Sources: Major Potential Shift In NCAA Transfer Rules Coming

[Steat]

If this goes into effect, who do you think benefits the most? Note that players must have a certain GPA to transfer immediately. Personally, I love it. I think teams like Duke and Kentucky will suffer the most. They may longer be able to keep 4 and 4-star players suffering on the bench.

Potentially paradigm-shifting proposal? This may be an understatement!

http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121

 

[tarheel0910]

If this goes into effect, who do you think benefits the most? Note that players must have a certain GPA to transfer immediately. Personally, I love it. I think teams like Duke and Kentucky will suffer the most. They may longer be able to keep 4 and 4-star players suffering on the bench.

Potentially paradigm-shifting proposal? This may be an understatement!

http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121

The players would benefit the most. Assuming the GPA isn't set at some ridiculous minimum, I've got no problem with it.

 

[NCAAUCoach]

It will impact all schools. It will be tougher to bury a kid on the bench for bigger schools, but also smaller schools will be impacted by kids jumping ship if they find they excel at the college level. Big schools will be able to evaluate kids at smaller schools playing against better competition. Great idea, but there will be some unintended consequences.

 

[Steat]

If coaches are free agents, than I think players should be free agents. I agree that smaller schools may suffer to some extent, but how often do you see a player at a small school get drafted and excel in the NBA? There are positive and negatives in any rule change, but I see the OAD schools who recruit over their 4/5-star players suffering the most. Kentucky has nine 5-star players on their team with a couple of them in their second year that most likely will spend a considerable amount of time on the bench this season also. UNC has not been able to sign obvious OAD players. Perhaps UNC can get an ocasional 5-star transfer under this rule.

 

[RP12]

Totally agree that I'm all for free player movement including to the NBA in my case whenever.

Can you imagine reverse grade pressure on a kid like Bolden that could be brought to bare to keep them around?

 

[Steat]

Totally agree that I'm all for free player movement including to the NBA in my case whenever.

Can you imagine reverse grade pressure on a kid like Bolden that could be brought to bare to keep them around?

Would love to see this rule get passed next spring and then see K-Rat and Caliapri sweat it out.

 

[FlaTarHeel]

 

[imajericho]

gpa should be 3.25 for immediate... at least

 

[tarheel0910]

gpa should be 3.25 for immediate... at least

If that's the case, then it's almost useless to have the rule.

 

[imajericho]

If that's the case, then it's almost useless to have the rule.

Should be to reward athletes who do well in class. Incentive to do well also.

 

[tarheel0910]

Should be to reward athletes who do well in class. Incentive to do well also.

You can do well in class without getting a B+ average. It's just going to give them incentive to major in basket weaving. Just making it a few tenths of a point higher than the requirements to be eligible.

 

[Archer2]

You can do well in class without getting a B+ average. It's just going to give them incentive to major in basket weaving. Just making it a few tenths of a point higher than the requirements to be eligible.

Aren't those 1.5 after the first semester and 2.0 thereafter? I'd say at least 2.5 should be required.

 

[tarheel0910]

Aren't those 1.5 after the first semester and 2.0 thereafter? I'd say at least 2.5 should be required.

Not sure, but I think a 2.5 would be reasonable. I think everyone knows most of these athletes aren't Mensa material, so putting it too high defeats the purpose.

 

[tw3301]

meh, it might might hurt Duke or Kentucky but in all reality it just means those schools that miss on recruits can start picking up transfers to fill their missing roster spots immediately rather than having them sit out a year. As many have posted there will be positives and negatives to this, we will have to see how it plays out.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

gpa should be 3.25 for immediate... at least

Why?

I see no reason for the GPA to be any higher than it would be to stay in school, or perhaps for an ordinary student (not a scholarship athlete) to transfer.

