This would really hurt Mid-Majors!!!
The Poaching that happens in College Basketball is already rampant in College Basketball!! This would be terrible for Mid-Majors. Power 5 Programs would just poach the good Mid-Major Players just like they do with the grad-transfer rule.
College Basketball just had over 800(!) transfers this offseason and that number would skyrocket even more if this happened. This is disgusting and terrible for the sport it happened.
https://twitter.com/ASlater247/status/905184638779445248
https://twitter.com/CBB_Central/status/905206274706591750
http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121
Sources: Major Potential Shift In NCAA Transfer Rules
In a potentially paradigm-shifting proposal, the NCAA members may vote to allow all Division-I transfers to be eligible to play immediately.
By: Andrew Slater
In a potentially paradigm-shifting proposal, the NCAA members may vote to allow all Division-I transfers to be eligible to play immediately. The only potential restrictions are that student-athletes would be asked to meet a minimum GPA, in order to transfer immediately, and that any additional transfer would require the student-athletes to sit out a full year. The proposal, which is being solicited among members for feedback, is gaining increased traction in recent weeks, a source confirms.
In April, a 19-person task force comprised of commissioners, athletic directors, coaches, and student-athletes initially assembled under the name of Division I Transfer Working Group. Their mission was to bring a fresh approach to the often publicly maligned transfer process. Although earlier groups had been formed in prior years under similar missions, the Transfer Working Group was given more data, while also tasked with the goal of trying to create uniformity within the transfer process.
........
Within recent weeks, it has become more clear that the latter option of immediate eligibility for transfers who achieve a minimum GPA is the one gaining traction amongst members. The proposal must be completed by Nov. 1. The members of the Transfer Working Group will continue to seek feedback from fellow coaches, directors, commissioners and student-athletes in the days ahead, but it is becoming more likely that the proposal will be voted upon next April with the possibility of this going into effect as early as the 2018-19 calendar. The uniformity of applying the same rules across all sports would potentially streamline the transfer process.
Proponents of student-athletes being permitted to change schools as freely as coaches will undoubtedly laud this potential new development. The concern from some detractors may be the further encouragement of raiding smaller programs as well as the likelihood that the number of annual transfers will grow exponentially. The challenge of tracking potential tampering in pending transfers may also be a potential hazard of the new development.
Give this a watch:
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1zqKVRLZyoDKB
https://twitter.com/CBB_Central/status/905234107864580096
Even stacked high majors will be trying to raid high profile players from other high majors to round out their rosters for a national championship run. Think Golden-State-adding-Kevin-Durant on steroids. Absolutely insane idea.
College basketball will be pointless to watch for all but a handful of teams if Power 5 programs are allowed to poach players at will. The sit-out year is the only modest tool stopping them. Ridiculous.
Not sure i agree with the panic. So High-majors can poach from other High-majors but, there are lots of players who start at High-majors (think all of the guys who have transferred to Valpo--Joe and Bakari presently) who wouldn't have to sit a year. If we had had those guys last year we would have made a run in the NCAAs.
And once those high majors start bringing in the xfers, the current guys see the writing on the wall and start looking for the Valpos to continue their careers, and then the kids on the Valpo team see the new xfers coming in and will start looking at the low majors and ......
Sorry, but this is gonna be a s@&$ storm.
I hate this potential rule change for what it would potentially do Mid-Majors but all things asides, but isn't the NCAA still a "academic" institution that cares about graduating athletes???
How would potentially encouraging kids to jump from school to school be in anyway good for the STUDENT-athlete's education? It would likely cause more kids to fail to graduate and earn their degrees. Most kids even at the Power Conference level aren't going pro. Shouldn't the NCAA be encouraging kids actually graduate and leave college with some skills?
I am just so sick of the NCAA committee trying to make it easier for the Power Conferences and for them to line their pockets. It genuinely turns me off from the sport sometimes.
Illinois State head coaches reaction to this potential rule change. Pretty much the same as mine.
https://twitter.com/DanMuller/status/905263914140803073
I'll go a step further. Any non-P5 AD who even partially supports this change should be relieved of their duties immediately.
