Major Change Proposed In NCAA Transfer Rules

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I have mixed feelings about this proposal. On one hand, I really hate the professionalization of college sports and this is going to just move things further in that direction, as there will be the potential chaos of annual free agency, poaching of players, etc. On the other hand, regular students are allowed to transfer and coaches are free to come and go as they please, so why shouldn't athletes, particularly since there are a lot of exceptions to the rules (I actually like the grad transfer rule as it rewards kids who get their degrees).

The potential GPA requirements are a decent start to limiting the potential chaos caused by this but are really easy to work around. One potential idea I had was to create a limit on the number of incoming transfers a school can take over a certain time period - say four every four years, or something like that? This way the student-athletes will still be free to transfer, but coaches won't be able to make a living out of poaching other school's players. If a kid wants to go to a school badly enough and the school has exhausted its limit, they can still grad transfer (which wouldn't count against the limit) or transfer under the old rules where they would sit out a year (which also wouldn't count). I'm sure there are plenty of holes in this proposal (and the free markets types here will hate it) but it is a start...

[flyingdutchdevil]

Guaranteed, this will lead to mid-majors becoming less and less competitive. Amazing sophomore/junior mid-major players will transfer to Big 6 teams and 5-star busts will transfer to other Big 6 teams. I really don't see mediocre players on Big 6 teams dropping down to mid-majors but rather transferring horizontally.

This is great for Big 6 teams and even better for elite schools who need a certain role (like a PG for Duke last year). Not great for mid-majors and hence David vs Goliath. Tournament upsets will become more infrequent and the S16 will be filled with Big 6 teams (moreso than they are now).

Also, you cannot put restrictions and regulations against college player recruiting. Coach K can easily whisper in an elite opponent's ear, "I would love to see you in Duke blue next year" during the handshake. I mean, there are countless ways in which teams can recruit these players under the radar.

This is a great idea on the surface, but it will easily turn into a madhouse.

[Indoor66]

Guaranteed, this will lead to mid-majors becoming less and less competitive. Amazing sophomore/junior mid-major players will transfer to Big 6 teams and 5-star busts will transfer to other Big 6 teams. I really don't see mediocre players on Big 6 teams dropping down to mid-majors but rather transferring horizontally.

This is great for Big 6 teams and even better for elite schools who need a certain role (like a PG for Duke last year). Not great for mid-majors and hence David vs Goliath. Tournament upsets will become more infrequent and the S16 will be filled with Big 6 teams (moreso than they are now).

Also, you cannot put restrictions and regulations against college player recruiting. Coach K can easily whisper in an elite opponent's ear, "I would love to see you in Duke blue next year" during the handshake. I mean, there are countless ways in which teams can recruit these players under the radar.

This is a great idea on the surface, but it will easily turn into a madhouse.

I agree with you FDD. Again, like the pay issue, we want to change the system to benefit a few stars to the detriment of the entire sport. The world does hot work well when operated on the decisions of whim and caprice. Part of growing is living with consequence of decisions. Choosing a school is big decision that these kids agonize over for a long period after being recruited. Schools go to a great deal of effort and expense to recruit them. There needs to be a real incentive for the youthful student athlete to abide by his decision and realize that the world does not revolve around him. Also, aren't schools entitled to benefit from some reverse pressure on the issue of transfer? They take the risk on these kids. We all know that not all of them work out and the schools lose. It is not solely about these individual pampered kids getting just what they want. That is not how the world works and that lesson is part of the college experience.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I agree with you FDD. Again, like the pay issue, we want to change the system to benefit a few stars to the detriment of the entire sport. The world does hot work well when operated on the decisions of whim and caprice. Part of growing is living with consequence of decisions. Choosing a school is big decision that these kids agonize over for a long period after being recruited. Schools go to a great deal of effort and expense to recruit them. There needs to be a real incentive for the youthful student athlete to abide by his decision and realize that the world does not revolve around him. Also, aren't schools entitled to benefit from some reverse pressure on the issue of transfer? They take the risk on these kids. We all know that not all of them work out and the schools lose. It is not solely about these individual pampered kids getting just what they want. That is not how the world works and that lesson is part of the college experience.

On this thread, I agree with you. I fear for Gonzagas, the Butlers, even... NC State. UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke can come sniping your players once they have proven themselves for a season.

How about mid season transfers? What happens on down the pipe, as players move up to Gonzaga, Butler, etc?

