PDA

View Full Version : Transfer Rule Amended



Bogozags
01-30-2018, 03:36 PM
I heard on ESPNU Radio this PM, that the NCAA is seriously considering to allow under-grad players to transfer without having to sit out one year IF the coach is fired or leaves the school for another job. If this is approved then ADs would have to give serious thought to firing their coaches, because it would allow players to transfer...if that were in place now, how many UL players would have left? Also ADs would have to pay coaches what they are worth OR they could leave and then players could leave with them...

I see this as a double edged sword that could assist players but at the same time be detrimental to schools...

Would love to read your thoughts...

Coach Crazy
01-30-2018, 03:57 PM
I heard on ESPNU Radio this PM, that the NCAA is seriously considering to allow under-grad players to transfer without having to sit out one year IF the coach is fired or leaves the school for another job. If this is approved then ADs would have to give serious thought to firing their coaches, because it would allow players to transfer...if that were in place now, how many UL players would have left? Also ADs would have to pay coaches what they are worth OR they could leave and then players could leave with them...

I see this as a double edged sword that could assist players but at the same time be detrimental to schools...

Would love to read your thoughts...

I think one thing we have to come to grips with, is the fact that it won't be a perfect system. We have to decide what "con's" we have can live with and go from there.

Could this make it easier for coaches and players to leave together and leverage things in an unsavory situation? Sure. Could it change the way that an AD and President make hiring's and firing's? Absolutely. But it also ensures that players aren't left with inequitable level of accountability.

CDC84
01-31-2018, 07:50 AM
This was talked about on Big 10 Basketball & Beyond on Sunday night (on the Big 10 Network). It's a program that I highly recommend to everyone on this board. They talk about more than just Big 10 basketball.

In general, I agree with you Coach Crazy - there will be no perfect system. But you still need to go with the best choice, and ultimately, this game is about the players. Not coaches and administrators.

I have long favored this rule change for 4 reasons:

1) Most schools are too quick to pull the trigger in firing coaches. In today's world, John Wooden would've been fired before he would've won his first national title. This rule change discourages that practice.

2) The coaches are ultimately hired by an athletic director, who can sometimes fire 3 or 4 coaches before his or her job gets questioned. As a hall of fame college basketball writer once put it: "Basketball coaches aren't really fired because they lose or underachieve or fail to meet expectations. They are fired because their bosses made lousy hires."

3) Such a rule would lessen the influence of idiotic and impatient boosters who often don't understand the game of basketball or the nature of developing a program or player. The instinct to get a bunch of money together to get rid of a coach would have new consequences if this rule change occurs. See Coach Giacoletti and his experiences at Utah. He decided to build the program from the ground up instead of relying on transfers (whether juco or otherwise). Right when his noble and wise plan was about to work out, they cut him loose. Naturally, the new coach benefitted from his work, and RayG unjustly got none of the rewards. He is just one of several cases of coaches who have been let loose due to booster pressure that an athletic director needs to be better protected from. Again, this rule change tells those boosters that they better question their instinct to tar and feather their basketball coach and run him out of town.

4) Most importantly, even though I know all of us would like to believe otherwise (idealistically anyway), the vast, vast majority of these players are committing to a basketball coach and his staff, not the school. I'm not saying academics isn't an important part of the school choice process as well, but a good player is simply not going to choose Cal-Berkeley or Dartmouth if their current coach is a jerk. There are other great academic institutions to play for.

The only negative thing about this rule is that it will inevitably hurt non-BCS programs who have "hot" coaches who move up the ladder. I realize that Butler is in the Big East right now, but they once used to be in the Horizon. Most non-BCS programs cannot "recover" like Butler was able to for a number of years. When one guy left, another great coach from that man's staff just took his place. I personally cannot fault a coach from Bradley or Old Dominion or Belmont for taking on a good job in the ACC if he guides his team to the elite 8. It's the nature of the business. On the other hand, this rule change could also result in more non-BCS programs investing in their basketball programs to make sure their great coach is more likely to stick around. Obviously, this rule change could also impact a BCS program as well.....say a great coach at Texas decides to move on to Kentucky. But the reality of the situation is that Texas is probably going to hire a very good replacement, and that new man has a better chance of convincing some of the current players to stay.

In the end, I think you have to go with what is right for the players, and what choice presents the lease amount of problems. For me, allowing kids to transfer when a coaching change is made or a coach departs for another school has more benefits than what is currently taking place right now.

Mr Vulture
01-31-2018, 09:11 AM
I think I would land somewhere in the middle on this one. While I agree that the player often times chooses a school based on the coach at some level, they also choose the school. The frenzy of transferring is already bad enough as it is, to open this up even further to me would create a situation where it becomes a freeagency free for all type situation. Here is where I would go with this, if I were making the ruling.

