Sports Illustrated study on transfers

[vick]

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 (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/07/29/top-100-high-school-recruits-transfer-behavior-study):

* 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.

[Duvall]

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 (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/07/29/top-100-high-school-recruits-transfer-behavior-study):

* 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.

Definitely a lot of interesting numbers, and ones that would seem to put an end to the idea sometimes tossed around here that Duke is unusually susceptible to transfers out.

[Reilly]

It would be interesting to see how many top-100 kids every school had over the time period of the study, and how many of those top-100 at each school transferred out. That might get at how suseptible Duke is relative to other schools.

[swood1000]

I'm relatively pro-transfer
Are you in favor of relaxing the requirement to sit out a year?

[vick]

Are you in favor of relaxing the requirement to sit out a year?

Yes. It's not something I'm dogmatic about and there are reasonable points on both sides, but I find it strange that we expect 17-year-old kids to commit to where they live and work for four years and impose a penalty of sorts if they guess wrong. Committing to a job is less important, but people constantly move around in the four years after graduating--it's fully expected. At the very least I don't see why coaches should be free to move with no wait at all, but if a player's coach leaves, well tough luck. That seems clearly non-equitable.

By the way, I don't just feel this way about athletes--I wish elite schools left more spots open for "regular" student transfers than there are now.

[swood1000]

Yes. It's not something I'm dogmatic about and there are reasonable points on both sides, but I find it strange that we expect 17-year-old kids to commit to where they live and work for four years and impose a penalty of sorts if they guess wrong. Committing to a job is less important, but people constantly move around in the four years after graduating--it's fully expected. At the very least I don't see why coaches should be free to move with no wait at all, but if a player's coach leaves, well tough luck. That seems clearly non-equitable.

By the way, I don't just feel this way about athletes--I wish elite schools left more spots open for "regular" student transfers than there are now.
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.

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.

[Mike Corey]

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 (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/07/29/top-100-high-school-recruits-transfer-behavior-study):

* 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.

SI should have added in its article that approximately 33% of all college students transfer at least once before graduating (http://chronicle.com/article/A-Third-of-Students-Transfer/130954/).

[Bluedog]

SI should have added in its article that approximately 33% of all college students transfer at least once before graduating (http://chronicle.com/article/A-Third-of-Students-Transfer/130954/).

True, but the cost of education is a large driver to transfer for many of the non-athletes, which basketball players on scholarship don't have to deal with. I'd also like to see those numbers for only students enrolled in four year universities. Duke has probably a 90%+ retention rate overall for its student body (the freshman retention rate is 97%...obviously, Duke is not typical).

[SCMatt33]

SI should have added in its article that approximately 33% of all college students transfer at least once before graduating (http://chronicle.com/article/A-Third-of-Students-Transfer/130954/).

They did:


(The transfer rates for top-100 players, it should be noted, aren't much different from transfer rates for normal students. A recent study from the National Student Clearinghouse Center followed the freshman class of 2008 for six years, and found that 34.7% of four-year students had transferred during that time.)

That quote appears right below the first chart about top-100 transfers. In the article, the quote also contains a link to the study it references.

[MCFinARL]

True, but the cost of education is a large driver to transfer for many of the non-athletes, which basketball players on scholarship don't have to deal with. I'd also like to see those numbers for only students enrolled in four year universities. Duke has probably a 90%+ retention rate overall for its student body (the freshman retention rate is 97%...obviously, Duke is not typical).

Granted you are right about this--in Virginia, and I suspect in many other states as well, there are automatic transfer programs permitting community college students who achieve certain GPAs to complete two years at community college and transfer to four-year state schools that will honor their credits. There are also many students who don't make those GPAs but nevertheless transfer into 4-year schools through the ordinary application process.

This is obviously a much less expensive way to get an education (although, having taught some of these students when they reached university, it's not necessarily a better way to get an education--they tend to be less well prepared for upper level work than those who have been at the 4-year school all along), and this type of transfer probably accounts for a lot of the transfer rate. As well, there may be people who transfer from private or out-of-state institutions into in-state public schools when their money runs low.

But there are also kids who transfer because their initial school just wasn't right for them, or because they learned they wanted to be closer to home (or farther away), or because they developed an interest in a field that their original choice didn't offer, or for any of a number of other reasons that might come up in the maturation process of an adolescent. I understand the rationale behind restricting transfers for athletes, but it does seem problematic to limit them in ways their fellow students are not limited.

[BD80]

... I understand the rationale behind restricting transfers for athletes, but it does seem problematic to limit them in ways their fellow students are not limited.

They are in no way limited "in ways their fellow students are not limited." They are absolutely free to transfer to another university and immediately take classes.

They are also free to accept athletic scholarships at their new university so they need not pay for their classes or room and board.

They simply cannot, for one year, compete in the sport for which the former institution invested scholarship dollars on the athlete.

[SCMatt33]

They are in no way limited "in ways their fellow students are not limited." They are absolutely free to transfer to another university and immediately take classes.

They are also free to accept athletic scholarships at their new university so they need not pay for their classes or room and board.

They simply cannot, for one year, compete in the sport for which the former institution invested scholarship dollars on the athlete.

They are not necessarily free to accept scholarships. The current school has to release them to do that. While this normally happens due to bad press for the school, it is not a guarantee.

[BD80]

They are not necessarily free to accept scholarships. The current school has to release them to do that. While this normally happens due to bad press for the school, it is not a guarantee.

I thought the distinction with the release was an issue of 1 year vs 2 years before the athlete was eligible to compete.

[sagegrouse]

True, but the cost of education is a large driver to transfer for many of the non-athletes, which basketball players on scholarship don't have to deal with. I'd also like to see those numbers for only students enrolled in four year universities. Duke has probably a 90%+ retention rate overall for its student body (the freshman retention rate is 97%...obviously, Duke is not typical).