This is a two way street. Don't forget, Valpo has Evelyn, Burton, and Fazekas who came to us from P5 programs. Would we have been better immediately with them eligible?
Valpo has been a school that builds a relationship with each recruit, and generally does not offer multiple scholarships at each position and tell recruits that it is open to the first to verbally commit or sign on the dotted line. Being immediately eligible puts the P5 teams on notice with the three and four star kids that playing time, as well as the development of each player will be noted by those players. Valpo needs to sell the whole college experience - playing time early in career (think Alec Peters), development as a player (think Vashil), and development as a skilled person with opportunities come graduation. Does a kid want to sit a year or two, or get playing time. The 2.5 star to 4 stars need to consider these things, especially as the P5 school offers a 5 star in the year after them.
Yes, the Alec Peters and others will get the P5 schools talking to their AAU coaches for a feel of if they are considering transferring. Valpo needs to have the strength of relationship with each player (and their families) so that we can minimize a player transferring up after a year or two.
Even though my immediate feeling was similar to Dan Muller, I think we are in a unique situation, and should be able to utilize our advantages.
Quote from: covufan on September 06, 2017, 12:44:20 PM
This is a two way street. Don't forget, Valpo has Evelyn, Burton, and Fazekas who came to us from P5 programs. Would we have been better immediately with them eligible?
Valpo has been a school that builds a relationship with each recruit, and generally does not offer multiple scholarships at each position and tell recruits that it is open to the first to verbally commit or sign on the dotted line. Being immediately eligible puts the P5 teams on notice with the three and four star kids that playing time, as well as the development of each player will be noted by those players. Valpo needs to sell the whole college experience - playing time early in career (think Alec Peters), development as a player (think Vashil), and development as a skilled person with opportunities come graduation. Does a kid want to sit a year or two, or get playing time. The 2.5 star to 4 stars need to consider these things, especially as the P5 school offers a 5 star in the year after them.
Yes, the Alec Peters and others will get the P5 schools talking to their AAU coaches for a feel of if they are considering transferring. Valpo needs to have the strength of relationship with each player (and their families) so that we can minimize a player transferring up after a year or two.
Even though my immediate feeling was similar to Dan Muller, I think we are in a unique situation, and should be able to utilize our advantages.
I could fully see a scenario playing out where a P5 player starts college at a P5. Doesn't get the playing time he wants & his "stock is down". Transfers his sophomore year to Mid-Major & performs well & his stock is back up again. Then a P5 coach comes calling and that player transfers once again. Thats not a great deal for Mid-Majors.
I still stand by my statement that this rule would be horrendous for Mid-Majors and for the Sport of College Basketball AND for the education of this kids.
I would rather the system remain as is rather then having College Basketball become a sport mercenaries for a year or 2. It would just become free agency. It is not like sitting out 1 year is a bad thing if a team wants to take on a transferring player. It allows for the student-athlete to craft his skills that year RS year, practice with the team & lets the student-athlete focus more on grades/academics and get an extra free year of education.
Mid-Major Basketball should not be treated like the filler league & minor leagues of college basketball.
Quote from: VU2014 on September 06, 2017, 01:07:06 PM
Quote from: covufan on September 06, 2017, 12:44:20 PM
This is a two way street. Don't forget, Valpo has Evelyn, Burton, and Fazekas who came to us from P5 programs. Would we have been better immediately with them eligible?
Valpo has been a school that builds a relationship with each recruit, and generally does not offer multiple scholarships at each position and tell recruits that it is open to the first to verbally commit or sign on the dotted line. Being immediately eligible puts the P5 teams on notice with the three and four star kids that playing time, as well as the development of each player will be noted by those players. Valpo needs to sell the whole college experience - playing time early in career (think Alec Peters), development as a player (think Vashil), and development as a skilled person with opportunities come graduation. Does a kid want to sit a year or two, or get playing time. The 2.5 star to 4 stars need to consider these things, especially as the P5 school offers a 5 star in the year after them.
