Sports Illustrated study on transfers

[Papa John]

It certainly would give more power to the athlete in the coach-athlete relationship. In deciding who to play the coach would have considerations in addition to who has earned it and what's most likely to produce victory. Players could band together and warn that unless the coach lightens up a little they're leaving en masse. Even without that a coach could never be sure that he'll have enough players next year to even field a team. There would be widespread surreptitious recruiting. Players would likely receive anonymous letters advising them that their services would be more appreciated by Team B. I don't know what would justify the increased instability and insubordination in college basketball that would result.

This sounds a tad melodramatic to me. I'm sure there would be some recruiting of current players occurring if the one-year sit rule were abolished, but I doubt it would be as widespread as you are suggesting. I think the benefit to the student athlete outweighs the cost in this instance.

It seems to me that there are different considerations with coaches leaving. For one thing they are more mature. They understand why it is necessary to run drills up and down the court past the point of endurance. They understand the importance of working hard in practice if one wants to play. But it's the players who have to do these things before they are really able to see the big picture, and before they have grown up enough to realize that the world does not revolve around them. Furthermore, if a coach leaves they can hire a new coach by approaching people directly and openly making an offer but replacement athletes cannot be approached this way. And if a coach leaves they are relatively assured of being able to hire a new coach but if the entire team gets fed up and leaves there's no way to fill those places.

Coaches being "more mature"—that seems pretty subjective, and not always true. Was Rick Pitino acting "more mature" in that restaurant after hours? Was Bob Knight acting "more mature" when he flung a chair across the court? Sure, a young student athlete has far less life experience through which to filter his view of current events, but I think we have plenty of examples of coaches behaving badly to demonstrate that maturity is a pretty relative concept.

As for 'if a coach leaves they can just hire a new one'—there are two big problems here... First, it isn't always easy to find an equally capable and tested coach to fill a spot. So if, for instance, Calipari decides to bolt in the fall because an NBA franchise offers him a sweet package, that doesn't leave Kentucky a whole lot of options to fill their head coaching slot with an equally capable coach. They're kinda screwed in that scenario. Which also brings up problem #2—recruiting. As soon as Calipari decides to bolt in our scenario, all bets are off and his recruits can go wherever they choose.

My proposal would be simple. If you decide that coaches can leave on a whim and enjoy the benefits of the free market, then student athletes should be granted the same mobility and should not be forced to sit out a year. If you decide that student athletes must sit out a year if they decide to transfer, then coaches must do the same. If they wish to leave, fine—but they cannot coach in the college ranks the following season, period.

[swood1000]

This sounds a tad melodramatic to me. I'm sure there would be some recruiting of current players occurring if the one-year sit rule were abolished, but I doubt it would be as widespread as you are suggesting. I think the benefit to the student athlete outweighs the cost in this instance.

Coaches being "more mature"—that seems pretty subjective, and not always true. Was Rick Pitino acting "more mature" in that restaurant after hours? Was Bob Knight acting "more mature" when he flung a chair across the court? Sure, a young student athlete has far less life experience through which to filter his view of current events, but I think we have plenty of examples of coaches behaving badly to demonstrate that maturity is a pretty relative concept.

As for 'if a coach leaves they can just hire a new one'—there are two big problems here... First, it isn't always easy to find an equally capable and tested coach to fill a spot. So if, for instance, Calipari decides to bolt in the fall because an NBA franchise offers him a sweet package, that doesn't leave Kentucky a whole lot of options to fill their head coaching slot with an equally capable coach. They're kinda screwed in that scenario. Which also brings up problem #2—recruiting. As soon as Calipari decides to bolt in our scenario, all bets are off and his recruits can go wherever they choose.

My proposal would be simple. If you decide that coaches can leave on a whim and enjoy the benefits of the free market, then student athletes should be granted the same mobility and should not be forced to sit out a year. If you decide that student athletes must sit out a year if they decide to transfer, then coaches must do the same. If they wish to leave, fine—but they cannot coach in the college ranks the following season, period.

Coaches can also be restricted by contract, and can be subject to damages for breach of contract.

How do you handle the problem where the top players of a team decide to leave and the other players panic thinking that they team won't be able to compete next year, so they leave as well? Doesn't this greatly compromise the stability of all teams? Where is a team to get the replacement players?

You would have to relax the restrictions on making offers to athletes from other teams. Otherwise, how could a player get an offer and accept it prior to announcing that he's leaving the current team. Wouldn't such restrictions be too great an impediment to the right to transfer?

[Papa John]

Coaches can also be restricted by contract, and can be subject to damages for breach of contract.

As can players—that is explicitly understood in accepting the scholarship. It is a binding agreement between player and school. Of course, in the example provided, the NBA team would, if they coveted Calipari, buy out his contract and pay whatever terms are outlined within the contract to free Calipari for their job. Such is the nature of the free market system which the coaches enjoy. The players, however, have no such luxury—they are restricted. That is simply unfair.

How do you handle the problem where the top players of a team decide to leave and the other players panic thinking that they team won't be able to compete next year, so they leave as well? Doesn't this greatly compromise the stability of all teams? Where is a team to get the replacement players?

You would have to relax the restrictions on making offers to athletes from other teams. Otherwise, how could a player get an offer and accept it prior to announcing that he's leaving the current team. Wouldn't such restrictions be too great an impediment to the right to transfer?

Again, I think this is where you are being melodramatic. I highly doubt the mass defection scenario you describe would occur, and I don't think the stability of all teams would be at issue. There would certainly be some recruiting of potential transfers, but I don't think it would be as widespread as you suggest. I think it would be more akin to the free agency market in professional sports. It would likely be very active initially, if the rule were to change, because I imagine a higher number of athletes would test the marketplace in the new world order. But as with all changed systems, it would settle down after a couple of cycles and settle into a regular rhythm.

Bottom line is that the players should enjoy the same mobility as coaches, either way.

[swood1000]

As can players—that is explicitly understood in accepting the scholarship. It is a binding agreement between player and school.

When players receive scholarships do they agree not to transfer?

Of course, in the example provided, the NBA team would, if they coveted Calipari, buy out his contract and pay whatever terms are outlined within the contract to free Calipari for their job. Such is the nature of the free market system which the coaches enjoy. The players, however, have no such luxury—they are restricted. That is simply unfair.

Again, I think this is where you are being melodramatic. I highly doubt the mass defection scenario you describe would occur, and I don't think the stability of all teams would be at issue. There would certainly be some recruiting of potential transfers, but I don't think it would be as widespread as you suggest. I think it would be more akin to the free agency market in professional sports. It would likely be very active initially, if the rule were to change, because I imagine a higher number of athletes would test the marketplace in the new world order. But as with all changed systems, it would settle down after a couple of cycles and settle into a regular rhythm.

Bottom line is that the players should enjoy the same mobility as coaches, either way.

Let me just ask you to clarify your position. Do you believe that college basketball players should be allowed to receive unrestricted cash payments, both from the university and from boosters, in return for playing or in return for transferring? You said that you believe that college basketball players should be permitted to transfer to a different college without restriction and without having to sit out a year. Currently when a player is being initially recruited out of high school ESPN and the others create charts showing all the schools that have an interest in him, which ones have made an offer, etc. Under your proposed rules do you think that such charts would remain continuously in existence during each player's college career, showing the other teams that have open offers for him? Do you have any problem with a university or a booster offering a player $100,000 to switch to a different team and stay there? Do you have any problem with college basketball players receiving constant correspondence and offers about transferring, or do you have a reason for thinking that such offers would not be made? Would you put any rules in place to restrict that? Does the team with the deepest pockets get to buy up all the top talent? Would that have an effect on competitive balance?

What do you think the effect of all this would be on team discipline and on fan support? Do you believe that colleges should not be permitted to create sports leagues that do not allow professionals (those who are paid to play) to participate? Should the National Amateur Golf Tournament be forced to allow professionals to play?

[luburch]

When players receive scholarships do they agree not to transfer?


Let me just ask you to clarify your position. Do you believe that college basketball players should be allowed to receive unrestricted cash payments, both from the university and from boosters, in return for playing or in return for transferring? You said that you believe that college basketball players should be permitted to transfer to a different college without restriction and without having to sit out a year. Currently when a player is being initially recruited out of high school ESPN and the others create charts showing all the schools that have an interest in him, which ones have made an offer, etc. Under your proposed rules do you think that such charts would remain continuously in existence during each player's college career, showing the other teams that have open offers for him? Do you have any problem with a university or a booster offering a player $100,000 to switch to a different team and stay there? Do you have any problem with college basketball players receiving constant correspondence and offers about transferring, or do you have a reason for thinking that such offers would not be made? Would you put any rules in place to restrict that? Does the team with the deepest pockets get to buy up all the top talent? Would that have an effect on competitive balance?

What do you think the effect of all this would be on team discipline and on fan support? Do you believe that colleges should not be permitted to create sports leagues that do not allow professionals (those who are paid to play) to participate? Should the National Amateur Golf Tournament be forced to allow professionals to play?

Isn't this a bit of a slippery slope arguement?

[Saratoga2]

SI just published an analysis of the transfer rates of top-100 RSCI players from 2007-2011 (i.e., players who could in theory have completed four years of college basketball). Some interesting numbers:

* 34% of players overall attended multiple colleges
* 37% of players where who weren't one-and-done or straight to the pros attended multiple colleges
* 47% (!) of players from 2011 who weren't one-and-done attended multiple colleges

I'm relatively pro-transfer (though of course hate to lose Duke players), but those are some higher percentages than I expected.

Does this include Junior college transfers to 4 year schools?

[Indoor66]

Isn't this a bit of a slippery slope arguement?

Actually it is more of an off the cliff argument and raises most of the salient issues on paying players without restriction.

[swood1000]

Isn't this a bit of a slippery slope arguement?

What are the answers to the questions from your point of view?

[swood1000]

Does this include Junior college transfers to 4 year schools?

From the article:

We counted all high schools and colleges attended, not just the ones for which players appeared on rosters. In instances where players did two separate stints at one school, we counted that as two schools.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Does this include Junior college transfers to 4 year schools?

I would assume that the top 100 RSCI players would include few to no junior college players.

But I could be wrong.

[swood1000]

Many of the arguments against transferring without sitting out a year concern poaching - the fear that this will result in raids on other teams to try to acquire their top players. But what about the player who was misevaluated during recruiting? After working with him the coach realizes that he will never get significant playing time for this team, although he is good enough to start for other teams, and although he was led to believe during recruiting that he would get plenty of playing time. Is there a way to craft a rule exception for this situation that will not open up the process to poaching? The first thing that comes to mind is to allow the original team to waive the one-year sit out period. But I suppose that could result in ill will when the player is denied the waiver because the coach either is not playing him only because he is not working hard in practice, or is not playing him this year but intends to do so next year. Under the current setup there is no ill will because it is out of the coach's hands.

[Papa John]

When players receive scholarships do they agree not to transfer?

When they sign the letter of intent, they are bound to the school. If they then choose to go elsewhere they must (a) sit out a year or (b) petition for a waiver from both school and NCAA. If they don't get a waiver from both, they're SOL and need to go back to (a).

Let me just ask you to clarify your position. Do you believe that college basketball players should be allowed to receive unrestricted cash payments, both from the university and from boosters, in return for playing or in return for transferring? You said that you believe that college basketball players should be permitted to transfer to a different college without restriction and without having to sit out a year. Currently when a player is being initially recruited out of high school ESPN and the others create charts showing all the schools that have an interest in him, which ones have made an offer, etc. Under your proposed rules do you think that such charts would remain continuously in existence during each player's college career, showing the other teams that have open offers for him? Do you have any problem with a university or a booster offering a player $100,000 to switch to a different team and stay there? Do you have any problem with college basketball players receiving constant correspondence and offers about transferring, or do you have a reason for thinking that such offers would not be made? Would you put any rules in place to restrict that? Does the team with the deepest pockets get to buy up all the top talent? Would that have an effect on competitive balance?

What do you think the effect of all this would be on team discipline and on fan support? Do you believe that colleges should not be permitted to create sports leagues that do not allow professionals (those who are paid to play) to participate? Should the National Amateur Golf Tournament be forced to allow professionals to play?

I'm not really sure why you are bringing money from boosters into this dialog, and the ESPN tracking of recruits is largely irrelevant as well (ESPN would continue to track recruits, and I'm sure they would add tracking of individuals who have expressed an apparent interest in a possible transfer—big deal... but they simply wouldn't waste journalistic resources on tracking everyone already committed/under scholarship—believe it or not, most student athletes tend to be relatively happy with the decisions that they've made, and it's pretty simple [particularly tracking the revenue sports] to identify those athletes who are contemplating a move). The discussion we have been having is about player mobility, plain and simple. My argument is very simple—the players should enjoy the same mobility as the coaches. If the coaches can take off without being forced to sit out a year, then the players should enjoy the same level of mobility. If we don't want players to have such mobility, then coaches shouldn't have it either. I'm not sure why this is so complicated to understand, and I continue to disagree with your doomsday scenarios regarding poaching, mass defections, etc. There would likely be a transition period in which more players would experiment with the new freedom of mobility, but I am sure it would settle into a regular pattern after a couple of cycles.

But what about the player who was misevaluated during recruiting?

Or, I would add, who misevaluated the optimal college decision during recruiting. These are kids making major decisions with limited life experience to do so—many of them make decisions that they end up regretting, so why punish them for trying to correct that decision? I cannot comprehend why the NCAA forces a student athlete to sit out a year when [s]he decides that a certain situation isn't the right match that [s]he thought it was going to be during the recruiting process. Particularly when, as has been stated numerous times, they allow coaches to move around at whim. That simply isn't fair.

[Henderson]

When they sign the letter of intent, they are bound to the school. If they then choose to go elsewhere they must (a) sit out a year or (b) petition for a waiver from both school and NCAA. If they don't get a waiver from both, they're SOL and need to go back to (a).

But the "contract" is only for the coming year. The school doesn't guarantee a freshman 4 years of scholarship. The player can have his scholarship not renewed. But the player is penalized by your (a) and (b) if he doesn't want to stay past the year he's committed to. To make the relationship symmetrical, you'd have to either (1) allow players to transfer without penalty at the end of any year; or (2) ensure that a freshman is given a 4 year scholarship.

[gep]

But the "contract" is only for the coming year. The school doesn't guarantee a freshman 4 years of scholarship. The player can have his scholarship not renewed. But the player is penalized by your (a) and (b) if he doesn't want to stay past the year he's committed to. To make the relationship symmetrical, you'd have to either (1) allow players to transfer without penalty at the end of any year; or (2) ensure that a freshman is given a 4 year scholarship.

So... If a scholarship is not renewed... say after 2 years, the player is free to transfer and immediately play? If so, it seems to make sense. Except that I haven't heard of a scholarship player not get his scholarship renewed... but maybe Cal/UK?

But, instead of the player transferring being immediately eligible to play the next year, I favor having coaches, who "transfer", have to sit out a year before coaching at the new school. After all, players usually commit to the coach, rather than the school.

[luburch]

I think it was last summer that Indiana Athletics bassed it's "Bill of Rights" to help the athletes. Here's a news article from the release and the highpoints below http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...etes/11494425/

• Indiana will commit to multiyear scholarships instead of year-to-year renewals. Players in sports that offer partial scholarships will still agree to terms on a yearly basis but the amount can't be reduced.
• Indiana will offer the "Hoosiers for Life" program. Any student-athlete who was eligible for two seasons, left IU in good standing, did not transfer and is readmitted under university rules will receive cover for tuition, books and fees.
• Comprehensive health coverage, now including walk-ons.
• Athletes are provided with a personal iPad and blazer.

And a few more things of that nature.

As you can see this does offer the athletes (I mean student-athletes) a little more protection, but if they transfer they're SOL.

[swood1000]

When they sign the letter of intent, they are bound to the school. If they then choose to go elsewhere they must (a) sit out a year or (b) petition for a waiver from both school and NCAA. If they don't get a waiver from both, they're SOL and need to go back to (a).

Originally Posted by swood1000
Let me just ask you to clarify your position. Do you believe that college basketball players should be allowed to receive unrestricted cash payments, both from the university and from boosters, in return for playing or in return for transferring? You said that you believe that college basketball players should be permitted to transfer to a different college without restriction and without having to sit out a year. Currently when a player is being initially recruited out of high school ESPN and the others create charts showing all the schools that have an interest in him, which ones have made an offer, etc. Under your proposed rules do you think that such charts would remain continuously in existence during each player's college career, showing the other teams that have open offers for him? Do you have any problem with a university or a booster offering a player $100,000 to switch to a different team and stay there? Do you have any problem with college basketball players receiving constant correspondence and offers about transferring, or do you have a reason for thinking that such offers would not be made? Would you put any rules in place to restrict that? Does the team with the deepest pockets get to buy up all the top talent? Would that have an effect on competitive balance?

What do you think the effect of all this would be on team discipline and on fan support? Do you believe that colleges should not be permitted to create sports leagues that do not allow professionals (those who are paid to play) to participate? Should the National Amateur Golf Tournament be forced to allow professionals to play?

I'm not really sure why you are bringing money from boosters into this dialog,

Are you in favor of student-athletes being able to receive salaries or payments from the university in return for (a) signing, (b) playing, or (c) transferring? The issue concerns the effect that will have on the sport. If you are embracing a total free-market approach, then boosters would also be permitted to make offers to the SA, the same as a booster can make an offer to an NBA player to encourage him in the direction that the booster prefers. Are you in favor of this?

and the ESPN tracking of recruits is largely irrelevant as well (ESPN would continue to track recruits, and I'm sure they would add tracking of individuals who have expressed an apparent interest in a possible transfer—big deal... but they simply wouldn't waste journalistic resources on tracking everyone already committed/under scholarship—believe it or not, most student athletes tend to be relatively happy with the decisions that they've made, and it's pretty simple [particularly tracking the revenue sports] to identify those athletes who are contemplating a move).

Yes, most student athletes tend to be relatively happy with the decision they've made because under the current system there is little alternative. The very question we are discussing is whether the changes you propose would result in increased discontent in college basketball. You appear to be saying that it would not. Here's a Coach K comment about transferring:

Some coaches call it problematic. Duke's Mike Krzyzewski said players who go pro after one season add to the instability that the sport has experienced in recent years.

"What it has produced is one-and-done for kids who are not going pro, the amount of transfers we have in basketball. There are over 450 transfers. Kids don't stick to the school that they pick and they want instant gratification," Krzyzewski wrote via email. "It's not just those elite players that might be able to go after one year. There's just the mentality out there that if you don't achieve after one year, maybe you should go someplace else. For the one-and-done guys it's the NBA, but for the other kids, it's another school." http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...ege-basketball

Coach K is saying that transfers are often the result of an immature desire for instant gratification. Do you disagree? Maybe college is a good place to learn discipline, and that sometimes it is necessary to wait. If there are 450 transfers with the requirement of sitting out a year how many transfers do you think there will be with no requirement to wait? Also, you didn't answer what effect you thought it would have on team discipline if players could simply threaten to leave whenever they disagreed with the coach's disciplinary approach.