 

[DSouthr]

To me, if you are going to use a GPA as a criteria then that GPA should be in some core level classes, some reasonable college classes and not home economics or basket weaving. There should be some degree of uniformity of the classes that drive the GPA factor else those kids taking harder, dare I say REAL COLLEGE CLASSES would be unfairly penalized for wanting to transfer vs the kid taking nothing but bull easy grade classes. Yeah, I know, I can hear the dukies and wuffies scream now AFAM...LOL I will scream back Sociology and Parks & Recreation !!! LOL

To me however, NCAA eligibility should require some uniformity of classes across the board. I believe at a min these kids should be required to take basic math, english, and social studies as well as maintain a 2.5gpa in order to be NCAA eligible as freshmen. I would not be at all opposed to requiring basic skills testing by neutral 3rd party or NCAA approved proctors of all NCAA athletes annually that would require at least a certain score before eligibility is allowed for h season of participation.

 

[imajericho]

Why?

I see no reason for the GPA to be any higher than it would be to stay in school, or perhaps for an ordinary student (not a scholarship athlete) to transfer.

Same reason graduate transfers dont have to sit out. You have to be taking academics seriously and not just using the system to benefit from it.

If its a 1.5 to transfer and no sit out get rdy for the wild west where your roster is NEVER set.

 

[tarheel0910]

Same reason graduate transfers dont have to sit out. You have to be taking academics seriously and not just using the system to benefit from it.

If its a 1.5 to transfer and no sit out get rdy for the wild west where your roster is NEVER set.

I doubt most grad transfers have a 3.25 GPA and normal students use the system all the time. Plenty of normal students go to a lower college and then transfer to a "better" college.

 

[DSouthr]

I doubt most grad transfers have a 3.25 GPA and normal students use the system all the time. Plenty of normal students go to a lower college and then transfer to a "better" college.

WE were treated to multiple Ky fans telling us how John Wall was a 4.0 while at Ky... They would never share exactly what classes got him that 4.0 and that is my rub. All 4.0s are NOT the same.

 

[gauchoheel]

I don't really see this happening as some are talking about it.

1. I don't think there's any way the GPA bar is near 3.25. I expect it to be set around 2.0, or whatever the minimum is. Furthermore, players will just take easy enough classes to pass whatever bar is set. It can have the perverse incentive that the higher you put the bar, the more players take the absolute easiest classes rather than exploring the classes in subjects they really want to learn. You think a top prospect is going to risk taking that chemistry class if it means they may have to sit out a year of basketball?

2. I don't see it hurting the recruiting champions at all. Ironically, it could help them. Right now, Duke and Kentucky have to project how well 16 and 17 year-old kids will play at the college level. That leads to lots of misfires like Harry Giles, Bolden, Skal, etc. What if instead of projecting anything their classes were just the top returning players who have already shown collegiate success? Duke picks up Robert Williams from Texas A&M, Bonzi Colson from Notre Dame, Jevon Carter from WVU, and Jock Landale from St. Mary's to go along with Marvin Bagley, Treyvon Duval, and Grayson Allen. I don't think they mind Bolden transferring away too much in that case. Even if Duke/UK players can transfer more easily, it also allows those schools to skim the top off of any college's roster with no consequences.

I think letting grad transfers play without sitting out a year is a good incentive. It rewards guys who get degrees while keeping rosters from experiencing too much turnover. I'm typically all about improving player rights so I have some hope for this potential change, but it could also make things worse.

 

[UNCFan2012]

This gives schools a truly perverse incentive. They want their best athletes to do well in school, but not too well. Keeping them below the 3.25 cutoff line is exceptionally valuable.

A lot of these athletes only courses are going to start handing out Bs.

 

[tw3301]

This gives schools a truly perverse incentive. They want their best athletes to do well in school, but not too well. Keeping them below the 3.25 cutoff line is exceptionally valuable.

A lot of these athletes only courses are going to start handing out Bs.

Agreed, we could see a case of reverse academic fraud... Lowering grades to keep them from transferring. All in all I don't like this idea very much.