Yes, the Alec Peters and others will get the P5 schools talking to their AAU coaches for a feel of if they are considering transferring. Valpo needs to have the strength of relationship with each player (and their families) so that we can minimize a player transferring up after a year or two.
Even though my immediate feeling was similar to Dan Muller, I think we are in a unique situation, and should be able to utilize our advantages.
I could fully see a scenario playing out where a P5 player starts college at a P5. Doesn't get the playing time he wants & his "stock is down". Transfers his sophomore year to Mid-Major & performs well & his stock is back up again. Then a P5 coach comes calling and that player transfers once again. Thats not a great deal for Mid-Majors.
I still stand by my statement that this rule would be horrendous for Mid-Majors and for the Sport of College Basketball AND for the education of this kids.
I would rather the system remain as is rather then having College Basketball become a sport mercenaries for a year or 2. It would just become free agency. It is not like sitting out 1 year is a bad thing if a team wants to take on a transferring player. It allows for the student-athlete to craft his skills that year RS year, practice with the team & lets the student-athlete focus more on grades/academics and get an extra free year of education.
Mid-Major Basketball should not be treated like the filler league & minor leagues of college basketball.
Point taken, however, the Brandon Woods will play the transfer to transfer game irregardless. I don't think we attract that type of selfish player. Mid majors with no "program sole" would be the real losers.
Quote from: VU2014 on September 06, 2017, 01:07:06 PMI still stand by my statement that this rule would be horrendous for Mid-Majors and for the Sport of College Basketball AND for the education of this kids.
I guess I'm more of a numbers person. Show me the data.
Valpo currently has three players that transferred from P5 conferences. How many players in the last 5 years have transferred from Valpo to a P5 conference (including graduate transfers)?
Quote from: VU2014 on September 06, 2017, 01:07:06 PM
I could fully see a scenario playing out where a P5 player starts college at a P5. Doesn't get the playing time he wants & his "stock is down". Transfers his sophomore year to Mid-Major & performs well & his stock is back up again. Then a P5 coach comes calling and that player transfers once again. Thats not a great deal for Mid-Majors.
This could happen, but based on what I've read, the player would need to sit a year on his/her 2nd transfer.
Look, are there more situations where an immediate transfer should be allowed than under current rules? Sure.
The one situation I'd be fine with making a change is allowing players whose coach leaves/is fired to transfer without penalty (except to the coach's new school - can't allow a coach to gut an entire program just because he wants a new job), provided they meet with new coach first. If you can't make coaches sit out a year when they change jobs (and despite my support of such a rule, it'd be against the law in too many states for it to ever be put into place), then the players should be able to be as mobile in that situation, and that situation only. (This would also prevent the unfair scenario of coaches running off a player they inherited when taking over at a new school, only to see that player have to sit out a year due to the actions/decisions of his new coach).
But transferring with no restrictions at all? It will be open season on every good non-P5 team and player, with nothing to discourage it. Basketball outside of the top 20-25 programs will be decimated, and not worth watching anymore.
https://twitter.com/thebiglead/status/905392648416092160
http://thebiglead.com/2017/09/05/college-basketball-will-become-the-wild-west-if-this-new-transfer-rule-idea-goes-through/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=59afdc3b00bd4700071492ab&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
College Basketball Will Become The Wild West If This New Transfer Rule Idea Goes Through
By: Tully Corcoran
A fantastic article. I encourage everyone give this a read.
http://scout.com/college/basketball/recruiting/Article/NCAA-coaches-loudly-speaking-out-on-potential-new-transfer-rule--107036402
https://twitter.com/EvanDaniels/status/905515765725626369
NCAA coaches loudly speaking out on potential transfer rule
Allowing college basketball players that option to transfer without penalty would be detrimental to the game, but the NCAA is considering it.
By: Evan Daniels
https://twitter.com/CBB_Central/status/905525217019166720
Maybe the solution should not even limit it to between seasons. Players could switch between semesters...between games...during halftime.
"We really want you to be a _______________(fill in blank). I mean we REALLY want you, but we are out of scholarships right now for your position. I see you have ____________(fill in blank) on your list right now as a potential landing spot. I know they are in need of a shooting guard and they are really good at developing guards. Go there and you will start and after _______________(insert player name) graduates we will have a spot for you if you still want to be a ____________(fill in the blank).
