Your thoughts on the transfer system?

[RonJohn]

So what happens if a kid can’t handle the workload or decides they want to study a different major not offered by the school they are at? Do we keep them from transferring to follow their educational goals? If not how do you regulate that system? If so, how is that progressing is closer to a school first mentality?

I think you are misunderstanding the proposal. It isn't to prevent the kids from transferring, it is to get the schools more interested in the character and academic side of the recruits. Most if not all of the discussion on undergrad transfers is about playing time or issues with coaches. Most if not all of those student-athletes were recruited to play football with little to no emphasis on education. Some of those who transfer for playing time were "promised" to be starters or at least have lots of playing time. If that is how schools want to recruit, then they should have to pay a price when for a purely athletic reason those "recruited for athletics only" people transfer.

 

[MidtownJacket]

I think you are misunderstanding the proposal. It isn't to prevent the kids from transferring, it is to get the schools more interested in the character and academic side of the recruits. Most if not all of the discussion on undergrad transfers is about playing time or issues with coaches. Most if not all of those student-athletes were recruited to play football with little to no emphasis on education. Some of those who transfer for playing time were "promised" to be starters or at least have lots of playing time. If that is how schools want to recruit, then they should have to pay a price when for a purely athletic reason those "recruited for athletics only" people transfer.

I understand the proposal but I am talking about the effects of the policy. My point is that it is difficult to equitably establish a method to determine why kids are transferring in your outlined scenario. Sure one could intuit most of the cases out, but the NCAA has shown itself to be unwilling or incapable of even holding the schools accountable for making kids go to real classes.

My point is that this is a more nuanced question than a lot of people give it credit for (not suggesting you’re glossing over the details). Questions of paying the players and enforcing academic integrity into the equation all complicate it further. I do agree that the NCAA has allowed schools to essentially become minor league teams and forgo any responsibility to develop the student athletes who are under their charge. It’s a shame that the questions of professionalism have corrupted the college game in ways that organize the schools into almost unbroken order. It’s a money driven sport for the top programs and kids get chewed up in the process.

Take Zion Williamson for a recent example. He is opting out of playing after his shoe situation. Who knows if he is going to class. Though if he elected to go the NBA then are you saying Duke should be forced to hold a scholarship out to account for him through the standard four year matriculation as well?

It’s a really interesting set of problems, I’m enjoying the conversation.

EDIT: I am not saying anyone in this thread is oversimplifying the issues under discussion. I realized I pointed out in my response to @RonJohn that I said I think a lot of people gloss over the details but am talking about the talking heads on espn, not the people in this thread. This is a great civil discussion and I’m glad to be a part of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RonJohn]

Take Zion Williamson for a recent example. He is opting out of playing after his shoe situation. Who knows if he is going to class. Though if he elected to go the NBA then are you saying Duke should be forced to hold a scholarship out to account for him through the standard four year matriculation as well?

That is the suggestion. If a basketball program wants to live off of one and done players, then in a few years they will have fewer scholarships available. If a school wants to have five one-and-done players in a year, then they would only have 8 scholarships available for the next three years. In football, if you make promises to a player that don't pan out and he leaves(mutts), then you would lose that scholarship for the next three years. If you recruit players purely athletically(they have no interest in academics or the school itself), then you set yourself up for the potential of losing a lot of scholarships. If you cut players for athletic reasons, then you don't get to use that scholarship until that players eligibility would have been completed.

To me, the discussion centers around the lack of loyalty of student-athletes. Those student athletes are making decisions at the age of 17 or 18. They are being at least manipulated by coaches, and more likely flat out lied to by coaches. If the coach gets a better offer, there is no "loyalty to the school". If the coach decides that he doesn't like the player, or that a better player is available then the player can be cut from the program any year. If the player goes to a new school,(even a cut player until the latest committee), he has to sit out a year. Let that sink in. In the past, players have lost a year of eligibility because the school they were at found a player they wanted more to use his scholarship. Players are expected to be loyal to a "school" that had very little to do with their decision to commit to a football program. Players are expected to be loyal to a coach who will leave at any minute if another program offers him significantly more money. Players are expected to be loyal to fans who will turn on the player and vilify the player on forums and social media for one mistake in a game. Players are expected to be completely loyal while nobody else in college athletics is.

 

[MidtownJacket]

...
To me, the discussion centers around the lack of loyalty of student-athletes. Those student athletes are making decisions at the age of 17 or 18. They are being at least manipulated by coaches, and more likely flat out lied to by coaches. If the coach gets a better offer, there is no "loyalty to the school". If the coach decides that he doesn't like the player, or that a better player is available then the player can be cut from the program any year. If the player goes to a new school,(even a cut player until the latest committee), he has to sit out a year. Let that sink in. In the past, players have lost a year of eligibility because the school they were at found a player they wanted more to use his scholarship. Players are expected to be loyal to a "school" that had very little to do with their decision to commit to a football program. Players are expected to be loyal to a coach who will leave at any minute if another program offers him significantly more money. Players are expected to be loyal to fans who will turn on the player and vilify the player on forums and social media for one mistake in a game. Players are expected to be completely loyal while nobody else in college athletics is.