 

[imajericho]

Would never happen. Lowering grades to prevent transfers would have students up in arms and millions upon millions of dollar lawsuits that they would win every time.

You also can't just change curriculums to make them harder for a school over a few basketball players nor would you want.

You guys act like these players already don't do what you are saying to keep grades up at schools. And is the whole entire point of the investigation to UNC (EASY CLASSES). As has been pointed out ad nauseum is that every school already has them.

Students who want to actually learn will take classes in which they want. Kids there to play basketball will just take what they need to remain eligible.

Kids who want to keep open options to go to other schools should need to hit a higher bar to reap that reward without penalty.


People talk about how it should be like coaches who can go wherever they want with no penalty. But, it to further that comparison they can only go wherever they want if dismissed by the school or if they achieved a high enough bar that another school wants them to coach for them.

Students should have to hit some higher bar to not have a penalty. Also, it only can help the ncaa in proving they are striving to promote the STUDENT-athletes and helps give a little nudge to higher gpas as far as APR purposes.

 

[tarheel0910]

Good article by Bilas.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...le-let-athletes-play-immediately-not-sit-year

 

[tw3301]

Good article by Bilas.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...le-let-athletes-play-immediately-not-sit-year

Good article, I really like Bilas and his disdain for the NCAA's hypocrisy.

 

[RoseHeel]

2. I don't see it hurting the recruiting champions at all. Ironically, it could help them. Right now, Duke and Kentucky have to project how well 16 and 17 year-old kids will play at the college level. That leads to lots of misfires like Harry Giles, Bolden, Skal, etc. What if instead of projecting anything their classes were just the top returning players who have already shown collegiate success? Duke picks up Robert Williams from Texas A&M, Bonzi Colson from Notre Dame, Jevon Carter from WVU, and Jock Landale from St. Mary's to go along with Marvin Bagley, Treyvon Duval, and Grayson Allen. I don't think they mind Bolden transferring away too much in that case. Even if Duke/UK players can transfer more easily, it also allows those schools to skim the top off of any college's roster with no consequences.

Works the other way around too. It makes it easier for schools to over-recruit and would let them pull scholarships from a kid so he can transfer and play immediately to get a more lucrative player.

 

[Steat]

Once again, Bilas makes perfect sense.

 

[soap - new and improved]

Wonder if Brice would have stayed after his Frosh year if he wouldn't have had to sit a year if he transferred?

I think Brice in retrospect has said he was glad his Father, Roy and some others encouraged him to stay put, work harder, and see what happens. I get the feeling Johnson is now very well pleased he didn't leave.

What about all those hundreds of other less grounded and more ill-advised young men? Do you think they will chose to stick it out, learn to take constructive criticism and toughen up? Or just bolt when things get a little tough or when hangers on whisper "They aren't using you right, man" or "you should be starting instead of so and so"?

If penalty free transfers across the board becomes the rule, I suspect it will be mostly a great big mess.

 

[gauchoheel]

Wonder if Brice would have stayed after his Frosh year if he wouldn't have had to sit a year if he transferred?

I think Brice in retrospect has said he was glad his Father, Roy and some others encouraged him to stay put, work harder, and see what happens. I get the feeling Johnson is now very well pleased he didn't leave.

What about all those hundreds of other less grounded and more ill-advised young men? Do you think they will chose to stick it out, learn to take constructive criticism and toughen up? Or just bolt when things get a little tough or when hangers on whisper "They aren't using you right, man" or "you should be starting instead of so and so"?

If penalty free transfers across the board becomes the rule, I suspect it will be mostly a great big mess.

Yep. Is there any reason to think it won't resemble high school basketball to some degree? You know, where there are guys going to 4 different schools in 4 years. I mean, why not? The best team situation for you out of 351 teams in 2017 is likely not the best situation in 2018....

