Reusses: Immediate eligibility for college basketball transfers would not necessarily be a good move

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
52,113
Reaction score
2,017
Points
113
per Pat:

It's a world of NCAA-approved free agency, where a discontented athlete will no longer be required to spin a yarn of anguish — his family members are so worried about an uncle's upcoming meniscus surgery that the young man has to be within 400 miles just in case — to get approval for immediate eligibility as an undergraduate transfer.

The inability to transfer freely has covered football, men's and women's basketball, men's hockey and baseball in Division I. The FCS and FBS transfer rules in football have varied to a degree.

The disruption and delays of seasons because of the pandemic caused the NCAA to finally concede on the waiver issue for 2020-21. If you transferred in one of the five sports covered, you were eligible. And at some point in the next couple of the months, the new transfer proposal is expected to become NCAA legislation:


Go Gophers!!
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,384
Points
113
per Pat:

It's a world of NCAA-approved free agency, where a discontented athlete will no longer be required to spin a yarn of anguish — his family members are so worried about an uncle's upcoming meniscus surgery that the young man has to be within 400 miles just in case — to get approval for immediate eligibility as an undergraduate transfer.

The inability to transfer freely has covered football, men's and women's basketball, men's hockey and baseball in Division I. The FCS and FBS transfer rules in football have varied to a degree.

The disruption and delays of seasons because of the pandemic caused the NCAA to finally concede on the waiver issue for 2020-21. If you transferred in one of the five sports covered, you were eligible. And at some point in the next couple of the months, the new transfer proposal is expected to become NCAA legislation:


Go Gophers!!
If it passes it will be one time for each athlete. And may be tied to coaches leaving. NCAA wants out of the waiver business. If it is total, go anywhere you want, the rich will get richer as the best transfers will move up.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,383
Reaction score
1,967
Points
113
be careful of what you wish for.

This year, the transfer carousel worked in favor of the Gophers. As Reusse points out, 4 of the five starters in Men's BB are transfers.

Another year, the carousel could work against the Gophers. Remember - every transfer that you gain is a player who left another team.

if the transfer rules are relaxed - with players allowed one "free" transfer during their careers without having to sit out a year - any FR who doesn't get the playing time they think they deserve is a potential transfer. If the team brings in a hot-shot recruit at your position, instead of losing playing time, you can just transfer.

that will create opportunities for players, but it will make it very challenging for teams to manage rosters. In hoops, if a team for whatever reason had 2 or 3 players transfer out, then you have to go out and find 2 or 3 transfers to replace them. It will potentially lead to constant roster juggling.

We'll see how it all works out.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
20,180
Reaction score
4,337
Points
113
If it passes it will be one time for each athlete. And may be tied to coaches leaving. NCAA wants out of the waiver business. If it is total, go anywhere you want, the rich will get richer as the best transfers will move up.
Correct. They'll just align it with their rules for every other sport: you get a free transfer one time.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
9,951
Reaction score
896
Points
113
be careful of what you wish for.

This year, the transfer carousel worked in favor of the Gophers. As Reusse points out, 4 of the five starters in Men's BB are transfers.

Another year, the carousel could work against the Gophers. Remember - every transfer that you gain is a player who left another team.

if the transfer rules are relaxed - with players allowed one "free" transfer during their careers without having to sit out a year - any FR who doesn't get the playing time they think they deserve is a potential transfer. If the team brings in a hot-shot recruit at your position, instead of losing playing time, you can just transfer.

that will create opportunities for players, but it will make it very challenging for teams to manage rosters. In hoops, if a team for whatever reason had 2 or 3 players transfer out, then you have to go out and find 2 or 3 transfers to replace them. It will potentially lead to constant roster juggling.

We'll see how it all works out.
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines...high recruits stuck behind a multi year starter at a top program might look at transferring to a good program where they can start and make an immediate impact for the program and themselves.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,384
Points
113
More concerned about those that get really good and transfer up to a elite program and make them even better.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,368
Reaction score
1,622
Points
113
It would be a good move for the kids. And allegedly that is what college sports are for
 

Biggsohnasty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
564
Reaction score
264
Points
63
College free agency. Hate that.

No longer is college basketball (though it's been this way to a degree for a while now) about building programs. It's about roster (and ego) management and the rich will get richer.

On one hand, I can't argue with the idea that a kid who was underrecruited in HS earns a chance to play at his dream school (which is almost never a mid-major) and shouldn't be "penalized" for getting to do that.

But I also struggle with the idea that it is a "penalty" for a player to redshirt for a season. I suppose you delay joining the work force for a year. To me, if the situation a player is currently in is so bad or they are so unhappy that they have to leave that sitting out the following year is worth it, then leave. But I also feel like a lot of players just leave seeking immediate satisfaction or because they aren't getting the ego stroked enough and need that high again when in reality, the situation is salvagable with a little effort.

