When it comes to academics, they can transfer anytime they want just like regular students.

Opening up transfers would hurt the game. The rich would get richer.
 

You'd be in favor of a player being able to transfer mid-season and being able to play right away then? Like Jordan Murphy saying screw this and transferring to another program that is much better but had a PF just get hurt? When it comes to academics, they can transfer anytime they want just like regular students.

Opening up transfers would hurt the game. The rich would get richer.

I would assume the rule wouldn't apply to the season that they are in, rather it goes into effect the next year. If the NCAA goes this route, I'm sure there will be a timeframe after the season where the players will be given a chance to transfer if they choose.
 

This may have already been noted, but the proposal is for a one-time exception - meaning a player can transfer once without sitting out a year. If the same player wanted to transfer again, then they would have to sit out a year.

As others have noted, pros and cons to this. If you have a guy sitting on the bench who's unhappy about his playing time, it could be addition by subtraction. get rid of a possibly negative influence, and free up a scholarship for (potentially) a better player, or at least a player who's a better fit with the system.

I suspect the vast majority of transfers (if this goes through) would be guys who are riding the pine at a major-conference school, and transfer to a mid-major in search of playing time. I don't see as many "upward" transfers. It would have to be a rare situation - guy putting up big numbers for a bad team, or a team that gets put on probation. In that case, I could see a guy bolting to try and play on a winning team - but that assumes the winning team has an available scholarship.

the scholarship situation will be the big variable. Coaches will have to manage rosters carefully if they lose players to a transfer, or have a space available for someone transferring into the program.
 

This would kill any small schools cinderella hopes. I suspect a vast majority of the guys that average more than 15 points per game would be looking to transfer to a power 5 school. As well as some of the top end power 5 school players transferring to the blue bloods for their chance to win a championship. This will for sure make the blue bloods better as they will be playing with the best sophmores juniors and seniors to go along with their one and dones, with the rest of us hoping that our guys is 'one of us' and doesn't decide to go have to a school with more exposure and a better chance to win a championship.

Only plus of this is that some of the 5-star recruits might not go to the high end programs as they wont have as immediate of a path to playing time. I imagine some schools will just become transfer schools and just go after those guys hard. Now every coach has to re-recruit almost every player on his roster every year.
Whatever happened to players working hard to earn their playing time, nope just transfer if things dont go your way year 1.

Sidenote, Yes students can transfer from school to school as they please but all of their credits dont necessarily transfer directly over costing them another semester or 2 at their new school....so this is kind of a penalty and they cant exactly just move freely.
 

This may have already been noted, but the proposal is for a one-time exception - meaning a player can transfer once without sitting out a year. If the same player wanted to transfer again, then they would have to sit out a year.

As others have noted, pros and cons to this. If you have a guy sitting on the bench who's unhappy about his playing time, it could be addition by subtraction. get rid of a possibly negative influence, and free up a scholarship for (potentially) a better player, or at least a player who's a better fit with the system.

I suspect the vast majority of transfers (if this goes through) would be guys who are riding the pine at a major-conference school, and transfer to a mid-major in search of playing time. I don't see as many "upward" transfers. It would have to be a rare situation - guy putting up big numbers for a bad team, or a team that gets put on probation. In that case, I could see a guy bolting to try and play on a winning team - but that assumes the winning team has an available scholarship.

the scholarship situation will be the big variable. Coaches will have to manage rosters carefully if they lose players to a transfer, or have a space available for someone transferring into the program.

I have been vehemently opposed to this, but your post made me think of what I feel is a reasonable compromise solution. Allow a one-time transfer exemption with immediate eligibility - IF (and only if) both the player and the coach mutually sign off on it. This protects the coach against his better players holding him hostage with the threat of leaving, and protects the player against being held on the end of a bench playing for a coach who would probably rather be rid of him anyway. Win-win.
 




Top Bottom