 

[tarheel0910]

Yep. Is there any reason to think it won't resemble high school basketball to some degree? You know, where there are guys going to 4 different schools in 4 years. I mean, why not? The best team situation for you out of 351 teams in 2017 is likely not the best situation in 2018....

The rule only allows for one free transfer. You're not going to see people transferring 4 times.

ETA: Question for you. Do you think transfers should be restricted in high school? If not, why not?

 

[NCAAUCoach]

In the era of instant gratification, you will see kids leave after their FR year a lot more frequently than now.

 

[tarheel0910]

In the era of instant gratification, you will see kids leave after their FR year a lot more frequently than now.

I don't think there will be a big increase, but if there is so what? How does it actually hurt basketball for a kid to transfer somewhere he wants to be? The ball will still be round and the hoop will still be 10 feet from the floor.

 

[RoseHeel]

There are kids who have been to 3 or more schools by the time they graduate. How many schools has Andrew White III been to now? It would be worse if there's no penalty. If you think the transfer market is a pain now, wait until something like this happens. If it can be exploited, it will be.

Furthermore, transferring in High school is not even comparable to transferring in College.
A: You're still under your parents jurisdiction. What if they decide to move?
B: There's no money or LOI involved in High School ball. (Or High School for that matter)
C: You don't "commit" to a high school.

I'm all for giving players more freedom, but this is a terrible idea.

 

[SeaHawk98]

My only worries is college basketball is dirty. Coaches may have recruited a kid, see he didn't get much playing time and try to get him to transfer. The NCAA needs to have devastating penalties for this type of behavior. Keatts recently did it take a UNCW player when he got the State gig.

 

[gauchoheel]

The rule only allows for one free transfer. You're not going to see people transferring 4 times.

ETA: Question for you. Do you think transfers should be restricted in high school? If not, why not?

Good point about the one free transfer limit. I didn't realize that.

Let's be clear though, I am not advocating restricting transfers. College athletes are free to transfer to any school that will take them immediately. They just can't play their sport for one year. I thought that was a fair compromise.

I don't have much of an opinion on implementing it in high school. I think it could have some benefits, and maybe you'd just allow kids to transfer without penalty for their senior year (since sitting out would mean their high school career is over). As someone else said you'd have to control for the fact that sometimes parents just move districts, and the kid shouldn't be punished for that.

The benefit to limiting immediate playing time upon transfer is that it increases continuity on teams, which should be good for the game. That's the primary reason people don't like the OAD rule, it causes so much turnover that it takes the fun out of things somewhat. Fans like to have players they know on the team.

It shouldn't be solely about the fans, but hurting the end product would mean less money for the schools. That in theory leads to less money/benefits for the coaches/administrators/athletes (in practice I don't think athletes get a huge percentage of the benefits from extra money). But in a free market everyone benefits from a better product. This wouldn't really apply in high school, because revenue isn't generated by TV and fan attendance very much.

 

[tarheel0910]

They just can't play their sport for one year.

Not true. Athletes can transfer and play immediately in other sports. The only sports that they have to sit a year are FB, BB and baseball. You know, the sports that generate money. Apparently you don't need time to get adjusted to your new school and team if you play other sports.

The benefit to limiting immediate playing time upon transfer is that it increases continuity on teams, which should be good for the game. That's the primary reason people don't like the OAD rule, it causes so much turnover that it takes the fun out of things somewhat. Fans like to have players they know on the time.

So it benefits coaches and fans. Not sure why that should matter when we are discussing someone's life and potential career.

It shouldn't be solely about the fans, but hurting the end product would mean less money for the schools. That in theory leads to less money/benefits for the coaches/administrators/athletes (in practice I don't think athletes get a huge percentage of the benefits from extra money). But in a free market everyone benefits from a better product. This wouldn't really apply in high school, because revenue isn't generated by TV and fan attendance very much.

I think the "hurting the product" part is very subjective and I doubt there is anything beyond anecdotal evidence that shows it hurts the product. As far as money goes, the recent television contracts suggest that the OAD rule hasn't hurt revenue.