I know we've been conditioned to think we have to either side with the coaches or the players and that all coaches are slimeballs and players should always just do what's best for them. If players are doing what's best for them, by all means, it's their life. But we also hear, everytime an 18-24 year old does something stupid that they are kids and they make stupid mistakes. So are we supposed to assume the player knows transferring isn't that something stupid or a mistake? Can there be nothing learned from fighting through some adversity? That's a "get off my lawn take" I know.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,384
Points
113
Great post. Many kids have not been taught to fight through adversity. I think the best solution is to allow a no sit out transfer when a coach has left for any reason and to provide 4 year scholarships instead of one year. The major conferences have done this recently. Otherwise you transfer you sit. The goal is for the NCAA to get out of the waiver business. Your take is not get off the lawn. Again, most of this gets weeded out by the evaluations but you will always have players who want playing time and can see they will not get it, that is fine. But sit a year then.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
1,984
Points
113
I don't know why anyone other than coaches would be against this new rule and, frankly, I don't care about them.

Why should good players who have the chance to move up to a more elite program be restricted by a sit-out year? Nothing restricts a student on a full academic scholarship at Minnesota from accepting a similar scholarship from Yale and immediately transferring there. Why should players who feel stifled at their current programs have to sit out a year before going to a program where they believe their chances for playing time are better?

Finally, why should the absurd waiver system (absent some truly extenuating circumstances) continue?
 

golfing18now

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
2,130
Reaction score
645
Points
113
I don't know why anyone other than coaches would be against this new rule and, frankly, I don't care about them.

Why should good players who have the chance to move up to a more elite program be restricted by a sit-out year? Nothing restricts a student on a full academic scholarship at Minnesota from accepting a similar scholarship from Yale and immediately transferring there. Why should players who feel stifled at their current programs have to sit out a year before going to a program where they believe their chances for playing time are better?

Finally, why should the absurd waiver system (absent some truly extenuating circumstances) continue?
I think it is difficult to make an argument against this policy for the reasons you cite.

However, I'm not sure how any fan of big-time college sports could be behind this. Admittedly, fans don't really have a seat at this table. But I'm not sure how under any scenario this doesn't further divide the competitive balance of my favorite sport. I'm all for kids being allowed to transfer when the coach leaves for whatever reason. But I hope college free agency doesn't happen.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,752
Reaction score
3,754
Points
113
I would hate to see players have the same rights as the coaches.
The players have the right to collect a scholarship for playing a sport they love and to showcase their skills for a future job. That's fantastic right there.

If they go full free agent it may well be the downfall of the charm of college basketball- then how much have they gained? This is an age where everyone wants a little more, a little more and then a little more until everything that made things good gets burned up.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
1,984
Points
113
But I'm not sure how under any scenario this doesn't further divide the competitive balance of my favorite sport. I'm all for kids being allowed to transfer when the coach leaves for whatever reason. But I hope college free agency doesn't happen.
Teams will lose more players but have more players available to replace them. We benefitted tremendously this season from transfers being allowed to play immediately; meanwhile, Willis is averaging 13.9 points per game, 34 minutes a game at Charleston and Greenlee is averaging 12.1 points per game, 26 minutes per game for Florida Atlantic in his home state. I'd say the allowance for immediate eligibility was a winner for all involved. The latter two players were good enough to perform well at the D1 level; they just weren't good enough to perform well at the level of this conference. If Michael Hurt had been able to transfer with immediate eligibility, he might have found a position and decent productive minutes at a lower level program. Instead, both Minnesota fans and Hurt himself were tortured by the image of him being out of his league for four years. Kudos to Isaiah Washington for leaving when he did; while I believe he had the ability to play significant quality minutes at this level, Pitino was never going to give those to him, especially once Carr was eligible.

Personally, I like seeing new faces every year even they amount to almost half of the team.

The Dukes and Kentuckys of the college basketball world are not going to be flooded with all the best transfers under the new rules. Regardless of the team, there are only so many minutes for so many players. Few players who think have a strong possibility of a pro career (either here or overseas) are going to want to transfer to be the 8th man on a stacked powerhouse.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,384
Points
113
Most coaches are in support of players not sitting out if a coach leaves but if they can leave and not sit out then the rich will get richer. Would we be thrilled if Marcus Carr could go to Kansas after this year after we put in the resources for all this time. There is no easy answer, what happens to APR ? Those leaving have a huge effect on recruiting cycles . What about team and continuity that give the non blue blood schools a chance. I do not want a blue blood leftover as a replacement for a established player like Carr. Hell, at this point lets just go with no scholarships, only those that truly qualify academically can get into school but they have to pay like other students.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,384
Points
113
Teams will lose more players but have more players available to replace them. We benefitted tremendously this season from transfers being allowed to play immediately; meanwhile, Willis is averaging 13.9 points per game, 34 minutes a game at Charleston and Greenlee is averaging 12.1 points per game, 26 minutes per game for Florida Atlantic in his home state. I'd say the allowance for immediate eligibility was a winner for all involved. The latter two players were good enough to perform well at the D1 level; they just weren't good enough to perform well at the at the level of this conference. If Michael Hurt had been able to transfer with immediate eligibility, he might have found a position and decent productive minutes at a lower level program. Instead, both Minnesota fans and Hurt himself were tortured by the image of him being out of his league for four years. Kudos to Isaiah Washington for leaving when he did; while I believe he had the ability to play significant quality minutes at this level, Pitino was never going to give those to him, especially once Carr was eligible.

