Change in Transfer Rules Being Proposed

[tommy]

So the guys on the CBS College Hoops Podcast were talking about a proposal to change some of the transfer rules. In particular, the rule being discussed would be to allow kids to transfer without sitting out a year IF they had maintained a 2.6 GPA or above. Otherwise, they have to sit the year.

I don't like the idea. The NCAA should be trying to decrease the overall number of transfers, which has gotten absolutely absurd, not increase it. And in particular, schools like Duke, where the kids do go to class and maintain pretty good GPA's would be hurt, because those schools would have their players be able to transfer out more readily than would schools where academics don't matter and they're all just scraping by.

I'm sure I haven't thought through all the implications of such a rule. Anyone else have any thoughts?

[uh_no]

pretty good big man: "oh UNC looks to be pretty good next year, they just need a good big man"

mid-majors would be decimated as every player worth half his weight in basketballs would transfer up to the big time.


there has to be some deterrent to transfer, and a measly GPA is not that.

I think a more reasonable rule is, you can transfer whenever you want, but you have to sit the postseason. That would make players think twice about going to help a good team win a championship, and would deter major programs from taking players to win, when they can't play them when it counts anyway. It's more akin to slightly lessening the restriction in games which largely don't matter anyway.

[gep]

I don't like this new proposal... at all. Maybe sitting out a year is not a "reasonable" penalty, but if transfers get to play immediately, just imagine the musical chairs after every season. Every player becomes a free agent after every season, since scholarships are really for only 1 season. Maybe... make scholarships at least 3 years mandatory, and the player pays back the remainder of the 3 years that he forgoes. Nonsense, I know...:cool:

[johnb]

Non-athlete students transfer freely.
Coaches switch jobs freely.
What's the consequence to letting players play where they want? The 2.6 idea seems reasonable, since that requires solid academic performance (i might drop it to 2.4). Would that hurt Duke? Are you kidding? We'd be able to patch any holes without a problem. Do we need another center next year? Bingo, let's get a junior who has already proved himself elsewhere. You don't think we could get 20 starting big men from around the country to quietly ask for a transfer to compete with our final plumlee for pt on the likely top-ranked team in the country? It might hurt continuity, and it might hurt our senior glue guy who might get edged out as we fill a need, but it'd be a rule that would--overall--work in our favor. Oh, and i doubt we have a monopoly on players who go to class.

[gep]

Non-athlete students transfer freely.
Coaches switch jobs freely.
What's the consequence to letting players play where they want? The 2.6 idea seems reasonable, since that requires solid academic performance (i might drop it to 2.4). Would that hurt Duke? Are you kidding? We'd be able to patch any holes without a problem. Do we need another center next year? Bingo, let's get a junior who has already proved himself elsewhere. You don't think we could get 20 starting big men from around the country to quietly ask for a transfer to compete with our final plumlee for pt on the likely top-ranked team in the country? It might hurt continuity, and it might hurt our senior glue guy who might get edged out as we fill a need, but it'd be a rule that would--overall--work in our favor. Oh, and i doubt we have a monopoly on players who go to class.

With all due respect, most non-athletes are not on full scholarship. Coaches are paid very well by their respective schools. And, yes, it just might help Duke, but what does it do for the entire college basketball universe...:confused:

[Dukeface88]

With all due respect, most non-athletes are not on full scholarship. Coaches are paid very well by their respective schools. And, yes, it just might help Duke, but what does it do for the entire college basketball universe...:confused:

Beyond that, I don't see how the proposal even addresses the difference between nonathletes and athletes transferring. Last time I checked, transferring athletes are just as able to go to class as transferring non-athletes (UNC notwithstanding); they just can't play (something non-athletes, by definition, also don't do). What makes athletes different from non-athletes is that they need permission to contact other schools - which the proposed rules would leave in place.

[BD80]

I think this proposed rule would hurt Duke and all ethical programs and greatly benefit programs willing to hire coaches like calipari.

There will supposedly be a prohibition against "tampering" with kids in other programs, but does anyone really think that those rules would stop calipari from recruiting kids on other teams?