 

[gauchoheel]

Apparently you don't need time to get adjusted to your new school and team if you play other sports.

I never said anything about being "adjusted" as a benefit. I said allowing immediate playing time hurts the end product, because there is less continuity on teams. If Joel Berry transferred to Kansas this year, would you enjoy college basketball nearly as much this season? Even if we found an equivalent player (say Trevon Duval committed here and turned out to be really good, or Matt Farrell transferred and made a big leap, or just Seventh Woods vastly improved his game), I believe part of being a fan is having some sort of continuity with players.

The rules might be different for other sports, it doesn't change my argument. Improving team continuity improves the product, which means more money for the game, more status for the players, etc.

So it benefits coaches and fans. Not sure why that should matter when we are discussing someone's life and potential career.

I believe it also benefits players, albeit to a lesser degree. A more popular game means more money to spend on player benefits, travel, etc. A football recruit commits to Alabama over Troy because Bama has a ton more money to pay for great coaches, training, food, dorms, along with passionate fans. Having more money in the sport and more fans interested definitely helps the players, so if continuity helps improve the product it also helps the players.

I think the "hurting the product" part is very subjective and I doubt there is anything beyond anecdotal evidence that shows it hurts the product.

I agree it's subjective, I'd love to see actual research and data on continuity. Maybe I'm wrong, but my intuition is that continuity makes a difference.

As far as money goes, the recent television contracts suggest that the OAD rule hasn't hurt revenue.

Well, what you're seeing is that OAD is a relatively minor factor right now as there are really only two schools heavily effected by it, UK and Duke. UK and Duke fans probably only make up 5-10% of all college basketball fans. If every school had 2-3 starters leaving every year not due to graduation it would be a much bigger deal, and that's what could potentially happen with this rule.

You also have to account for noise. TV money for sports content is exploding across all leagues because non-sports TV revenues are drying up, as live events are much more valuable now that time-shifting is so prevalent. That doesn't mean every single rule we have is successful; perhaps college basketball would have even more viewership with a two-and-done rule. The flip of your statement is "we know we shouldn't allow immediate playing transfers, because that's not the current rule and our TV revenues are exploding". It's not as simple as that.

 

[tarheel0910]

I never said anything about being "adjusted" as a benefit.

I didn't mean to imply that's what you are saying. That's the NCAA's current argument, which makes no sense.

I said allowing immediate playing time hurts the end product, because there is less continuity on teams.

It can certainly make it easier on the coach and team if they can keep the same people around every year, but I just don't think the product as a whole is going to suffer much.

If Joel Berry transferred to Kansas this year, would you enjoy college basketball nearly as much this season?

Absolutely, because I am a fan of UNC basketball not Joel Berry basketball. My only concern is UNC. My love for UNC basketball is predicated on who does play for us, not on those who don't.

The rules might be different for other sports, it doesn't change my argument. Improving team continuity improves the product, which means more money for the game, more status for the players, etc.

No, but shouldn't you be arguing for the rule to be changed so that other athletes in those sports sit a year?

A more popular game means more money to spend on player benefits, travel, etc

True, but I don't see the popularity rising and/or falling because of transfers.

If every school had 2-3 starters leaving every year not do to graduation it would be a much bigger deal, and that's what could potentially happen with this rule.

It could be, but I think you are over exaggerating the amount of kids that will start to transfer (and starters won't be transferring). Everyone keeps saying UK and other big schools are going to end up with all of the best players because of this. Well, they already have all of the best players and this rule doesn't change the amount of scholarships available. And just because a kid wants to go to another school that doesn't mean that the other school wants them.

 

[gauchoheel]

You're making great points. My argument is dependent on lack of continuity hurting the game, something I don't know for sure and am basing on intuition. More data on it would be great; perhaps I am basing too much on how I think I would feel, which may or may not be accurate if this rule change is actually made. If lack of continuity doesn't hurt the game (or fans' impression of the game), then you are right.