Opens up the flood gates.

[hallcity]

I think what we'll see if this passes is more stratification. Players are going to transfer to more prominent programs to get more exposure. Players are going to transfer to less prominent programs to get more playing time. This both helps and hurts every school in unpredictable ways. Some years you'll like it. Some years you'll hate it.

By the way, I think Steph Curry would have transferred to Duke if this rule had been in effect when he was at Davidson.

[CameronBlue]

Huckleberry's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comment involving UNC cheating reaches 1.

assessintopicality?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think what we'll see if this passes is more stratification. Players are going to transfer to more prominent programs to get more exposure. Players are going to transfer to less prominent programs to get more playing time. This both helps and hurts every school in unpredictable ways. Some years you'll like it. Some years you'll hate it.

By the way, I think Steph Curry would have transferred to Duke if this rule had been in effect when he was at Davidson.

Not sure if you can play the what if game here. Maybe Quinn Cook transfers somewhere else after his sophmore campaign. Perhaps Rasheed transfers before his senior year. Maybe Marshall transfers down to get more playing time and doesn't end up blossoming.

Too many variables, but I would like to go on record saying it is a bad move.

[swood1000]

Coach K sees some problems with it.

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

Another problem: how do you guarantee that a program will even be able to field a team? A few top players don’t have their demands met by the coach and so announce they’re leaving. A sense of ill will takes over among the remaining players so they decide to transfer. This gets magnified in the media so nobody wants to transfer in.

[swood1000]

This could also result in many/most of the top players negotiating with the coach through an agent while in college. In exchange for not entertaining offers from other teams, not promoting instability within the team, etc., they would be guaranteed certain playing time, certain practice conditions, certain living and travel conditions (though they’d have to be careful here), etc. Legally binding contracts governing these things could become the norm. The agent would not receive a fee for his services during college in exchange for the right to represent the athlete when/if he goes pro.

Edit: in fact, what would stop coaches from requiring entering athletes to sign a contract up front that abrogates the right to transfer in exchange for certain concessions from the school? (The NCAA could forbid this.)

[BigWayne]

I agree with you FDD. Again, like the pay issue, we want to change the system to benefit a few stars to the detriment of the entire sport. The world does hot work well when operated on the decisions of whim and caprice. Part of growing is living with consequence of decisions. Choosing a school is big decision that these kids agonize over for a long period after being recruited. Schools go to a great deal of effort and expense to recruit them. There needs to be a real incentive for the youthful student athlete to abide by his decision and realize that the world does not revolve around him. Also, aren't schools entitled to benefit from some reverse pressure on the issue of transfer? They take the risk on these kids. We all know that not all of them work out and the schools lose. It is not solely about these individual pampered kids getting just what they want. That is not how the world works and that lesson is part of the college experience.

Changing the transfer rule will end up forcing other changes. The one I see most affected is the "contract" with the athlete for a scholarship. Currently, the standard NCAA LOI is a very one sided contract where the athlete gives up a lot of rights in exchange for the freshman year scholarship. Some schools have professed to guarantee 4 year scholarships, but I am not sure how those contracts are written. I expect that getting a 4 year guaranteed scholarship might force you to give up transfer rights.

[royalblue]

I guess the Coaches will need to not be so hard players as they can jump to another school even easier with this in place.
Can they go to another school every year if they like?

[Duke95]

On this thread, I agree with you. I fear for Gonzagas, the Butlers, even... NC State. UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke can come sniping your players once they have proven themselves for a season.

How about mid season transfers? What happens on down the pipe, as players move up to Gonzaga, Butler, etc?

Opens up the flood gates.

Another name for "flood gates" is free market. Players would be able to move freely to maximize their own best interests. Maybe they'll move from Butler to Kentucky or vice versa, to get more playing time.
This is exactly what coaches do.

[Duke95]

Edit: in fact, what would stop coaches from requiring entering athletes to sign a contract up front that abrogates the right to transfer in exchange for certain concessions from the school? (The NCAA could forbid this.)

Coach 1: You have to sign a contract with me.
Coach 2: You don't have to sign anything with me and I'll give you everything Coach 1 promised.

[madscavenger]

i can see it now: a coach jumps ship and takes his entire team with him to say, LIU. Or, maybe he just threatens to in exchange for new practice facilities and a weekly team meal at Ruths' Chris.