If I am a high major program I repeat that line to 2-3 kids at each position every year that I am iffy about offering a scholarship to or would really like to offer but am not currently in need of their position. Whoever has the best season I give a call to their AAU coach who contacts them and boom. I have a kid who started at a mid-major or other major program who has proved his skill.
Not tampering. Completely legal. Mid-Majors could do it to low-majors as well.
The current transfer rules aren't great either. There needs to be a bit more freedom for players to leave without a year penalty, but the suggested rule would create chaos. What about loosening the transfer rules for the following situations?
-If a head coach leaves, the player has 90 days to file for a transfer.
-If a player plays in less than 25% of games/minutes (that number is arbitrary, it could change), they are eligible to transfer. A player getting no playing time at all isn't really in danger of being "poached."
-If a player is a medical redshirt, they are eligible for transfer without penalty.
Making adjustments like these would benefit the players who are transferring for reasons mostly beyond their control and not to simply stack a team. A player like Grant Gelon should not have to sit a year or go JUCO because a new coaching staff tells him he has no future there (he fits exceptions one and two above).
Just some thoughts...
Might cumulative GPA also be used as a factor in sitting out vs. immediate eligibility? I mean these are "student athletes" right? ::)
For instance......
A transferring player must be in good standing, have sufficient credits appropriate to that standing (e.g., 1st semester sophomore) and achieve a cumulative GPA of at least 2.5 (3.0?) on a scale of 4.0 to be immediately eligible. Failure to meet any of the above would require sitting out for 1 year. The rationale for sitting out would be to help meet academic requirements. Too naive, huh?
Not a bad group of suggestions. Suggestion 1 & 2 might not be bad but I'd say maybe only allow those rule apply to upperclassman. I fully support suggestion 3.
Quote from: ARCInsider on September 07, 2017, 10:02:54 PM
-If a head coach leaves, the player has 90 days to file for a transfer.
-If a player plays in less than 25% of games/minutes (that number is arbitrary, it could change), they are eligible to transfer. A player getting no playing time at all isn't really in danger of being "poached."
-If a player is a medical redshirt, they are eligible for transfer without penalty.
I think everyone would like the NCAA to actually start investigating and enforcing tampering/poaching of players... but we all know the P5 runs the NCAA offices & they may not want to bite the hands that feed them.
https://twitter.com/nypost_brazille/status/906313674008219649
This would be awful for the sport of College Basketball. College Basketball would essentially have free agency and the poaching of teams would be more rampant then it already is and it would give even more power to the corrupt AAU coaches acting as the players agents. This would make cheating more rampant.
https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/952626149473079297
https://www.fanragsports.com/rothstein-ncaa-to-meet-soon-about-immediate-eligibility-for-transfers/
From the chatter I've seen, there might be a significant number of P5 schools who are against this change. Last thing you want if you're a non-traditional power in one of those conferences is to have to fight off the "elite" programs in your conference for players you already successfully signed. The schools that have a lot of "one and dones" could pluck top players from other programs to use as continuity/role players. Let's hope that chatter is right. This would devastate every midmajor program in the nation.
It would be cool to see Paul and Michael write an article about the dangers of the potential new transfer rule.
https://twitter.com/Pg_Benson/status/952951199195594753
https://twitter.com/FatherHarry1/status/952950620943724544
Quote from: bigmosmithfan1 on January 14, 2018, 09:24:26 PM
From the chatter I've seen, there might be a significant number of P5 schools who are against this change. Last thing you want if you're a non-traditional power in one of those conferences is to have to fight off the "elite" programs in your conference for players you already successfully signed. The schools that have a lot of "one and dones" could pluck top players from other programs to use as continuity/role players. Let's hope that chatter is right. This would devastate every midmajor program in the nation.
I'm not completely against it, but there does need to be some language in this if it goes through that keeps it from becoming a complete free agency. Here are some things that I think can help all programs, let me know if there are any others that you guys think would be helpful.
1. Players who transfer are not eligible until the start of the school's next semester, and must enroll prior to the drop/add period ending. This will help curb complete insanity in transferring between games.
2. In the instance of a coaching change, whether the coach leaves or is fired, all incoming recruits or first year players can transfer without having to sit out, as long as the termination occurs prior to the start of the 2nd semester of their first year at the school. These transfers would not count towards their total in #3.
3. Outside of #2, each player can transfer once in their career without having to sit out additional time. Each successive transfer will result in time missed, so transfer #2, they'd sit a semester, transfer #3, a full year and so on.
4. If a player transfers from a multi-bid league to a one bid league beyond their first transfer, they can do so without having to sit out additional time. However, if they go from a one-bid league to a multi-bid league, or go to another league that was the same one-bid or multi-bid classification as their previous one, rule #3 would apply. Bid classification would be based on the number of bids that conference received in the prior year's NCAA tournament.
What about 'no sit' after transfer after a medical red-shirt?
Update:
https://twitter.com/NCAA/status/963481090156527617
Actually, this is a relief. The devil will be in the details, as always, but this is a much more level-headed approach to changing the transfer rule. This makes clear that a "free for all" situation is not under consideration. (It also makes clear the current rule is not being kept as-is, either).
The "academic" benchmark thing will be interesting to watch - you're going to see it set higher than a 3.0, I'd imagine, but probably lower than a 3.5 (maybe a 3.3 or better). Your better academic schools will probably look to have this either set very high or spiked altogether, because it will punish programs that have high academic standards vs. ones that don't. (This could also lead to the perverse incentive of a coach hoping for his team to all be 2.9 GPA students instead of honor roll candidates, because they won't be candidates for a transfer).
The free transfer when a coach leaves is completely fair and hard to argue against, even if such a rule could have hurt us worse two years ago. If a coach doesn't have to sit out a year when leaving for a new job, then a player shouldn't be punished for wanting to move on if that coach leaves. The proposed Big 12 rule wouldn't allow players to follow their coach, which is the only restriction I think that makes sense. (They even note they'll have to figure something out with the APR - you can't punish a school if a rule allows mass transfers after a coaching change).
As for timing, since they aren't voting until June, I'd be surprised if it was implemented for next season. Probably not until the year after.
Even if it does hurt mid-majors a bit (I could argue it could be beneficial) its the right thing to do. These are kids and their lives. If they have the opportunity to play up a level and want to do so, let them. If they are unhappy in a situation let them leave. Making them sit out a year is punitive and can ruin their very short college careers. I bet there are a ton of athletes in major programs that don't get any playing time that would love the opportunity to go to a smaller school like Valpo where they could play significant minutes. Probably more of those than there are of kids from mid-majors that will jump up to a high major (although yes the loss of those kids will hurt a program much more than a bench player leaving a high major would).
Oh, one other thing... the NCAA is not entertaining any proposal that would allow an athlete to compete for two schools in the same academic year. So no mid-season transfers, and probably, no transferring after school has started without sitting out that season. That's completely fair. Logistically, there will need to be a transfer "window" each summer just for roster certainty (and to give schools hit by mass transfers after a coach departure a fair shot to replenish their program).
The "free transfers for everyone" isn't going to happen because it in essence punishes schools that recruit and develop talent well in favor of ones that don't. There needs to be an academic carrot attached at a minimum.
The rationale that higher achieving academic students should be allowed to transfer because they are more likely to graduate than lower academic students that transfer made me chuckle. Duh! I would presume higher academic athletes who don't transfer are also more likely to graduate than the group as a whole that doesn't transfer. In fact I would presume that there is a correlation between getting good grades and graduating overall!
Speaking of NCAA rules, I was pleased to see Notre Dame's president rip into the NCAA for its unfair application of harsh penalties and alluding to the lack of penalties for North Carolina. Notre Dame was penalized for enforcing their Honor Code, retroactively re-calculating grades, and honestly reporting the situation. Had Notre Dame simply expelled the students involved rather than re-calculating grades or had a statute of limitations, then the NCAA would not have imposed any penalty.