The overall success rate (graduation within six years) is 94.5 percent at Duke.

In my era, when Duke didn't accept any nonsense from the undergrads (:rolleyes:), it was 67 percent. Said Dean Alan Manchester to the Freshman Assembly: "Look to the right of you. Look to the left of you. If both of these people are here in four years, you won't be." Cuddly and encouraging talk for freshmen, right?

[swood1000]

I understand the rationale behind restricting transfers for athletes, but it does seem problematic to limit them in ways their fellow students are not limited.
Also, the 14.5.5.2.10 One-Time Transfer Exception is available if


the student is a participant in a sport other than baseball, basketball, bowl subdivision football or men's ice hockey
the student has not transferred previously (not counting transfers qualifying for a discontinued/nonsponsored sport exception)
the student was academically eligible at the previous institution
the previous institution certifies in writing that it has no objection to the student being granted an exception to the transfer-residence requirement

[SCMatt33]

I thought the distinction with the release was an issue of 1 year vs 2 years before the athlete was eligible to compete.

It's still one year either way, but without a release, you must pay your own way for that one year. Here is the rule (found at the bottom of page 9) from the NCAA Transfer Guide (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/TGONLINE2014.pdf)


If your current school does not give you written permission-to-contact, another school cannot contact you and encourage you to transfer. This does not preclude you from transferring; however, if the new school is in Division I or II, you cannot receive an athletics scholarship until you have attended the new school for one academic year

It is possible that certain situations are governed by other rules. The most common of these is an intra-conference transfer, which may be subject to additional conference bylaws that are more strict than the NCAA rule. I couldn't find an official ACC source on this, but I'm pretty sure the rule for transferring within the ACC is that the year in residence will count as a year of competition, so you don't have to wait an extra year, but you will lose a year of eligibility. It's quite possible that there are conferences that require a two year wait.

Also, in response to swood's point on the one time transfer rule, it's still heavily limited compared to normal students because of that last bullet point, your current school has total control over your ability to transfer. This is absolutely not the case for normal students. While a guy like Austin Nichols can use the national press to his advantage to get a release, athletes at smaller schools or in less prominent sports generally don't have this option.

[swood1000]

I thought the distinction with the release was an issue of 1 year vs 2 years before the athlete was eligible to compete.

13.1.1.3 Four-Year College Prospective Student-Athletes. An athletics staff member or other representative of the institution's athletics interests shall not make contact with the student-athlete of another NCAA or NAIA four-year collegiate institution, directly or indirectly, without first obtaining the written permission of the first institution's athletics director (or an athletics administrator designated by the athletics director) to do so, regardless of who makes the initial contact. If permission is not granted, the second institution shall not encourage the transfer and the institution shall not provide athletically related financial assistance to the student-athlete until the student-athlete has attended the second institution for one academic year. ......but the transferring student may compel the first institution to grant permission by threatening a lawsuit under the Sherman Antitrust Act, concerning which lawsuits institutions and the NCAA have become quite wary. See Austin Nichols, Memphis.

[Mike Corey]

They did:



That quote appears right below the first chart about top-100 transfers. In the article, the quote also contains a link to the study it references.

Mike Corey should read stories more closely before posting critical statements about them.

[swood1000]

Some interesting graphs from that study (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/07/29/top-100-high-school-recruits-transfer-behavior-study):

5347

16% of top-100 players decommit from their original verbal commitment:

5348

Top-100 players who made extremely early commitments had a much higher decommitment rate, as well as a high college transfer rate. Of non-one-and-done players from the classes of 2007-2011, nearly half of multiple-committers went on to play at multiple colleges, compared to less than one-third of single-committers.

5349

Over the most recent three classes (2013, 2014, 2015), 51.5% of players attended multiple high schools.

5350

The college transfer rates of multiple-high school attendees were much higher than those of single-high school attendees.

5351

[BrazyATX]

Definitely a lot of interesting numbers, and ones that would seem to put an end to the idea sometimes tossed around here that Duke is unusually susceptible to transfers out.

Curious how Duke stacks up to these numbers as a program?

[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 (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/07/29/top-100-high-school-recruits-transfer-behavior-study):

* 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/college/indiana/2014/06/27/iu-implements-bill-rights-athletes/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).


http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by swood1000 http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=821141#post821141)
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-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-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.


http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by swood1000 http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=821141#post821141)
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/2015/07/29/college-basketball-coaching-movement-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/2015/07/29/college-basketball-coaching-movement-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 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-basketball) 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?

[sagegrouse]

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 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-basketball) 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?

I agree with your math, but the numbers seem wacky to me. Mebbe in the nether reaches of D-1, many schools rely on junior college as a primary source of recruits -- several a year -- which may distort the numbers.

[pfrduke]

I agree with your math, but the numbers seem wacky to me. Mebbe in the nether reaches of D-1, many schools rely on junior college as a primary source of recruits -- several a year -- which may distort the numbers.

Well, you don't even need to go to the nether reaches. For the ACC this year:

Boston College - 2 (both GS transfers)
Clemson - 2 (one juco, one D-1)
Duke - 1 (D-1)
Florida St - 2 (both juco)
Georgia Tech - 3 (two GS and one D-1)
Louisville - 1 (GS)
Miami - 1 (D-1)
NCSU - 1 (D-1)
UNC - 0
Notre Dame - 0
Pitt - 4 (3 GS, 1 juco)
Syracuse - 0
Virginia - 1 (D-1)
Virginia Tech - 5 (two D-1, three juco)
Wake - 0

So that's 23 incoming transfers who will play in the ACC this year (note that I did not count transfers who will sit out this coming season), for an average of 1.53 - not far off the overall D-1 average

[sagegrouse]

So that's 23 incoming transfers who will play in the ACC this year (note that I did not count transfers who will sit out this coming season), for an average of 1.53 - not far off the overall D-1 average

And not, I take it, counting transfers who were playing their second (or third) year for their new team?