Just think how out of control recruiting will get to create "relationships" that will "last" for a kid's entire college career, even should he choose a different school. Thus, coaches like cal (and particularly aggressive recruiting assistants) can "keep in touch" with kids as they play for other schools without tampering per se, but also be able to express a potential opening in the roster which might GASP give rise to the kid's interest in transferring.



How would any coach like his players hearing from other coaches: "I'd be using you differently, you should have the ball more, I can't believe player x is getting more PT than you ..."

[UrinalCake]

I also don't like the proposed rule, for all the reasons previously stated. The notion of a GPA requirement is very hypocritical. On the surface they're giving the appearance of saying "we value education, so here's some extra incentive to keep your grades up." And I do think that if a kid is struggling academically and decides to transfer for that reason, he should spend a year at his new school focusing more time on academics without the distraction of basketball. But in reality, this rule will make schools even more of a factory for athletes, with academics being made more irrelevant. Guys will be transferring at tremendously high rates, with little regards for their program.

With respect to Duke, it's true that we could have Hood this year and another big man next year (if this change had been in place), but also consider current players who maybe considered transferring away from Duke but decided against because they didn't want to sit out.

I do think that players should be allowed to transfer without sitting out if their coach leaves for another school (something that has been discussed in the past).

[johnb]

I do think that players should be allowed to transfer without sitting out if their coach leaves for another school (something that has been discussed in the past).

I agree.
I also think we should have a very good reason to reduce freedoms. Athletic scholarships are indeed a nice bonus, but I'm not sure why that should lead to players getting stuck in unpleasant situations. Surely there could be rules in place that would limit transgressions. Perhaps a strict, 'no contact' clause aside from the month following the final four. let players shuffle around as long as they stay in good academic standing. make them file an intent to transfer on April 10 so that their primary school can look around for replacements. Hmm, none of that sounds perfect, and as a fan, i do like stability, so maybe best to just limit it to when coaches leave. at the same time, if one of our guys would rather start at Davidson rather than get 3 minutes per game at Duke and is only staying bc they don't want to sit out a year, then I just don't see why we should limit their oppy to play there. Would that hurt us? Maybe, but we've been quite open about letting starters/stars transfer (Elliott Williams) or get out of a contract (Kevin Love), and we seem to still be doing ok.

[hudlow]

It's been pretty well established that it's easier to get a 2.6 average at some schools than at others.

Would this proposal force the NCAA to actually monitor the legitimacy of athletes' grades?

hud

[NSDukeFan]

I agree.
I also think we should have a very good reason to reduce freedoms. Athletic scholarships are indeed a nice bonus, but I'm not sure why that should lead to players getting stuck in unpleasant situations. Surely there could be rules in place that would limit transgressions. Perhaps a strict, 'no contact' clause aside from the month following the final four. let players shuffle around as long as they stay in good academic standing. make them file an intent to transfer on April 10 so that their primary school can look around for replacements. Hmm, none of that sounds perfect, and as a fan, i do like stability, so maybe best to just limit it to when coaches leave. at the same time, if one of our guys would rather start at Davidson rather than get 3 minutes per game at Duke and is only staying bc they don't want to sit out a year, then I just don't see why we should limit their oppy to play there. Would that hurt us? Maybe, but we've been quite open about letting starters/stars transfer (Elliott Williams) or get out of a contract (Kevin Love), and we seem to still be doing ok.

I really dislike that transfers have increased in the last few years and think that it would be better for all involved if student-athletes honored their commitments and stuck it out even if their is some adversity. But, I don't think that student-athletes are bound to an institution while coaches can leave at any time. That doesn't seem fair to me. I don't know what the best solution is, and I hope that transfers don't continue to increase and recognize the chance of more sliminess, but I don't think restrictions on student-athletes is the way to go.