Absolutely, because I am a fan of UNC basketball not Joel Berry basketball. My only concern is UNC. My love for UNC basketball is predicated on who does play for us, not on those who don't.

This could be generally true for most fans, I'm not sure. Personally I don't mind the concept of OAD at all, I am sure I would do the same thing if I were a top player. But I do think it's a bit less fun as a fan if you're top players are leaving all the time. It's nice to have heroes (or villians) that are around for a few years.

No, but shouldn't you be arguing for the rule to be changed so that other athletes in those sports sit a year?

Well, I don't argue for the Olympic sports because at the college level I only really care about football and basketball, so their rules don't matter to me. To be quite honest I don't understand why a college sponsors a sport that doesn't reach a critical mass of fan attendance.

If sport X averages 60 fans a game how does it add to the culture or community of that university? You are essentially spending a bunch of money to maintain an expensive regional rec league. At UNC there may be enough support, but for 90% of Olympic sports programs there is little to no support from students or fans, so their continued existence is something of a mystery to me. I would be fine if most schools only sponsored 2-4 sports (while maintaining Title 9 compliance). But that is neither here nor there in this discussion.

True, but I don't see the popularity rising and/or falling because of transfers.

Possibly. I see a high-school type model causing fan unhappiness, but whether it would actually hurt attendance or viewership is up in the air. There is certainly already plenty of complaining about OADs and the rise transferring.

It could be, but I think you are over exaggerating the amount of kids that will start to transfer

The point is we don't know what the effects will be. It could be more or less impactful than what we project. But I think we're fixing something that's not even a big problem. Who loses out in the current format? Maybe some players, but is it really so bad if Seventh Woods sits a year if he decides to transfer? He can still practice and develop with the team. If we knew this rule doubles the number of transfers, I'd say that is a negative that needs to be weighed against increased choice.

(and starters won't be transferring)

I'm not sure why you think that, they already do. We see grad transfer starters move schools all the time because they don't have to take a year off (Cam Johnson). Someone like Dedric Lawson thought it was worth sitting out a year even though he was starting, imagine all the guys that could justify it without the year off?

What if Joel Berry decides he wants to try living on the West Coast for a year, so he's off to UCLA? Or his girlfriend moves to Miami, so he's going to go play down there to live with her? Or he wants to play in a more PnR heavy system, so he's off to Kentucky? The point is when you remove any consequences for transferring, the calculus drastically changes. Right now there has to be a large gain to justify such a move, but if you don't have to sit out then relatively small things could lead to a transfer. Something to think about.

Everyone keeps saying UK and other big schools are going to end up with all of the best players because of this. Well, they already have all of the best players and this rule doesn't change the amount of scholarships available.

This is where I think you're wrong. UK and Duke are ending up with the best 16 and 17 year olds who PROJECT to be great college players. There is a strong correlation between recruiting rankings and performance, but there is still a good amount of uncertainty. What if they can just pick the tops off of every roster from guys who have proven they can succeed at the college level?

Guys like Jarron Blossomgame, Bonzi Colson, Robert Williams, John Collins, Frank Kaminsky, all way outperformed their projections. But once Kaminsky has blossomed and shown he can play, he transfers to Kentucky for his junior and senior year. This could very well be our reality. And forget about mid-major stars staying with their teams once they've broken out (Steph Curry is at Kentucky or UNC for his junior year?). I'm not saying there are no benefits to this system (you could argue it helps Kaminsky's career/life to transfer to the best basketball program he can), but let's not pretend this sort of thing can't happen. We should be very okay with it, or at least think player freedom outweighs any downsides, if we're on-board with this change.

 

[midline]

I don't think there should be any special GPA level that should be set for athletes for transfer. The bar should be the same as it would for any normal student that may transfer. And that line would vary depending on the school. But don't think they should put an extra GPS restrictions on them just because they are athletes.