[swood1000]

I agree with your math, but the numbers seem wacky to me. Mebbe in the nether reaches of D-1, many schools rely on junior college as a primary source of recruits -- several a year -- which may distort the numbers.
Except that they specifically said they were talking about "four-year transfers." There was also a suggestion that they got the basic data from the NCAA and that it might be incomplete (and hence unreliable). This 2012 study (http://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/NSC_Signature_Report_2.pdf) came from a page (http://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport2/) that was referenced on this NCAA page (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball) that talks about DI MBB transfers. The NCAA page contains this graph:

5361

They said that "about 40% of all MBB players who enter Division I directly out of high school depart their initial school by the end of their sophomore year."


Where do these transfers end up? We tracked the 604 MBB student-athletes listed on ESPN’s 2014 transfer list to determine their destination for 2014-15. Only 39% transferred to another Division I school (most of those to a less competitive program where playing time might increase), while many ended up at Division II, Division III, NAIA or 2-year colleges (Figure 2). Fully 13% on the transfer list were not on a college roster as of fall 2014.

Close to 90% of MBB transfers say they leave for athletic reasons. Absent proper academic planning for transfer, many of these SAs subsequently lose credits in the transition and register lower Academic Progress Rates (APRs) and graduation rates at their new schools than seen among non-transfers.

According to this NCAA Powerpoint (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/MBBtransfer_Nov2014.pdf):


2014 MBB transfer list taken from Jeff Goodman’s transfer list (last updated 8/27/14 on ESPN.com).
Transfer status of those who were identified as "walk-ons" at their 2014 DI institution were removed from the analyses (N=14).
278 Division I men’s basketball programs had students transfer out.
105 programs experienced only one exit on the 2014 Transfer List (38%).
33 programs had at least 4 transfer exits, which accounted for 26% of all transfer departures.

5363

Transfer direction was determined by division, conference, program prestige:

5364
5365
Apparently when you delete an image it becomes an attached thumbnail. Anybody know how to get rid of these?

[swood1000]

Two more graphs from that same NCAA Powerpoint (there are others in there):
5366
5367

[swood1000]

Here (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10702122/tracking-every-transfer-2014-offseason-college-basketball) is Jeff Goodman's 2014-15 college basketball transfer list.

[pfrduke]

And not, I take it, counting transfers who were playing their second (or third) year for their new team?

Also true

[BD80]

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 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-basketball) 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?

Do all schools give out 13 scholarships? Duke didn't. If the average were 9.6 scholarships per team, the math would work.

[swood1000]

Do all schools give out 13 scholarships? Duke didn't. If the average were 9.6 scholarships per team, the math would work.
Yes, but according to the second graph I showed above, there were 604 transfers (the SI piece said about 600). 450 is 75% of 604, so maybe Coach K was excluding 25% of them for some reason.

[swood1000]

I read Jeff Goodman's 2014-15 college basketball transfer list (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10702122/tracking-every-transfer-2014-offseason-college-basketball) into an Excel spreadsheet and sorted it by programs with transfer exits. Here are the ones with four or more (I included graduate transfers but not walk-on transfers):



Central Arkansas 11 Arizona State 4
Tennessee State 10 Arkansas State 4
Samford 7 Dayton 4
Alcorn State 6 Fordham 4
Florida A&M 6 Furman 4
Houston 6 Georgia Southern 4
Loyola Marymount 6 Grand Canyon 4
South Florida 6 Houston Baptist 4
Abilene Christian 5 Illinois State 4
Butler 5 Indiana 4
Georgia State 5 Iowa State 4
Longwood 5 Jacksonville 4
Maryland 5 Long Beach State 4
Monmouth 5 Missouri 4
Oregon 5 Murray State 4
Texas Pan American 5 New Mexico 4
UNLV 5 Niagara 4
Utah State 5 Nicholls State 4
Virginia Tech 5 Portland State 4
Rice 4
Rutgers 4
UMass Lowell 4
Washington State 4
Weber State 4

[-jk]

I read Jeff Goodman's 2014-15 college basketball transfer list (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10702122/tracking-every-transfer-2014-offseason-college-basketball) into an Excel spreadsheet and sorted it by programs with transfer exits. Here are the ones with four or more (I included graduate transfers but not walk-on transfers):



Central Arkansas 11 Arizona State 4
Tennessee State 10 Arkansas State 4
Samford 7 Dayton 4
Alcorn State 6 Fordham 4
Florida A&M 6 Furman 4
Houston 6 Georgia Southern 4
Loyola Marymount 6 Grand Canyon 4
South Florida 6 Houston Baptist 4
Abilene Christian 5 Illinois State 4
Butler 5 Indiana 4
Georgia State 5 Iowa State 4
Longwood 5 Jacksonville 4
Maryland 5 Long Beach State 4
Monmouth 5 Missouri 4
Oregon 5 Murray State 4
Texas Pan American 5 New Mexico 4
UNLV 5 Niagara 4
Utah State 5 Nicholls State 4
Virginia Tech 5 Portland State 4
Rice 4
Rutgers 4
UMass Lowell 4
Washington State 4
Weber State 4

It's data - thanks for crunching! - but I hate to crunch...

I'd like to see this with a couple clarifications: Who transferred "up" (perhaps using a few-year kenpom average; they had apparently good first coaches, at either identifying or teaching!) and who left after a coaching change (Butler, VaTech...). Both seem rational reasons to transfer. Perhaps there are other obvious "good" reasons that escape me.

-jk

[swood1000]

Do all schools give out 13 scholarships? Duke didn't. If the average were 9.6 scholarships per team, the math would work.
I guess if I had paid attention to what the last graph above said, the answer would have been clearer:


The number of transfers on Goodman's 2014 list was 33% larger than in 2014 (from 455 to 604).
Not quite sure what this means, but there's Coach K's number. Maybe it means that the number went up 33% from 2013 to 2014, in which case Coach K was referring to 2013.