#Preach

The system is flawed and certainly moving towards being unsustainable. One way or another it needs to get back to it being about players getting an education first and developing second. I don’t know how the MLB farm system has remained viable but the NFL and NBA don’t have anything even close. It seems like there would be opportunities to do the same thing for basketball and football but as it is now college athletics is the de facto version of that. I understand why the owners of the teams don’t want to take on the cost and administrative burden of it but wish the NCAA policies and policing were better equipped to ensure kids where getting educations while playing for the programs.

Maybe you’re right that the 4 year slot approach would scare off the programs from gambling so frequently on players, but I’m not sure that it would effect NCAA football programs as much as basketball. Running at even 50 scholarship players wouldn’t be particularly detrimental to the Clemsons and Alabamas of the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Milwaukee]

Feels like I'm watching a great tennis match with the back and forth quality here. No name calling, no insults, just great info back and forth. Good stuff, great insights.

 

[TechPreacher]

So what happens if a kid can’t handle the workload or decides they want to study a different major not offered by the school they are at? Do we keep them from transferring to follow their educational goals? If not how do you regulate that system? If so, how is that progressing is closer to a school first mentality?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't place any transfer restrictions on the players. The burden should rest on the schools/coaches to find true student athletes, or else deal with the consequences. This would basically remove the NCAA from having to regulate transfers at all. The invisible hand of self-probation would keep it balanced.

If a player leaves school A after year 1, will school B be willing to take him, knowing he might do it again? Now the kid's character is tested in this process, and both school and player have skin in the game. The NCAA won't need to police it.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Don't place any transfer restrictions on the players. The burden should rest on the schools/coaches to find true student athletes, or else deal with the consequences. This would basically remove the NCAA from having to regulate transfers at all. The invisible hand of self-probation would keep it balanced.

If a player leaves school A after year 1, will school B be willing to take him, knowing he might do it again? Now the kid's character is tested in this process, and both school and player have skin in the game. The NCAA won't need to police it.

That’s an interesting option. I do wonder if it would have prohibitively difficult repercussions for smaller budget programs though. They essentially couldn’t take reaches on kids who might develop into better prospects as they play in college. I think, if memory serves, something like 4-5% of players from FBS schools transferred from a different 4 year school.

That’s a tough pill to swallow if a lower tier school spends [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅100)̲̅$̲̅] on recruiting a kid and then sees them blow up and leave for a larger school with a bigger spotlight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RonJohn]

That’s a tough pill to swallow if a lower tier school spends [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅100)̲̅$̲̅] on recruiting a kid and then sees them blow up and leave for a larger school with a bigger spotlight.

Athletic programs spend money on recruiting kids who don't even end up at the school. People also complain that when an athlete transfers that the school has spent too much money on training the player to allow him to leave. However, what about kids that are cut from football programs? The athletic department has spend money on training, nutrition, and counseling for that player also. It is just another issue about which athletic programs complain when it possibly hurts their performance, but ignore it when it helps their performance.

There are some other things that could be done to limit transfers. For instance, eliminate all recruiting for undergraduate transfers. Also eliminate admissions exceptions for undergraduate transfers. If a kid wants to transfer, only allow them to talk to the athletic department after they are legitimately accepted to the school. That would help to ensure that the student-athletes are actually acting responsibly academically. The NCAA could also have very strict penalties for coaches who do recruit undergraduates from other schools, such as forcing them to sit out for a year without receiving payment from the school. Get college athletics back to being about students competing.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Athletic programs spend money on recruiting kids who don't even end up at the school. People also complain that when an athlete transfers that the school has spent too much money on training the player to allow him to leave. However, what about kids that are cut from football programs? The athletic department has spend money on training, nutrition, and counseling for that player also. It is just another issue about which athletic programs complain when it possibly hurts their performance, but ignore it when it helps their performance.

There are some other things that could be done to limit transfers. For instance, eliminate all recruiting for undergraduate transfers. Also eliminate admissions exceptions for undergraduate transfers. If a kid wants to transfer, only allow them to talk to the athletic department after they are legitimately accepted to the school. That would help to ensure that the student-athletes are actually acting responsibly academically. The NCAA could also have very strict penalties for coaches who do recruit undergraduates from other schools, such as forcing them to sit out for a year without receiving payment from the school. Get college athletics back to being about students competing.

I definitely think the policy of forcing kids to apply through traditional student processes would make sense. I’m also interested in programs being limited from actively recruiting players from other programs. That said a lot of the larger programs recruit themselves fairly well without active involvement. That’s a reality that is probably unsolvable but worthy of acknowledgement.

As to kids being processed. I think that should not be allowed. A commitment from the school should be there for 4 years to allow the kid to finish their degree. Recruiting can be a gamble and projecting a kid’s development can be difficult but like my ol pal CPJ would say, IIWII. I’d be all about the idea of protecting kids who get in to school and then elect to stop playing but continue their education.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk