OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 224,446
- Like
- 400,492
NCAA to meet soon about immediate eligibility for transfers
- Thread starter OrangeXtreme
- Start date
CuseFaninVT
2023-24 Iggy Winner Leading Rebounder
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
- Messages
- 46,074
- Like
- 101,940
Interesting wrinkle on the grad transfer rule. That would have major impact.
pfister1
2023-24 Iggy Winner ACC & OOC Record
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 8,966
- Like
- 15,088
It probably is fair for the kids, but it will further degrade the college basketball product.
If that rule existed now is there any chance Battle returns to SU this year for his sophomore season where he is surrounded by little to no talent?
Seems to me it will makes rosters more volatile and probably makes it harder as a fan to identify with your team.
Last edited:
Hoo's That
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 24,338
- Like
- 64,267
I’m more open to the idea of letting them transfer if the coach is leaving for whatever reason than creating this unrestricted free agency concept.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
I am certainly in favour of loosening transfer rules for players. Although not crazy about this one. I think there are other ways to make this fair to the players and to teams and fans.
(As an aside those that are concerned that players will abuse the rules, just remember the NCAA has abused the framework and rules to really screw them for years and fans apparently don't care)
Here are a few frameworks I would work with:
Framework #1
"Free" is defined as not sitting out.
a) Free Transfer Window for every sophomore after the sophomore season. The elect to transfer window is one week, and is right near the end of the prior season.
b) Junior can transfer for free only if they play less than 20 minutes a game as a junior. They have the same election rule.
c) Grad transfer rule stays.
c) Freshman can only transfer for free if the head coach has been dismissed or left the program. (this provision is only available to freshman)
d) One Free Transfer is also granted annually in situations where both player and coach mutually agree that the player should leave. (This protects the player who is forced out by coaches and is not captured by a, b or c
e) Any player who does not qualify as a-d) or elects to transfer outside of the "free" period, must sit out a year.
f) To protect against superteams, teams are only allowed to bring in the same number of free transfers that they lost. Except every two years they get the ability to go 1 over their loss. For example, if Syracuse lost 1 free transfer they can bring in 2 free transfers this year. But if next year they had 0 free transfers, they can bring in none, as they used the "1 extra" the year before. The number of free transfers is capped at 3 in any given year.
Advantages:
- Ensures you get players for at least 2 years. I don't think you will see a mass willingness of players to leave after this season either.
- Freshman with unrealistic expectations are not protected. They have to stick it out 2 years unless the coach leaves. And perhaps by year 2 they become happier with the situation.
- Superteams based on free transfers is hard due to caps on # of transfers, which are based on how many you lost.
- Teams have the ability to manage sudden or unexpected transfers because they happen in April.
- It's fairer to the players
(As an aside those that are concerned that players will abuse the rules, just remember the NCAA has abused the framework and rules to really screw them for years and fans apparently don't care)
Here are a few frameworks I would work with:
Framework #1
"Free" is defined as not sitting out.
a) Free Transfer Window for every sophomore after the sophomore season. The elect to transfer window is one week, and is right near the end of the prior season.
b) Junior can transfer for free only if they play less than 20 minutes a game as a junior. They have the same election rule.
c) Grad transfer rule stays.
c) Freshman can only transfer for free if the head coach has been dismissed or left the program. (this provision is only available to freshman)
d) One Free Transfer is also granted annually in situations where both player and coach mutually agree that the player should leave. (This protects the player who is forced out by coaches and is not captured by a, b or c
e) Any player who does not qualify as a-d) or elects to transfer outside of the "free" period, must sit out a year.
f) To protect against superteams, teams are only allowed to bring in the same number of free transfers that they lost. Except every two years they get the ability to go 1 over their loss. For example, if Syracuse lost 1 free transfer they can bring in 2 free transfers this year. But if next year they had 0 free transfers, they can bring in none, as they used the "1 extra" the year before. The number of free transfers is capped at 3 in any given year.
Advantages:
- Ensures you get players for at least 2 years. I don't think you will see a mass willingness of players to leave after this season either.
- Freshman with unrealistic expectations are not protected. They have to stick it out 2 years unless the coach leaves. And perhaps by year 2 they become happier with the situation.
- Superteams based on free transfers is hard due to caps on # of transfers, which are based on how many you lost.
- Teams have the ability to manage sudden or unexpected transfers because they happen in April.
- It's fairer to the players
Last edited:
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
Framework #2 (Based on Minutes Played)
"Free transfer" is defined as those who do not have to sit out.