[swood1000]

It's data - thanks for crunching! - but I hate to crunch...

I'd like to see this with a couple clarifications: Who transferred "up" (perhaps using a few-year kenpom average; they had apparently good first coaches, at either identifying or teaching!) and who left after a coaching change (Butler, VaTech...). Both seem rational reasons to transfer. Perhaps there are other obvious "good" reasons that escape me.

-jkI actually enjoy crunching. What do you mean by "few-year kenpom average"? If we're talking about transfers in 2014-15 maybe kenpom rank in 2013-14 would be appropriate, since that's what they would have been looking at. On the other hand, they might have been looking forward to the destination team as it would exist in 2014-15. If we looked at coaching changes in 2013-14, those SAs transferring in 2014-15 would be responding both to the leaving of the old coach and to their experience with his replacement. If we looked at coaching changes in 2014-15 those SAs transferring would be responding to the announcement that the old coach was leaving, and perhaps not even knowing who the replacement was going to be.

[sagegrouse]

I actually enjoy crunching. What do you mean by "few-year kenpom average"? If we're talking about transfers in 2014-15 maybe kenpom rank in 2013-14 would be appropriate, since that's what they would have been looking at. On the other hand, they might have been looking forward to the destination team as it would exist in 2014-15. If we looked at coaching changes in 2013-14, those SAs transferring in 2014-15 would be responding both to the leaving of the old coach and to their experience with his replacement. If we looked at coaching changes in 2014-15 those SAs transferring would be responding to the announcement that the old coach was leaving, and perhaps not even knowing who the replacement was going to be.

I assume, Swood, that it's a proxy variable for "program reputation or level," dampening out the extreme ups and downs.

[Olympic Fan]

What strikes me is the impact transfers will have on the ACC race this season.

Even at the top of the league, Virginia (Darius Thompson) and Duke (Sean Obi) are likely to have transfers in the rotation, although neither is likely to be a key guy.

But drop down the projected standings just a bit and you get Louisville, where Rick Pitino is counting on two grad student transfers to keep the Cards in the race. Damien Lee, a 6-6 transfer from Drexel, and Trey Lewis, a 6-2 transfer from Cleveland State, are going to start and probably be the top two scorers at Louisville this year.

Then there's Miami, which will start two second-year transfers in the backcourt (Kansas State's Angel Rodriguez and Texas' Sheldon McClellan). The 'Canes are also likely to start first-year transfer Kamari Murphy, a 6-8 forward from Oklahoma State.

NC State will start Terry Henderson, a transfer from West Virginia (a year after starting Alabama transfer Trevor Lacey and LSU transfer Ralston Turner). State also has UNC Charlotte transfer Torin Dorn sitting out this season before playing next year.

At Georgia Tech, Brian Gregory has stayed alive (barely) on transfers. Last year, he had four transfers in his top six ... this year he has second-year Maryland transfer Charles Mitchell at forward and second year South Florida transfer Josh Heath at guard, along with first-year transfer Adam Smith (from Virginia Tech) at guard and Alabama transfer Nick Jacobs and Ark-Little Rock transfer James White at forward.

Syracuse will start second-year Duke transfer Michael Gbinije -- he might be their best player this season.

Virginia Tech hopes to make a big jump thanks to two transfers -- former Maryland guard Seth Allen and former South Florida forward Zack LeDay. They also have a 7-foot juco transfer at center.

Pitt is counting on Sterling Smith, a transfer from Coppin State, plus a juco center, Nix. FSU also has a juco transfer who will play a big role, Benji Bell. Clemson adds former San Francisco guard Avry Holmes. Boston College's best player is likely to be much traveled guard Eli Carter (he started at Rutgers, transferred to Florida and now BC).

The other thing that strikes me about the transfers is Maryland -- the Terps have essentially traded a guard (Seth Allen) and a forward (Charles Mitchell) to the ACC for a guard (Rasheed Sulaimon) and a power forward (Robert Carter). I think the Terps came out ahead in both deals.

[swood1000]

I assume, Swood, that it's a proxy variable for "program reputation or level," dampening out the extreme ups and downs.
But how would this be calculated, or where is it available? One NCAA graph said:

Direction determined mainly by division and conference, but in some unique cases program prestige.
meaning that they used their own secret recipe. Perhaps jk is suggesting, for a transfer in 2014-15, that the kenpom rankings for that year and the two previous years be averaged.

[swood1000]

It's data - thanks for crunching! - but I hate to crunch...

I'd like to see this with a couple clarifications: Who transferred "up" (perhaps using a few-year kenpom average; they had apparently good first coaches, at either identifying or teaching!) and who left after a coaching change (Butler, VaTech...). Both seem rational reasons to transfer. Perhaps there are other obvious "good" reasons that escape me.

-jk
Other reasons might be:

they think they will get more playing time elsewhere (although this would probably involve mostly transfers "down")
the position they really want to play is occupied on the current team, or the coach won't let them play it
they lack confidence in the current coach or current team, or have a personality conflict
they are motivated by the destination coach
they truly do want to be closer to family
the transfer is being silently coupled with a benefit for some family member
they have academic reasons (I don't see this as being high on the list, though it might be more so for those who think that they will not be going professional, who might be transferring for the same reasons that non-athletes transfer)

[swood1000]

These are the averages of the Kenpom final rankings for the last three years. The theory is that this can be used to determine whether a transfer was "up" or "down."