If a recruit signs with a program and then the coach leaves for another school or is fired before the player enrolls in class, they should be released from their commitment with no restrictions. For players that have currently been on the team for at least one full season, they should be subject to the current transfer rules in place should a coach be fired or move to a new program.

kitzbuel
01-31-2018, 09:15 AM
I'm not in favor of letting players transfer if a coach voluntarily leaves. There should be some protection for non BCS schools who make progress.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

Zagdawg
01-31-2018, 09:30 AM
http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2018/01/31/report-proposal-to-allow-immediate-eligible-transfers-if-coach-leaves/

willandi
01-31-2018, 10:10 AM
I'm not in favor of letting players transfer if a coach voluntarily leaves. There should be some protection for non BCS schools who make progress.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


I think I would land somewhere in the middle on this one. While I agree that the player often times chooses a school based on the coach at some level, they also choose the school. The frenzy of transferring is already bad enough as it is, to open this up even further to me would create a situation where it becomes a freeagency free for all type situation. Here is where I would go with this, if I were making the ruling.

If a recruit signs with a program and then the coach leaves for another school or is fired before the player enrolls in class, they should be released from their commitment with no restrictions. For players that have currently been on the team for at least one full season, they should be subject to the current transfer rules in place should a coach be fired or move to a new program.

Perhaps with the caveat that a player transferring to an equal level conference/school, or lower, doesn't have to sit out, but transferring to an upper echelon school has to sit the year.

zagzilla
01-31-2018, 10:25 AM
Don't like it as it hurts non-BCS schools more when their coaches move "up" to bigger job. Coaches can and will cut deals with the new institution that is based on the coach as well as which of his current players they would bring with them.

GU likely a winner if this happens in the near term because of the unlikelihood that Few leaves as we are an attractive destination for transfers.

ZZ

CDC84
01-31-2018, 10:34 AM
Again, people who are worrying about a "frenzy" of transferring need to understand that with a new transfer rule like this, we will see far fewer coaches being fired. There will now be MAJOR consequences to firing a coach.

The problem is that nothing is going to stop top flight non-BCS coaches (see Mike White at Florida) from seeking better jobs. Will those non-BCS schools invest in their program like Wichita State did to hold on to Marshall? Probably not unless you have boosters like the Kohl people. That's the part about the deal that sucks.

MileHigh
01-31-2018, 11:08 AM
Again, people who are worrying about a "frenzy" of transferring need to understand that with a new transfer rule like this, we will see far fewer coaches being fired. There will now be MAJOR consequences to firing a coach.

The problem is that nothing is going to stop top flight non-BCS coaches (see Mike White at Florida) from seeking better jobs. Will those non-BCS schools invest in their program like Wichita State did to hold on to Marshall? Probably not unless you have boosters like the Kohl people. That's the part about the deal that sucks.

The rule that is being proposed would allow players to transfer to any school, other than the coach's new school, so the concerns about coaches leaving and taking players would not be an issue.

I think the proposed rule is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see no restrictions on transfers. Athletics is the only extra curricular activity that restricts participation on transfers, and the purpose is so that schools can keep their squads intact and make more $$$.

I say make all scholarships one year deals. At the end of the season, if the school wants you to participate the next year they offer you another scholarship. If you accept you are bound for another year. If you decline you are free to find a scholarship at another school.
Players are transferring at a record rate anyway, so it doesn't appear having them sit out a year is serving any purpose other than to penalize the player and require schools to waste a year of scholarship money on kids that cant even play in games while they sit out.

Sarenyon
01-31-2018, 12:12 PM
I'm ok for the players to move if coach is fired. But if the coach is voluntary moving to greener pastures, nope, player needs to sit for that type of transfer.

kitzbuel
01-31-2018, 12:26 PM
The rule that is being proposed would allow players to transfer to any school, other than the coach's new school, so the concerns about coaches leaving and taking players would not be an issue.

I think the proposed rule is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see no restrictions on transfers. Athletics is the only extra curricular activity that restricts participation on transfers, and the purpose is so that schools can keep their squads intact and make more $$$.

I say make all scholarships one year deals. At the end of the season, if the school wants you to participate the next year they offer you another scholarship. If you accept you are bound for another year. If you decline you are free to find a scholarship at another school.
Players are transferring at a record rate anyway, so it doesn't appear having them sit out a year is serving any purpose other than to penalize the player and require schools to waste a year of scholarship money on kids that cant even play in games while they sit out.

Bolded part is good. That makes it a little more equitable.

I agree also that transfers in general should be opened up. At the same time, schools should be allowed to give student-athletes long-term scholarships that are not the current one year deals. That gives schools greater ability to hold onto players, but also forces them to hold onto players that they might otherwise recruit over; in essence, allow schools and players to create scholarship contracts.

Allow players to break a long-term scholarship contract if they sit out a year.

A school could give a player a year to year scholarship and have the flexibility of not renewing, but the student can transfer with no penalty; or the school can lock the player into a multi-year scholarship, but does not have flexibility to not renew.

EEzag
01-31-2018, 12:52 PM
Bolded part is good. That makes it a little more equitable.