And, not that the obvious needs to be pointed out (but i'll do it anyway), immediate transfer raises the Spectre of drool from the Rams Club flooding Franklin Street.

[ChillinDuke]

Coach 1: You have to sign a contract with me.
Coach 2: You don't have to sign anything with me and I'll give you everything Coach 1 promised.

These examples mean nothing in a vacuum.

Coach 1 would need to have something of value that would allow him to mandate his recruit signing a contract. E.g. - 1000 wins. Otherwise, practically speaking, he'd never out-recruit Coach 2.

- Chillin

[swood1000]

Another name for "flood gates" is free market. Players would be able to move freely to maximize their own best interests. Maybe they'll move from Butler to Kentucky or vice versa, to get more playing time.
This is exactly what coaches do.

OK but the reason for transfer restrictions in professional basketball is that without them there would not be parity among the teams and there couldn’t be an economically successful league. Do you propose just to ignore that dynamic? How would you handle the problem of schools suddenly finding themselves unable to even field a team, or suddenly stripped down so far that they can give nobody in their league any competition?

[RPS]

a*inine.

I totally disagree.

The current system is heavily stacked in favor of the schools and against the players. Coaches can leave seemingly at will (despite long-term contracts). Coaches lie *all the time* to recruits to induce commitments. School scholarship commitments are year-to-year and may legally be pulled for any or no reason. Players routinely work 40 hours per week at their "jobs" (and despite NCAA hours restrictions that are routinely gotten around, easily) without pay beyond the scholarship and with very little leverage if things go south. Any student can transfer. Only athletes cannot transfer without restrictions (to be clear, non-football, baseball, hockey and basketball athletes get one "free" transfer without sitting out a year).

The proposed rule change is hardly sufficient, but it is certainly necessary.

DISCLOSURE: One of my sons was a D1 athlete so I am biased.

[swood1000]

Coach 1: You have to sign a contract with me.
Coach 2: You don't have to sign anything with me and I'll give you everything Coach 1 promised.

Well, we have a form of that already. Kids want playing time but other factors sometimes prevail:

Coach 1: sign with us and you’ll be a starter freshman year
Coach 2: sign with us and you’ll be coming off the bench freshman year but you’ll be playing for Duke and I can see no reason, if you progress the way I expect you will, that you won’t be starting as a sophomore.

Furthermore, if the recruit saw any problems with the school he wouldn’t be signing with them in the first place. He’s fully expecting a happy marriage. Why not agree not to transfer (or agree to sit out a year if he transfers)? From his perspective in high school he has no inkling of the difficulties and points of contention that will appear after he joins the team. It’s like people getting married. They look at the divorce statistics but they just don’t see how that could apply to them. They are advised that entering into a premarital agreement is the pragmatic thing to do but they are utterly out of touch with the forces that will soon lead them to wish they had taken a different course.

I expect that there would be many coaches who would be willing to sacrifice the occasional prospect (none of them at the one and done level, since I assume that transfers would not be permitted mid-season) in exchange for the team stability that this would bring. Without it, they have to tiptoe lightly and not command but perhaps suggest that the player change his ways.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Well, we have a form of that already. Kids want playing time but other factors sometimes prevail:

Coach 1: sign with us and you’ll be a starter freshman year
Coach 2: sign with us and you’ll be coming off the bench freshman year but you’ll be playing for Duke and I can see no reason, if you progress the way I expect you will, that you won’t be starting as a sophomore.

Furthermore, if the recruit saw any problems with the school he wouldn’t be signing with them in the first place. He’s fully expecting a happy marriage. Why not agree not to transfer (or agree to sit out a year if he transfers)? From his perspective in high school he has no inkling of the difficulties and points of contention that will appear after he joins the team. It’s like people getting married. They look at the divorce statistics but they just don’t see how that could apply to them. They are advised that entering into a premarital agreement is the pragmatic thing to do but they are utterly out of touch with the forces that will soon lead them to wish they had taken a different course.

I expect that there would be many coaches who would be willing to sacrifice the occasional prospect (none of them at the one and done level, since I assume that transfers would not be permitted mid-season) in exchange for the team stability that this would bring. Without it, they have to tiptoe lightly and not command but perhaps suggest that the player change his ways.

What does Coach 3 tell Bolden?

[Ian]

I don't have a problem with this rule change as long as it precluded mid-season transfers. That if you transfer in the middle of the season you cannot play until the next season.