6.0 Louisville ACC 57.0 Tennessee SEC 107.0 Oregon St. P12 163.3 Columbia Ivy 201.3 Mount St. Mary's NEC 242.3 Marshall CUSA
6.3 Arizona P12 58.0 Saint Mary's WCC 107.7 Missouri SEC 163.3 Rutgers B10 203.7 Arkansas St. SB 243.3 Northern Arizona BSky
7.3 Wisconsin B10 58.3 Boise St. MWC 109.0 Seton Hall BE 164.7 Cal Poly BW 205.0 Texas Southern SWAC 243.3 Western Carolina SC
7.7 Duke ACC 58.7 Arizona St. P12 109.3 UC Irvine BW 164.7 George Mason A10 205.3 Missouri St. MVC 244.3 South Dakota Sum
10.7 Wichita St. MVC 59.0 Northern Iowa MVC 111.7 Tulsa Amer 164.7 Wright St. Horz 205.7 Bryant NEC 245.3 UNC Wilmington CAA
11.0 Michigan St. B10 65.0 Louisiana Tech CUSA 112.3 Princeton Ivy 166.3 Northeastern CAA 208.7 Gardner Webb BSth 245.7 Marist MAAC
11.3 Gonzaga WCC 65.0 New Mexico MWC 113.3 Boston College ACC 167.3 Sam Houston St. Slnd 209.3 South Florida Amer 246.7 North Texas CUSA
11.3 Kansas B12 88.3 Colorado P12 114.7 Buffalo MAC 167.7 Old Dominion CUSA 211.0 Holy Cross Pat 247.0 NJIT ind
16.0 Ohio St. B10 65.7 Harvard Ivy 115.7 North Carolina Central MEAC 168.3 Western Kentucky CUSA 212.0 UC Davis BW 247.3 Chattanooga SC
16.3 Virginia ACC 67.3 LSU SEC 116.0 Manhattan MAAC 169.7 William & Mary CAA 212.3 Mississippi St. SEC 247.3 Hartford AE
16.7 Florida SEC 68.7 Purdue B10 116.3 Saint Louis A10 171.0 Delaware CAA 212.7 Central Michigan MAC 248.3 Northern Colorado BSky
21.7 VCU A10 69.7 Alabama SEC 117.3 Eastern Kentucky OVC 171.3 Eastern Michigan MAC 213.0 Colgate Pat 248.7 Texas A&M Corpus Chris Slnd
22.0 Iowa St. B12 70.0 Marquette BE 117.3 Rhode Island A10 171.7 Weber St. BSky 213.0 College of Charleston CAA 249.3 Sacramento St. BSky
22.0 Villanova BE 71.3 Georgia SEC 117.3 Wyoming MWC 172.3 Rider MAAC 213.7 Southern SWAC 250.0 Nebraska Omaha Sum
23.3 North Carolina ACC 72.3 St. John's BE 117.7 Stony Brook AE 172.7 Boston University Pat 214.0 James Madison CAA 253.3 Morgan St. MEAC
23.7 Baylor B12 73.0 West Virginia B12 124.0 Utah St. MWC 173.0 Montana BSky 214.0 North Florida ASun 253.3 South Alabama SB
24.0 Iowa B10 77.3 Davidson A10 125.3 Wake Forest ACC 173.7 Quinnipiac MAAC 215.0 Bradley MVC 255.3 Cal St. Fullerton BW
26.3 Kentucky SEC 77.3 UNLV MWC 125.7 Indiana St. MVC 174.7 Portland WCC 215.0 Brown Ivy 255.3 Louisiana Monroe SB
26.7 San Diego St. MWC 77.7 California P12 126.7 San Francisco WCC 175.0 Pepperdine WCC 215.3 Norfolk St. MEAC 255.3 Texas St. SB
28.3 Syracuse ACC 77.7 George Washington A10 127.0 Northwestern B10 175.3 Houston Amer 218.7 Wagner NEC 255.7 Monmouth MAAC
29.7 Michigan B10 78.3 Richmond A10 128.0 Canisius MAAC 175.7 Wofford SC 219.0 Army Pat 256.3 Western Illinois Sum
31.0 UCLA P12 79.7 SMU Amer 130.3 South Carolina SEC 176.0 Oral Roberts Sum 220.3 Fordham A10 256.7 VMI SC
31.7 Oklahoma St. B12 81.0 Vanderbilt SEC 131.3 Evansville MVC 178.0 Virginia Tech ACC 220.7 UNC Asheville BSth 258.0 Eastern Illinois OVC
31.7 Oklahoma B12 82.7 New Mexico St. WAC 131.3 Mercer SC 179.0 Pacific WCC 221.0 Southeast Missouri St. OVC 258.7 UTSA CUSA
31.7 Oregon P12 84.7 Clemson ACC 131.7 Toledo MAC 180.0 DePaul BE 221.0 Winthrop BSth 259.7 East Tennessee St. SC
33.0 Cincinnati Amer 86.3 Florida St. ACC 135.0 Bucknell Pat 180.0 Northwestern St. Slnd 221.3 Youngstown St. Horz 259.7 Florida Atlantic CUSA
33.7 Georgetown BE 86.3 Iona MAAC 136.0 Yale Ivy 183.3 Drexel CAA 222.3 Eastern Washington BSky 259.7 Tennessee Tech OVC
36.0 Pittsburgh ACC 86.7 La Salle A10 138.0 Denver Sum 185.0 Loyola Chicago MVC 223.3 Milwaukee Horz 262.7 Tennessee Martin OVC
40.0 Maryland B10 88.7 Green Bay Horz 138.3 Fresno St. MWC 185.0 Southern Illinois MVC 224.3 Elon CAA 263.3 New Hampshire AE