I agree also that transfers in general should be opened up. At the same time, schools should be allowed to give student-athletes long-term scholarships that are not the current one year deals. That gives schools greater ability to hold onto players, but also forces them to hold onto players that they might otherwise recruit over; in essence, allow schools and players to create scholarship contracts.

Allow players to break a long-term scholarship contract if they sit out a year.

A school could give a player a year to year scholarship and have the flexibility of not renewing, but the student can transfer with no penalty; or the school can lock the player into a multi-year scholarship, but does not have flexibility to not renew.

Perhaps a new name is in order.... NCAAU

willandi
01-31-2018, 01:42 PM
Bolded part is good. That makes it a little more equitable.

I agree also that transfers in general should be opened up. At the same time, schools should be allowed to give student-athletes long-term scholarships that are not the current one year deals. That gives schools greater ability to hold onto players, but also forces them to hold onto players that they might otherwise recruit over; in essence, allow schools and players to create scholarship contracts.

Allow players to break a long-term scholarship contract if they sit out a year.

A school could give a player a year to year scholarship and have the flexibility of not renewing, but the student can transfer with no penalty; or the school can lock the player into a multi-year scholarship, but does not have flexibility to not renew.

I like this. Either a long term, binding both ways and with a 1 year penalty for the SA to break it, or the flexibility of year to year.

soccerdud
01-31-2018, 02:38 PM
Bolded part is good. That makes it a little more equitable.

I agree also that transfers in general should be opened up. At the same time, schools should be allowed to give student-athletes long-term scholarships that are not the current one year deals. That gives schools greater ability to hold onto players, but also forces them to hold onto players that they might otherwise recruit over; in essence, allow schools and players to create scholarship contracts.

Allow players to break a long-term scholarship contract if they sit out a year.

A school could give a player a year to year scholarship and have the flexibility of not renewing, but the student can transfer with no penalty; or the school can lock the player into a multi-year scholarship, but does not have flexibility to not renew.

make the relationship between the school and the player that complex, and you'll most likely have to have negotiations, which means representation, which means agents. i like the idea on its face, but i think there be dragons here. sometimes you create a new system to solve an old problem only to realize your new problems are even less tractable.

CDC84
01-31-2018, 04:50 PM
TSN weighs in:

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/news/2897562-trey-ziegler-transfer-pitt-central-michigan-joey-miller-uic-eastern-Illinois

In summary, this rule change should have happened AGES AGO. And its disgraceful that it has taken this long to change it.


Back when Trey Zeigler was in high school, he was ranked the No. 48 player in the recruiting class of 2010 by Scout.com. And so he had a world of options about where he might begin his college basketball career, from UCLA to Oklahoma to Duke. Like most prospects, though, Zeigler made his decision based largely upon the school that employed the coach he found most appealing. It so happened the coach in Trey’s case was his father, Ernie Zeigler, then in charge at Central Michigan. And it happened that two years into Trey’s career, Central Michigan decided it no longer wished to employ Ernie Zeigler as head coach. A 6-5 wing with 1,011 career points, Trey Zeigler then made the quite rational decision to transfer to Pitt, where his father once worked as an assistant alongside current head coach Jamie Dixon. Trey cited his exceptional circumstances in appealing to the NCAA for a waiver of the rule that forces all basketball transfer to wait a full academic year at their new college before being permitted to compete. He was granted that request Friday by the NCAA’s staff and will have the opportunity to compete for a spot in the Panthers’ starting lineup this autumn.


The colleges insist it’s abhorrent to suggest a college athlete would choose a particular university, given all the variables involved, based largely – or strictly – on the identity of the coach.

For an athlete, however, the coach can be the most important variable of all. Every university is going to have a library, an English department and, these days, more than a few sanctioned fast-food restaurants. The differences from one coach to another often are far more dramatic. It can be as obvious as the low-post center whose coach is replaced by a press-and-run specialist. It can be subtle, as well, with perhaps the new coach holding a grudge against a particular player from a past intersection on the recruiting road.

CDC84
01-31-2018, 05:10 PM
The rule that is being proposed would allow players to transfer to any school, other than the coach's new school, so the concerns about coaches leaving and taking players would not be an issue.

I expect there to be one and only one exception, though: sons of coaches. I can't see them passing this without that one exception. Example: Bryce Alford.

pony
01-31-2018, 06:47 PM
If a player is not playing, maybe not starting because the team has several players ahead of them in that position, why shouldn't he be allowed to transfer. This would really open door for the coaches to recruit for a position that they need.

adoptedzag
01-31-2018, 07:56 PM
I'm ok for the players to move if coach is fired. But if the coach is voluntary moving to greener pastures, nope, player needs to sit for that type of transfer.

That would require that schools disclose the reason for the termination. You'd see a lot more "mutually agreed" terminations. Good luck getting those semantics through.

willandi
01-31-2018, 08:10 PM
If a player is not playing, maybe not starting because the team has several players ahead of them in that position, why shouldn't he be allowed to transfer. This would really open door for the coaches to recruit for a position that they need.

There has to be something in place to keep coaches from poaching players off of another teams roster.