- Frosh who play less than 8 minutes a game. Sophomore who play less than 16 minutes a game, and Junior who play less than 20 minutes a game, can leave for free to another program after the season.
- They must elect in the defined one week transfer window.
Advantages:
- You are not losing established players.
- Those minute limits also make it difficult for a "superteam" of transfers.
"Free transfer" is defined as those who do not have to sit out.
- Frosh who play less than 8 minutes a game. Sophomore who play less than 16 minutes a game, and Junior who play less than 20 minutes a game, can leave for free to another program after the season.
- They must elect in the defined one week transfer window.
Advantages:
- You are not losing established players.
- Those minute limits also make it difficult for a "superteam" of transfers.
DonLightfoot
All Conference
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,503
- Like
- 3,719
I don't like any type of "carte blanche" transfer rule if that is what this turns out to be.
Shrmdougluvr
Give it all to me fool!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,527
- Like
- 11,763
I dont see what's so bad about making them sit a season. Most of these kids never use a red shirt year. It makes their commitment mean something. (But I also did not grow up in the neighborhood lots of these players come from).
Last edited:
OttoinGrotto
2023-24 Iggy Award Most 3 Pointers Made
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 62,508
- Like
- 182,740
5 to play 5, and if a kid transfers they sit a year.
Between that and letting student-athletes profit from their own name and likeness you can solve like 95% of the problems the NCAA faces.
Between that and letting student-athletes profit from their own name and likeness you can solve like 95% of the problems the NCAA faces.
Zelda Zonk
2022 Iggy Winner: ACC Tourney Record
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 10,904
- Like
- 26,670
I don't like the idea of Free Agency either.
A team like Kentucky can just wait to see who they lose in the draft, and then poach an experienced, great player at a position of need at the last minute.
I do favor a free exit if a head coach leaves.
I was thinking of a compromise, between nothing to a full year sit-out, like maybe a kid has to forfeit a half season, but that doesn't seem like enough of a deterrent. If i'm a standout at South by Southwest Cactus Tech and can join Kentucky for all the league games and tournament, just missing the exhibitions and tune-up games, sure, why not, if i can improve my brand so drastically in just a few months.
I don't like the idea of having different restrictions based on how good a player is (determining it by minutes played). Being great shouldn't be used against you, even if the intent is to make the option available if you're not getting the time you think you deserve, or were promised.
All in all, i think the one year thing is where it should be, except when the staff changes. I don't think there should be a greater penalty or a more restrictive rule for intra-league transfers. Or a way to block transfer to a given team, although i'm not sure what to do about policing the tampering that will inevitably be a (continuing?) problem. There can't be any provision for one team's staff to contact or induce a kid to leave his current team. But, there's always going to be 'back-channeling.'
A team like Kentucky can just wait to see who they lose in the draft, and then poach an experienced, great player at a position of need at the last minute.
I do favor a free exit if a head coach leaves.
I was thinking of a compromise, between nothing to a full year sit-out, like maybe a kid has to forfeit a half season, but that doesn't seem like enough of a deterrent. If i'm a standout at South by Southwest Cactus Tech and can join Kentucky for all the league games and tournament, just missing the exhibitions and tune-up games, sure, why not, if i can improve my brand so drastically in just a few months.
I don't like the idea of having different restrictions based on how good a player is (determining it by minutes played). Being great shouldn't be used against you, even if the intent is to make the option available if you're not getting the time you think you deserve, or were promised.
All in all, i think the one year thing is where it should be, except when the staff changes. I don't think there should be a greater penalty or a more restrictive rule for intra-league transfers. Or a way to block transfer to a given team, although i'm not sure what to do about policing the tampering that will inevitably be a (continuing?) problem. There can't be any provision for one team's staff to contact or induce a kid to leave his current team. But, there's always going to be 'back-channeling.'
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
Not against the rule (if it is with a larger group of free transfer rules) , but if this is the only rule you implement, you actually kill parity and competition by handing out a few death penalties each year to over performing mid majors and lower tier P5 programs. It will only help the top 20 programs.
Who are the schools with good players that were under-recruited? Solid mid majors and lower tier P5's. The schools that are most vulnerable to a coach moving upward. Not only does the coach leave, but they lose all their decent players. They lose players, and can't replenish with other transfers immediately. It's a death penalty.
I am for fairness, but I don't think people are really thinking how terrible the consequences are if this is the only pool of "Free agents" created.
Last edited:
If you go to Washington because Mike Hopkins is the HC and Mike Hopkins leaves for Syracuse why should Washington kids have to wait one year to play if their HC leaves but the HC can go on and makes millions without having to sit out a year.