[killerleft]

Non-athlete students transfer freely.
Coaches switch jobs freely.
What's the consequence to letting players play where they want? The 2.6 idea seems reasonable, since that requires solid academic performance (i might drop it to 2.4). Would that hurt Duke? Are you kidding? We'd be able to patch any holes without a problem. Do we need another center next year? Bingo, let's get a junior who has already proved himself elsewhere. You don't think we could get 20 starting big men from around the country to quietly ask for a transfer to compete with our final plumlee for pt on the likely top-ranked team in the country? It might hurt continuity, and it might hurt our senior glue guy who might get edged out as we fill a need, but it'd be a rule that would--overall--work in our favor. Oh, and i doubt we have a monopoly on players who go to class.

No. This rule may or not benefit Duke, but that should have no bearing on whether it is a good rule or not. The one-year wait seems reasonable to me. The players are supposed to be student-athletes. If they can't bear sitting out a year let them take their chances in the pro draft. The school won't be wasting time on an athlete who would rather not be studying.

Since the larger majority of student-athletes really ARE serious about getting a degree, let's not get stupid over transfers. There could be a few additional exceptions to the rule, but just a few that pass the common sense test.

[COYS]

Personally, I'd rather see the NCAA grant waivers for kids who wish to transfer after a coach leaves a program rather than this idea. While I understand that kids commit to the school, a regular student who wishes to study in a specific department is free to move to a new school if the professor he/she admires most moves on. Why not let kids do that, too. I do think this would make for some messy moments if a coach (say Calipari) leaves a school (say, Memphis) and not only takes next year's recruits but also takes the rest of the roster to his new school (say, Kentucky). However, I think this would be a rare occurrence. And even then, the kids who did move to the new school with the coach would be doing so because they feel like it is in their best interest. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother to uproot themselves. We might not like it, but I don't think the fact that we don't like something should be a reason to punish a college kid because the coach he wanted to learn from decided to move on or was fired. The athletic programs in schools can simply take this possibility into account when they are deciding whether to get rid of a coach. Best of all, the kids are free to do what they feel is best for themselves without having to worry about the politics of the athletic department or their coach getting a great opportunity at another school (or the NBA).

The current proposal is silly to me for many of the reasons mentioned above. There is no quality control for a 2.6 GPA from school to school. Does the student have a 2.6 in quantum mechanical physics or a 2.6 in basket weaving? It opens the door to pro-sport style "trades" and back-room dealing. Unfortunately, I think there needs to be some penalty for transferring just 'cause you don't like where you are, even if it IS double standard compared to coaches. The year-long penalty seems pretty fair. Providing a waiver for the coach leaving, though, seems far more reasonable than granting carte blanche to all athletes who have a 2.6 or above. Perhaps allowing players to transfer to a new school in the event of a coaching change (including the school that their coach is moving to) is fair for kids who have a 2.6?

[Matches]

The current proposal is silly to me for many of the reasons mentioned above. There is no quality control for a 2.6 GPA from school to school. Does the student have a 2.6 in quantum mechanical physics or a 2.6 in basket weaving?

Yea, all good points. I don't really see what GPA has to do with it in the first place. We're only going to let the smart kids transfer? What sense does that make?

Like many on this thread, I try to look at it both from a fan perspective and a "do what's right by the kids" perspective. I really don't want to see the madness that immediate transfers would usher in. On the other hand, it's bogus that the coach can leave anytime but the players have to sit out a year.

So why not go in reverse? The coach has to sit out a year. If he leaves for another school, he can assume the position immediately, can recruit, run practices, draw a paycheck etc. - but can't coach the team during games or sit on the sidelines during games for one year. Treat them just like the players, in other words.

[esl]

What is there to prohibit students from transferring in the middle of a year? For example, if Duke could've recruited another "star" point guard when Kyrie got hurt would that favor Duke or would allowing Elliot Williams to probably transfer in the middle of his freshman year? Overall I think it is a stupid rule change. Athletes are treated as other students when they transfer (other than waiting until the season is over for contact, in theory). They just cannot play immediately. I agree the year penalty should be lifted when a coaching change occurs.

[jimsumner]

When a college athlete suffers an injury, I will sometimes quip that the offending team can't just go and pick up a replacement on the waiver wire.

It wasn't meant as a challenge.

[hurleyfor3]

It's been pretty well established that it's easier to get a 2.6 average at some schools than at others.

Duke not being one of the more difficult ones.