40.0 North Carolina St. ACC 88.7 Illinois St. MVC 138.7 USC P12 186.0 Lehigh Pat 225.0 Tulane Amer 264.0 Northern Kentucky ASun
40.3 Stanford P12 73.3 Colorado St. MWC 140.0 Cleveland St. Horz 186.7 USC Upstate ASun 225.3 Arkansas Little Rock SB 264.0 Tennessee St. OVC
41.0 Indiana B10 90.3 Temple Amer 140.3 San Diego WCC 187.0 Morehead St. OVC 225.3 Dartmouth Ivy 264.3 LIU Brooklyn NEC
42.3 Connecticut Amer 91.3 Massachusetts A10 144.7 Kent St. MAC 187.3 IPFW Sum 226.0 Loyola Marymount WCC 265.3 Sacred Heart NEC
42.3 Creighton BE 92.3 Belmont OVC 145.3 Santa Clara WCC 187.7 TCU B12 227.7 FIU CUSA 266.7 Troy SB
43.0 Miami FL ACC 94.0 North Dakota St. Sum 145.7 Southern Miss CUSA 188.0 Lafayette Pat 228.0 Idaho BSky 267.3 Penn Ivy
44.0 Minnesota B10 95.0 Middle Tennessee CUSA 147.0 UAB CUSA 189.0 Towson CAA 228.3 Miami OH MAC 271.0 UC Riverside BW
46.7 Dayton A10 96.0 Texas A&M SEC 147.0 Western Michigan MAC 189.7 St. Francis NY NEC 230.3 Niagara MAAC 271.7 Cornell Ivy
48.3 Notre Dame ACC 96.3 Saint Joseph's A10 147.7 Albany AE 190.3 UT Arlington SB 231.3 Hofstra CAA 272.3 Jacksonville St. OVC
49.0 BYU WCC 96.7 Washington P12 149.3 UC Santa Barbara BW 190.7 Air Force MWC 235.3 Radford BSth 272.3 North Dakota BSky
50.3 Providence BE 97.7 Valparaiso Horz 149.7 Long Beach St. BW 190.7 American Pat 236.0 Saint Peter's MAAC 273.7 Savannah St. MEAC
50.7 Kansas St. B12 98.0 Georgia Tech ACC 151.0 Ohio MAC 190.7 Drake MVC 236.7 Siena MAAC 274.0 Utah Valley WAC
51.0 Texas B12 100.3 Akron MAC 153.3 Washington St. P12 191.3 Oakland Horz 237.0 Georgia Southern SB 275.3 SIU Edwardsville OVC
52.3 Illinois B10 101.0 Georgia St. SB 154.0 Charlotte CUSA 191.7 High Point BSth 239.3 Loyola MD Pat 277.7 Lipscomb ASun
52.7 Utah P12 102.0 UTEP CUSA 154.3 Detroit Horz 192.7 Bowling Green MAC 239.7 Fairfield MAAC 277.7 Portland St. BSky
52.7 Xavier BE 102.3 Murray St. OVC 154.7 Florida Gulf Coast ASun 194.7 Coastal Carolina BSth 240.3 Northern Illinois MAC 279.7 Ball St. MAC
53.0 Stephen F. Austin Slnd 102.3 Nebraska B10 158.3 Louisiana Lafayette SB 195.3 East Carolina Amer 240.7 Seattle WAC 282.3 Rice CUSA
53.3 Arkansas SEC 103.3 Vermont AE 160.7 Robert Morris NEC 197.0 UCF Amer 241.0 Cal St. Northridge BW 285.3 Delaware St. MEAC
54.0 Butler BE 104.0 Penn St. B10 161.0 Auburn SEC 199.3 Charleston Southern BSth 241.7 Hampton MEAC 285.7 Appalachian St. SB
54.0 Memphis Amer 106.3 South Dakota St. Sum 161.3 Texas Tech B12 200.3 Nevada MWC 242.0 Illinois Chicago Horz 285.7 St. Francis PA NEC
56.7 Mississippi SEC 106.3 St. Bonaventure A10 161.7 Hawaii BW 200.7 Duquesne A10 242.3 Cal St. Bakersfield WAC 290.0 Maryland Eastern Shore MEAC
------------------------------------
290.7 Liberty BSth
291.0 UMKC WAC
293.7 UNC Greensboro SC
296.0 Navy Pat
296.7 Samford SC
297.0 Central Connecticut NEC
297.7 Southeastern Louisiana Slnd
298.3 Alabama St. SWAC
298.7 Idaho St. BSky
299.0 Stetson ASun
299.7 McNeese St. Slnd
299.7 North Carolina A&T MEAC
302.0 Chicago St. WAC
303.3 Nicholls St. Slnd
304.0 Jacksonville ASun
304.3 Austin Peay OVC
305.7 Howard MEAC
306.0 Arkansas Pine Bluff SWAC
307.7 Campbell BSth
310.0 Montana St. BSky
310.7 Coppin St. MEAC
311.7 Fairleigh Dickinson NEC
311.7 Maine AE
312.3 Jackson St. SWAC
313.7 Bethune Cookman MEAC
313.7 Lamar Slnd
315.7 IUPUI Sum
316.3 Prairie View A&M SWAC
316.3 Texas Pan American WAC
321.0 Southern Utah BSky
322.0 San Jose St. MWC
322.3 New Orleans Slnd
322.7 Alabama A&M SWAC
323.3 UMBC AE
324.3 Central Arkansas Slnd
325.7 Florida A&M MEAC
326.3 Houston Baptist Slnd
327.0 Longwood BSth
329.0 Furman SC
333.3 Binghamton AE
334.0 Alcorn St. SWAC
335.0 The Citadel SC
336.3 Presbyterian BSth
339.0 Kennesaw St. ASun
340.0 South Carolina St. MEAC
344.7 Mississippi Valley St. SWAC
349.3 Grambling St. SWAC