Let the kids go without sitting if the coach goes. There won’t be death penalties as every school is going to hire somebody and if that coach is good your fine.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
I am not against the fairness of the rule for the player... let's make that straight. I am just saying others fight other rules that are pro-player and say they are not good for competition, but don't realize how crippling this is.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
OK - I can see how some don't like the ones above. But I hope we can come to an agreement on this one.
It's fair to say, that over the years we have nudged various players to "pursue other opportunities". And we are far from the only school that does so. When those players leave why should they have to sit out a year?
If the decision is mutual between the two sides, the player should be able to leave without penalty.
It's fair to say, that over the years we have nudged various players to "pursue other opportunities". And we are far from the only school that does so. When those players leave why should they have to sit out a year?
If the decision is mutual between the two sides, the player should be able to leave without penalty.
Remember the coach going to the new school isn’t going to have a lot of open spots to take a lot of transfers.
So you aren’t going to see all of Toledo team go with the coach to Iowa State for example.
Also not all kids would want to leave.
I am just saying give them the option to go without sitting if they want to move on.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
OK - I think I may have misinterpreted you. You are saying the players can follow the coach to a new school. Not use it as an opportunity not to follow the coach, leave and go to another top 10.
Exactly.
The kid from Washington who wanted to play for Hop could go to Syracuse.
I think an exception to prevent kids from transferring within the same conference could be added.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
Going off on a tangent ... this is the reverse situation
I also think ethical rules need to be defined in terms of what coaches can and cannot do to force a kid out the door. Sometimes kids don't want to leave and I don't imagine every coach plays it fairly in order to change their mind. (And this is not just telling a kid you might never get minutes - to me that is acceptable)
If a coach is found to violate this code they should be suspended / banned, and the team should be punished harshly.
I also think ethical rules need to be defined in terms of what coaches can and cannot do to force a kid out the door. Sometimes kids don't want to leave and I don't imagine every coach plays it fairly in order to change their mind. (And this is not just telling a kid you might never get minutes - to me that is acceptable)
If a coach is found to violate this code they should be suspended / banned, and the team should be punished harshly.
SBU72
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,344
- Like
- 2,734
I don't like having the 1 week transfer window close to the end of the season. Makes it to much an emotional thing. "Whaaaa, couch didn't play me in that last turny game, I'm leaving! waaaaa"
Has to be some provison to hinder tampering by coaches and perhaps against kids following coaches to another school. Actually know of a case where a coach told a frshmen "hey come play for me". This happened before the freshmen eligibilty rule came about. Freshmen team was leaving the floor and varsity team coming out for warm up. Opposing coach actually stopped the kid in the tunnel and tried to get him to transfer!
Has to be some provison to hinder tampering by coaches and perhaps against kids following coaches to another school. Actually know of a case where a coach told a frshmen "hey come play for me". This happened before the freshmen eligibilty rule came about. Freshmen team was leaving the floor and varsity team coming out for warm up. Opposing coach actually stopped the kid in the tunnel and tried to get him to transfer!
Jasoncuse
2022 Iggy Winner: NCAA Tourament
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 4,921
- Like
- 8,882
I don't love the immediate eligibility because all hell will break loose.
Maybe instead of sitting a year, kids sit a semester? Transfer in late December/early January, sit out conference play basically and can play at the start of the next season at your school. Or transfer after the year and sit at the new school until the 2nd semester. Seems fairer, but still may result in a lot of turnover.
I would not like it based on any playing time or something similar. Coaches could manipulate a bit and it seems unfair that a kid playing 10 minutes could transfer, but a kid that played 12 minutes couldn't?
Definitely make kids eligible immediately when a coach leaves or is fired. That's only fair and probably the biggest issue people have with transferring.
I'd like the 1 semester and immediate eligibility for kids who lose their coach. Anything more would lead to chaos and absolutely kill the small and mid-majors.
Maybe instead of sitting a year, kids sit a semester? Transfer in late December/early January, sit out conference play basically and can play at the start of the next season at your school. Or transfer after the year and sit at the new school until the 2nd semester. Seems fairer, but still may result in a lot of turnover.
I would not like it based on any playing time or something similar. Coaches could manipulate a bit and it seems unfair that a kid playing 10 minutes could transfer, but a kid that played 12 minutes couldn't?
Definitely make kids eligible immediately when a coach leaves or is fired. That's only fair and probably the biggest issue people have with transferring.
I'd like the 1 semester and immediate eligibility for kids who lose their coach. Anything more would lead to chaos and absolutely kill the small and mid-majors.
Similar threads