Personally, I like seeing new faces every year even they amount to almost half of the team.

The Dukes and Kentuckys of the college basketball world are not going to be flooded with all the best transfers under the new rules. Regardless of the team, there are only so many minutes for so many players. Few players who think have a strong possibility of a pro career (either here or overseas) are going to want to transfer to be the 8th man on a stacked powerhouse.
Those few players your talking about are not going to sit, Blue bloods will gladly take someone already proven. They are preparing for it now.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,384
Points
113
To each their own. I have loved seeing players stay together. I LOVED watching UVA keep their core, loved Villanova knocking off blue bloods with kids that stayed. Do people even know what the actual transfer proposal is. Best i have heard is it is designed to get rid of the waiver business not a free pass. They went with a free one time pass for now.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,368
Reaction score
1,622
Points
113
I don't know why anyone other than coaches would be against this new rule and, frankly, I don't care about them.

Why should good players who have the chance to move up to a more elite program be restricted by a sit-out year? Nothing restricts a student on a full academic scholarship at Minnesota from accepting a similar scholarship from Yale and immediately transferring there. Why should players who feel stifled at their current programs have to sit out a year before going to a program where they believe their chances for playing time are better?

Finally, why should the absurd waiver system (absent some truly extenuating circumstances) continue?
Yup.
If college sports are truly for the student athletes it is absolutely stupid to restrict movement on athletes when no one else is restricted

I get why you restrict it. But nobody can say that they are restricting for any reason other than to protect continuity of programs and coaches.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
1,984
Points
113
Those few players your talking about are not going to sit, Blue bloods will gladly take someone already proven. They are preparing for it now.
Yes, I realize that but there are more than a few good transfers and if a "can't miss" starter transfers to a blue blood, there is a fair chance that development shakes loose a different recruit or existing player from that team.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
1,984
Points
113
Yup.
If college sports are truly for the student athletes it is absolutely stupid to restrict movement on athletes when no one else is restricted

I get why you restrict it. But nobody can say that they are restricting for any reason other than to protect continuity of programs and coaches.
Well said! When it comes to protecting a 20 year old kid's right to choose vs protecting the power of a very highly paid coach with lots of institutional resources behind him, I know which side I'll support.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,384
Points
113
Just concerned that the elites will be really great at it. And i like the familarity and experience guys get together. Can not think of a team that won it all with more than 2 two transfers. Pretty clear that to compete with the elite programs in a sustainable way that cohesion and experience together play a giant role. Transfers play a vital role as it is.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,815
Reaction score
2,384
Points
113
Yup.
If college sports are truly for the student athletes it is absolutely stupid to restrict movement on athletes when no one else is restricted

I get why you restrict it. But nobody can say that they are restricting for any reason other than to protect continuity of programs and coaches.
As long as your comfortable with who we lose compared to others and who elites will gain. Coaches are preparing for taking proven players over most high school kids.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,368
Reaction score
1,622
Points
113
As long as your comfortable with who we lose compared to others and who elites will gain. Coaches are preparing for taking proven players over most high school kids.
For sure. It would change things
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,393
Reaction score
1,772
Points
113
I hope the players get transfer without sitting out if their coach leaves, retired, fired, reassigned.
This is the way it should be. If your coach leaves, you should be allowed to transfer without sitting out.

In all other cases, the player should be required to sit out for a year unless they graduate.
 

Spottedmuskie

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
218
Reaction score
84
Points
28
Who's next? Freeman, Mitchell, or Tre? Why did Payton Willis transfer, he would be getting minutes this season, averaging almost 14 per game for Charelston. Also Isaiah Washington averaging over 16 per game on Long beach state
 

Otis

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,974
Reaction score
767
Points
113
Let em go... Let em go.... Don't worry and let em go...
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
7,384
Reaction score
1,984
Points
113
Who's next? Freeman, Mitchell, or Tre? Why did Payton Willis transfer, he would be getting minutes this season, averaging almost 14 per game for Charelston. Also Isaiah Washington averaging over 16 per game on Long beach state
Would you rather see senior Isaiah Washington playing backup minutes behind Marcus Carr or the heir apparent, Mashburn? Willis wouldn't start over Gach. He would be a better backup than Tre' Williams, though.

I liked Isaiah but it should have been clear to anyone why he left.
 
Top Bottom