[swood1000]

Here's the same list in only two columns, which may display better.


6.0 Louisville ACC 180.0 DePaul BE
6.3 Arizona P12 180.0 Northwestern St. Slnd
7.3 Wisconsin B10 183.3 Drexel CAA
7.7 Duke ACC 185.0 Loyola Chicago MVC
10.7 Wichita St. MVC 185.0 Southern Illinois MVC
11.0 Michigan St. B10 186.0 Lehigh Pat
11.3 Gonzaga WCC 186.7 USC Upstate ASun
11.3 Kansas B12 187.0 Morehead St. OVC
16.0 Ohio St. B10 187.3 IPFW Sum
16.3 Virginia ACC 187.7 TCU B12
16.7 Florida SEC 188.0 Lafayette Pat
21.7 VCU A10 189.0 Towson CAA
22.0 Iowa St. B12 189.7 St. Francis NY NEC
22.0 Villanova BE 190.3 UT Arlington SB
23.3 North Carolina ACC 190.7 Air Force MWC
23.7 Baylor B12 190.7 American Pat
24.0 Iowa B10 190.7 Drake MVC
26.3 Kentucky SEC 191.3 Oakland Horz
26.7 San Diego St. MWC 191.7 High Point BSth
28.3 Syracuse ACC 192.7 Bowling Green MAC
29.7 Michigan B10 194.7 Coastal Carolina BSth
31.0 UCLA P12 195.3 East Carolina Amer
31.7 Oklahoma St. B12 197.0 UCF Amer
31.7 Oklahoma B12 199.3 Charleston Southern BSth
31.7 Oregon P12 200.3 Nevada MWC
33.0 Cincinnati Amer 200.7 Duquesne A10
33.7 Georgetown BE 201.3 Mount St. Mary's NEC
36.0 Pittsburgh ACC 203.7 Arkansas St. SB
40.0 Maryland B10 205.0 Texas Southern SWAC
40.0 North Carolina St. ACC 205.3 Missouri St. MVC
40.3 Stanford P12 205.7 Bryant NEC
41.0 Indiana B10 208.7 Gardner Webb BSth
42.3 Connecticut Amer 209.3 South Florida Amer
42.3 Creighton BE 211.0 Holy Cross Pat
43.0 Miami FL ACC 212.0 UC Davis BW
44.0 Minnesota B10 212.3 Mississippi St. SEC
46.7 Dayton A10 212.7 Central Michigan MAC
48.3 Notre Dame ACC 213.0 Colgate Pat
49.0 BYU WCC 213.0 College of Charleston CAA
50.3 Providence BE 213.7 Southern SWAC
50.7 Kansas St. B12 214.0 James Madison CAA
51.0 Texas B12 214.0 North Florida ASun
52.3 Illinois B10 215.0 Bradley MVC
52.7 Utah P12 215.0 Brown Ivy
52.7 Xavier BE 215.3 Norfolk St. MEAC
53.0 Stephen F. Austin Slnd 218.7 Wagner NEC
53.3 Arkansas SEC 219.0 Army Pat
54.0 Butler BE 220.3 Fordham A10
54.0 Memphis Amer 220.7 UNC Asheville BSth
56.7 Mississippi SEC 221.0 Southeast Missouri St. OVC
57.0 Tennessee SEC 221.0 Winthrop BSth
58.0 Saint Mary's WCC 221.3 Youngstown St. Horz
58.3 Boise St. MWC 222.3 Eastern Washington BSky
58.7 Arizona St. P12 223.3 Milwaukee Horz
59.0 Northern Iowa MVC 224.3 Elon CAA
65.0 Louisiana Tech CUSA 225.0 Tulane Amer
65.0 New Mexico MWC 225.3 Arkansas Little Rock SB
88.3 Colorado P12 225.3 Dartmouth Ivy
65.7 Harvard Ivy 226.0 Loyola Marymount WCC
67.3 LSU SEC 227.7 FIU CUSA
68.7 Purdue B10 228.0 Idaho BSky
69.7 Alabama SEC 228.3 Miami OH MAC
70.0 Marquette BE 230.3 Niagara MAAC
71.3 Georgia SEC 231.3 Hofstra CAA
72.3 St. John's BE 235.3 Radford BSth
73.0 West Virginia B12 236.0 Saint Peter's MAAC
77.3 Davidson A10 236.7 Siena MAAC
77.3 UNLV MWC 237.0 Georgia Southern SB
77.7 California P12 239.3 Loyola MD Pat
77.7 George Washington A10 239.7 Fairfield MAAC
78.3 Richmond A10 240.3 Northern Illinois MAC
79.7 SMU Amer 240.7 Seattle WAC
81.0 Vanderbilt SEC 241.0 Cal St. Northridge BW
82.7 New Mexico St. WAC 241.7 Hampton MEAC
84.7 Clemson ACC 242.0 Illinois Chicago Horz
86.3 Florida St. ACC 242.3 Cal St. Bakersfield WAC
86.3 Iona MAAC 242.3 Marshall CUSA
86.7 La Salle A10 243.3 Northern Arizona BSky
88.7 Green Bay Horz 243.3 Western Carolina SC
88.7 Illinois St. MVC 244.3 South Dakota Sum
73.3 Colorado St. MWC 245.3 UNC Wilmington CAA
90.3 Temple Amer 245.7 Marist MAAC
91.3 Massachusetts A10 246.7 North Texas CUSA
92.3 Belmont OVC 247.0 NJIT ind
94.0 North Dakota St. Sum 247.3 Chattanooga SC
95.0 Middle Tennessee CUSA 247.3 Hartford AE
96.0 Texas A&M SEC 248.3 Northern Colorado BSky
96.3 Saint Joseph's A10 248.7 Texas A&M Corpus Chris Slnd
96.7 Washington P12 249.3 Sacramento St. BSky
97.7 Valparaiso Horz 250.0 Nebraska Omaha Sum
98.0 Georgia Tech ACC 253.3 Morgan St. MEAC
100.3 Akron MAC 253.3 South Alabama SB
101.0 Georgia St. SB 255.3 Cal St. Fullerton BW
102.0 UTEP CUSA 255.3 Louisiana Monroe SB
102.3 Murray St. OVC 255.3 Texas St. SB