The discussion we have been having is about player mobility, plain and simple. My argument is very simple—the players should enjoy the same mobility as the coaches. If the coaches can take off without being forced to sit out a year, then the players should enjoy the same level of mobility. If we don't want players to have such mobility, then coaches shouldn't have it either. I'm not sure why this is so complicated to understand, and I continue to disagree with your doomsday scenarios regarding poaching, mass defections, etc. There would likely be a transition period in which more players would experiment with the new freedom of mobility, but I am sure it would settle into a regular pattern after a couple of cycles.

I think it would settle into a regular pattern too, that of very many more players constantly transferring. Coach K used the figure of 450. How many do you anticipate that the "regular pattern" would involve? Why would there be little poaching? Would there be some incentive not to reach out to players from other teams?

You raise the issue of fairness - if coaches have an unrestricted right to transfer then athletes should too. That is one issue. But a more important issues is the effect of your proposed changes on the institution of college basketball. We already know what the effect of the status quo is regarding coach transfers. It in no way imperils the health college basketball. However, a switch to free-market salaries and unrestricted transfers raise serious questions concerning the effect on team discipline, fan support, team instability, competitive balance, and whether it would seriously undermine the most important characteristics that make college basketball so popular. These things are not in play with coach transfers, but many people see solid reasons why they are in play with the changes you propose and would like some of their concerns to be answered specifically and not just waived away. What do we anticipate that the transfer rate would rise to? It seems obvious that this would have an impact on team discipline. Why would it not? Of course there would be poaching. Why would there not be? Unlimited salaries and booster activity would certainly affect competitive balance. Why wouldn't they? Fans have a lower interest in minor league baseball. Why don't your changes involve a moving of college basketball in that direction?

You didn't address my final questions. Do you believe that colleges should not be permitted to create sports leagues that do not allow professionals (those who are paid to play) to participate? Should the National Amateur Golf Tournament be forced to allow professionals to play? These question go to the question of the place of amateurism in our society. If you believe that amateurism should be permitted, then what are the limitations? What factors, if present, require us to say that professionals must be permitted to participate in what is styled an amateur competition, instead of being told that there is a league for professionals that they can go to if they want to be paid.

Originally Posted by swood1000
But what about the player who was misevaluated during recruiting?

Or, I would add, who misevaluated the optimal college decision during recruiting. These are kids making major decisions with limited life experience to do so—many of them make decisions that they end up regretting, so why punish them for trying to correct that decision? I cannot comprehend why the NCAA forces a student athlete to sit out a year when [s]he decides that a certain situation isn't the right match that [s]he thought it was going to be during the recruiting process. Particularly when, as has been stated numerous times, they allow coaches to move around at whim. That simply isn't fair.

I wish there were a way to deal with the inequities that did not involve serious risks to the foundations of college basketball.

[swood1000]

So... If a scholarship is not renewed... say after 2 years, the player is free to transfer and immediately play? If so, it seems to make sense. Except that I haven't heard of a scholarship player not get his scholarship renewed... but maybe Cal/UK?

Isn't this effectively the same as allowing any player to transfer and play immediately if he receives a waiver from the first school? There appear to be arguments against that, including that it would result in ill will when the player is denied the waiver because the coach either is not playing him only because he is not working hard in practice, or is not playing him this year but intends to do so next year. Under the current setup there is no ill will because no waiver is possible.

[luburch]

SI released part II of their transfer study, this time looking at coaches. Wow. That's about all I can say.

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...transfer-study

[sagegrouse]

SI released part II of their transfer study, this time looking at coaches. Wow. That's about all I can say.

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...transfer-study

I was unimpressed with the article's handling of statistics and the making of what seem to me to be fairly meaningless comparisons. Well let's start with two things that are interesting and may even be correct:

1. The average D-1 roster consists of 13.4 percent INCOMING transfer students, a number that has grown steadily for the past few years. I guess, if the average transfer student is good for two years or more, the average roster at any point in time is one-third transfers (implying 2.5 years of play for a transfer). That seems like the more interesting point. But maybe Luke Winn et al. didn't really mean "incoming" transfers.

2. About 15.4 percent of D-1 schools have a new head coach each year. OK, good data and the chart shows the number has bounced around a bit.

3. Then the article makes a big deal about the "four-year" coaching turnover rate being 55 percent. The odds, therefore, are that over one-half of four-year players will experience a coaching change during their time at a school. Ummmm... This is really a case of the analysts being lost in the forest. A turnover rate of 15 percent a year implies that the "average" coach stays at a given school 6.5 years. To me, that's pretty good and is a heckuva lot lower than the turnover rate among Fortune 500 CEO's. Here's what "turnover" covers: coaches retire; coaches have health problems and leave the profession; coaches move up to better jobs; and coaches flame out. I am somewhat surprised that the turnover rate isn't closer to 25 percent than 15 percent, given all the reasons coaches leave. Moreover, the 15.4 percent covers more than a few cases where a trusted assistant replaces a retiring or promoted head coaches, which should require some sort of asterisk.

Anyway, saying that 55 percent of players have more than one head coach at a school is pretty "duh...."

4. Then the article goes on to look at assistant coaches' turnover rate -- and then looks at the four-year average number of changes in assistants. SI observes that the four-year TO rate is about equal to the number of assistants, which means that slightly fewer than one assistant changes on each staff! No stuff, Sherlock! Why would this possibly be a bad sign? Assistant coaches can be expected to move around in search of finding jobs that pay well. There are some really, really good assistant jobs, but a lot appear to pay minimal dollars. Duke's assistants are be well taken care of, financially and professionally, but we are talking about 340 D-1 schools. Of course, there is some churn. Moreover, when there is assistant turnover, how often does someone within the program move up to take a vacancy? It seems to be the predictable pattern among the major conferences -- director of operations, recruiting coordinator, strength coach are often the strategic reserve for future assistant coaching positions. Promotion within the program is different from hiring outside of the program, although the latter is not necessarily bad. (Virginia Tech is singled out for overall turnover, which is certainly true: head coaching changes usually result in changes to the entire staff. Pitino gets dinged for TO among assistants, but I don't know the reasons.)

Duke is given credit as a program with less TO among assistants than most schools. Notre Dame is the lowest in D-1 because no one has left in the last five years -- that's not necessarily good! In the Duke case, almost all the turnover since 2007 is related to the following changes: Jeff Capel was hired as an assistant after being HC at Oklahoma and Nate temporarily relinquished an assistant coaching position; Collins and Wojo got head coaching jobs and Nate and Scheyer became assistants. This is bad?

Anyway, I am not troubled in the least by the coaching turnover statistics. An average duration of 6.5 years in a head coaching job is higher than I would have expected. The assistant coaching changes also strike me as being understandable and, on balance, good.

I am still surprised at the transfer rate of 13.4 percent of total roster for INCOMING transfers, which implies a much higher number of total transfers on a roster.

Anyway, my two cents.

Kindly,
Sage

[swood1000]

If there are 349 DI teams, each with 13 scholarship players (who would presumably be the ones transferring) then there are 4,537 players. If, in 2013-14, 13.4% of them were incoming transfers, then there were 608 players that season who were incoming transfers from 4-year schools. I wonder what Coach K was talking about when he mentioned a figure of 450 transfers. Maybe he would revise that upward based on this study, or maybe he would disagree with this study.

So, .134 * 13 = an average of 1.74 players per team are incoming transfers each year?