New rules on transfers may be coming in 2018

[texascpa]

How about players like Slayton ?

Phat, you act as if all these other schools have these open spots just waiting for transfer students. So, what about SU? Wouldn't they have the same, wouldn't they do the same. The roster limit is still 85, much of which is filled with normal recruits.

 

[texascpa]

I have a number of concerns with this change (namely NCAA administrative management in general is nightmarish), but I think the largest is control of tampering. In the social media era, I just don't see how the NCAA will have any control whatsoever over it.

I'd say my second greatest concern, like you, is the timing/deadlines. It's difficult for a staff to manage a roster as it is - not sure how that will be set up such that roster management doesn't become nightmarish either.

One of the biggest positives I see is not penalizing kids that are coached out of their programs by a new coaching staff and then have to sit out a year upon transferring to a new school. That's not really fair for anyone involved. Coaches should have a path to easily turn over their rosters in those cases and the players getting turned over shouldn't get penalized for it.

You know how staff's would manage rosters? They would tell potential transfers "sorry, we don't need you".

 

[texascpa]

As others in the thread have stated, it would turn "smaller" schools into farm teams for the unscrupulous factories and their boosters. Player development? Hah! Let the wake forests and Colorado states of the world do that.

Watch the number of medical DQ's at Alabama, Tennessee, LSU go through the roof to make roster space for 3rd year guys from the MAC.

And those DQ's would play on other teams. I think some of you are overblowing the impact.

 

[javadoc]

And those DQ's would play on other teams. I think some of you are overblowing the impact.

Sure, but the problem of re-sorting players remains.

There is a perceived hierarchy of teams, from blue bloods all the way down to Rutgers. In general, players get to sort themselves once now, on signing day. Blue chips flock to the blue bloods. Parity comes about only through player development at the lower-tier schools, or through more diligent research and prospect identification (diamonds in the rough).

Added mobility after signing day is going to reshuffle players, and the upward pull on kids who are proving themselves to be blue bloods will be relentless. Alabama DQ's someone, and pulls a kid up from South Florida. In general, that DQ'd kid is not going to end up at another tier-1 blue blood, he'll end up further down the hierarchy. The net effect is a transfer of talent upward. On average, the "trade" will benefit those higher in the hierarchy.

A competing dynamic will be blue chips who want to transfer out of the blue bloods to get playing time. That could offset the re-sorting effect somewhat, but the possibility of a lateral transfer there is real.

There is also the problem of roster maintenance if you are bringing in too many short-term guys. It would be like trying to manage the roster with too many JUCO's. Maybe that will keep things from getting too far out of hand.

Simple analysis, but I foresee the greatest headaches where the big money is involved.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

And those DQ's would play on other teams. I think some of you are overblowing the impact.

Also,if you really tie in academic performance to scholarship limits, etc., that will minimize impact

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[CuseLegacy]