102.3 Nebraska B10 255.7 Monmouth MAAC
103.3 Vermont AE 256.3 Western Illinois Sum
104.0 Penn St. B10 256.7 VMI SC
106.3 South Dakota St. Sum 258.0 Eastern Illinois OVC
106.3 St. Bonaventure A10 258.7 UTSA CUSA
107.0 Oregon St. P12 259.7 East Tennessee St. SC
107.7 Missouri SEC 259.7 Florida Atlantic CUSA
109.0 Seton Hall BE 259.7 Tennessee Tech OVC
109.3 UC Irvine BW 262.7 Tennessee Martin OVC
111.7 Tulsa Amer 263.3 New Hampshire AE
112.3 Princeton Ivy 264.0 Northern Kentucky ASun
113.3 Boston College ACC 264.0 Tennessee St. OVC
114.7 Buffalo MAC 264.3 LIU Brooklyn NEC
115.7 North Carolina Central MEAC 265.3 Sacred Heart NEC
116.0 Manhattan MAAC 266.7 Troy SB
116.3 Saint Louis A10 267.3 Penn Ivy
117.3 Eastern Kentucky OVC 271.0 UC Riverside BW
117.3 Rhode Island A10 271.7 Cornell Ivy
117.3 Wyoming MWC 272.3 Jacksonville St. OVC
117.7 Stony Brook AE 272.3 North Dakota BSky
124.0 Utah St. MWC 273.7 Savannah St. MEAC
125.3 Wake Forest ACC 274.0 Utah Valley WAC
125.7 Indiana St. MVC 275.3 SIU Edwardsville OVC
126.7 San Francisco WCC 277.7 Lipscomb ASun
127.0 Northwestern B10 277.7 Portland St. BSky
128.0 Canisius MAAC 279.7 Ball St. MAC
130.3 South Carolina SEC 282.3 Rice CUSA
131.3 Evansville MVC 285.3 Delaware St. MEAC
131.3 Mercer SC 285.7 Appalachian St. SB
131.7 Toledo MAC 285.7 St. Francis PA NEC
135.0 Bucknell Pat 290.0 Maryland Eastern Shore MEAC
136.0 Yale Ivy 290.7 Liberty BSth
138.0 Denver Sum 291.0 UMKC WAC
138.3 Fresno St. MWC 293.7 UNC Greensboro SC
138.7 USC P12 296.0 Navy Pat
140.0 Cleveland St. Horz 296.7 Samford SC
140.3 San Diego WCC 297.0 Central Connecticut NEC
144.7 Kent St. MAC 297.7 Southeastern Louisiana Slnd
145.3 Santa Clara WCC 298.3 Alabama St. SWAC
145.7 Southern Miss CUSA 298.7 Idaho St. BSky
147.0 UAB CUSA 299.0 Stetson ASun
147.0 Western Michigan MAC 299.7 McNeese St. Slnd
147.7 Albany AE 299.7 North Carolina A&T MEAC
149.3 UC Santa Barbara BW 302.0 Chicago St. WAC
149.7 Long Beach St. BW 303.3 Nicholls St. Slnd
151.0 Ohio MAC 304.0 Jacksonville ASun
153.3 Washington St. P12 304.3 Austin Peay OVC
154.0 Charlotte CUSA 305.7 Howard MEAC
154.3 Detroit Horz 306.0 Arkansas Pine Bluff SWAC
154.7 Florida Gulf Coast ASun 307.7 Campbell BSth
158.3 Louisiana Lafayette SB 310.0 Montana St. BSky
160.7 Robert Morris NEC 310.7 Coppin St. MEAC
161.0 Auburn SEC 311.7 Fairleigh Dickinson NEC
161.3 Texas Tech B12 311.7 Maine AE
161.7 Hawaii BW 312.3 Jackson St. SWAC
163.3 Columbia Ivy 313.7 Bethune Cookman MEAC
163.3 Rutgers B10 313.7 Lamar Slnd
164.7 Cal Poly BW 315.7 IUPUI Sum
164.7 George Mason A10 316.3 Prairie View A&M SWAC
164.7 Wright St. Horz 316.3 Texas Pan American WAC
166.3 Northeastern CAA 321.0 Southern Utah BSky
167.3 Sam Houston St. Slnd 322.0 San Jose St. MWC
167.7 Old Dominion CUSA 322.3 New Orleans Slnd
168.3 Western Kentucky CUSA 322.7 Alabama A&M SWAC
169.7 William & Mary CAA 323.3 UMBC AE
171.0 Delaware CAA 324.3 Central Arkansas Slnd
171.3 Eastern Michigan MAC 325.7 Florida A&M MEAC
171.7 Weber St. BSky 326.3 Houston Baptist Slnd
172.3 Rider MAAC 327.0 Longwood BSth
172.7 Boston University Pat 329.0 Furman SC
173.0 Montana BSky 333.3 Binghamton AE
173.7 Quinnipiac MAAC 334.0 Alcorn St. SWAC
174.7 Portland WCC 335.0 The Citadel SC
175.0 Pepperdine WCC 336.3 Presbyterian BSth
175.3 Houston Amer 339.0 Kennesaw St. ASun
175.7 Wofford SC 340.0 South Carolina St. MEAC
176.0 Oral Roberts Sum 344.7 Mississippi Valley St. SWAC
178.0 Virginia Tech ACC 349.3 Grambling St. SWAC
179.0 Pacific WCC

[Olympic Fan]

As long as we're talking about transfers, it should be noted that Miami just picked up a new transfers for the 2016-17 season.

Rashad Muhammad -- the younger brother of former Duke target Shabazz Muhammad -- will transfer from San Jose state to Miami. He was the leading scorer at San Jose the last two years. After sitting out this season, he'll have two more years to play for the Canes.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/13417697/rashad-muhammad-transfers-miami-hurricanes-form-san-jose-state