Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,160 Posts
Why? I can see this making the decision to step down a level for kids that went to high that much easier if they don't have to lose a year moving from lets say an A-10 school to an AE school. Sure it can go both ways but lots of kids leave the BCS schools to get more playing time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
I'm a bit torn on this subject. On one hand I find it unfair that student athletes are held to a more strict commitment than the coaches that recruit them. On the other hand, this rule is not being implemented for this reason, in my opinion. Rather this is an attempt to strengthen BCS programs wrapped up neatly in a "but its for the good of the student" package.

I wonder if this rule will apply to intra-conference transfers? I assume no, as schools want to poach Mid-Major basketball players rather than cannibalize their own conference teams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Why? I can see this making the decision to step down a level for kids that went to high that much easier if they don't have to lose a year moving from lets say an A-10 school to an AE school. Sure it can go both ways but lots of kids leave the BCS schools to get more playing time.
I don't see it. The reason why mid-majors pull off upsets and have a chance to win games in the tournament is because of upper-classmen stars who were overlooked by other schools (think about guys like Blakely, Holland, Coppenrath, etc.)

They light it up their freshman and sophomore years now knowing they could transfer but they have to sit out. This totally changes that dynamic. I just think the above scenario is much more likely than the thought process of dropping down a level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
I'm a bit torn on this subject. On one hand I find it unfair that student athletes are held to a more strict commitment than the coaches that recruit them. On the other hand, this rule is not being implemented for this reason, in my opinion. Rather this is an attempt to strengthen BCS programs wrapped up neatly in a "but its for the good of the student" package.
This is all true. But, it is good for the student. It has the potential to make mid-majors and low-majors a "minor league" system almost like baseball has and that may disappoint us as AE fans, but for the real student-athlete it is a wonderful thing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,204 Posts
Yeah, this is terrible, btw. Mid-majors can effectively become glorified prep schools.

College basketball free agency. I don't see how this doesn't negatively effect all of college basketball.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,174 Posts
agree. I dont like having players be able to get out of commitments that easily. especially with a number as low as 2.6. Atleast make it a 3.0. This is not good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Yeah, this is terrible, btw. Mid-majors can effectively become glorified prep schools.

College basketball free agency. I don't see how this doesn't negatively effect all of college basketball.
Totally agree. Sure, a BU or UVM could pick up 8th man off the bench type of player from a Providence or a Seton Hall. But this rule would make it much more likely that those schools would lose a Blakely or a Holland and those are in fact much better players.

And I'm not sure it's necessarily good for student athletes either. Sometimes more options is not better especially for 19 year olds. Constantly trying to transfer and 'upgrade' does not necessarily benefit student athletes. I think you can make an argument either way. 2.6 is not hard either especially because freshman and sophomores generally start off with easier classes. I'd be surprised if BU had many players much below 2.6
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,204 Posts
I think UVM is a perfect example of a good mid-major that's been negatively effected and also have benefitted positively from transfers. I think we've played the system and today's culture of transferring as best we can thus far.

We've lost some very good transfers and we've brought in some very good transfers. I mean, we lose Four McGlynn in June and then gain a 5th year grad student like Trey Blue who leads us in scoring today. Candon Rusin is another transfer. Two of the best players on the team are sitting out this season as red shirt transfers (Harold/Pierson).

That being said, I think the net result is it makes it so kids have to work less hard when the going gets tough, thereby making the overall college game weaker. Additionally, it becomes simply another big distraction for college basketball head coaches rather than focusing on winning basketball games.

Don't like it, think it's a bad idea.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,174 Posts
Totally agree. Sure, a BU or UVM could pick up 8th man off the bench type of player from a Providence or a Seton Hall. But this rule would make it much more likely that those schools would lose a Blakely or a Holland and those are in fact much better players.

And I'm not sure it's necessarily good for student athletes either. Sometimes more options is not better especially for 19 year olds. Constantly trying to transfer and 'upgrade' does not necessarily benefit student athletes. I think you can make an argument either way. 2.6 is not hard either especially because freshman and sophomores generally start off with easier classes. I'd be surprised if BU had many players much below 2.6
I think sitting out a year could be attractive for some players though they would still have the option to. UVM has picked up 3 tranfers that are not an 8th man. MoJo, Rusin, Glass, and they also have Pierson and Harold. I dont see any of them being 8th men. Pierson and Harold might be there junior year not senior year. It's not just getting an 8th man bench type player. UVM gets starters. I think most bcs players would start in the AE.
 

·
Realist/A-hole
Joined
·
5,791 Posts
It's going to make coaches job's harder. Their going to have an even more difficult time coaching and keeping players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I think sitting out a year could be attractive for some players though they would still have the option to. UVM has picked up 3 tranfers that are not an 8th man. MoJo, Rusin, Glass, and they also have Pierson and Harold. I dont see any of them being 8th men. Pierson and Harold might be there junior year not senior year. It's not just getting an 8th man bench type player. UVM gets starters. I think most bcs players would start in the AE.
Sorry, I wasn't more clear. I meant to say someone at a Providence or a Seton Hall (who is 7th, 8th or 9th man for them) could transfer to the AE level to start. I don't think any AE schools are getting many existing starters at the BCS and Big East level. So we agree :)

My point is just that the net results of this rule would be pretty bad across the board for AE schools. Because schools are much more liable to lose the stars which are really the only thing that helps schools at this level pull of upsets. No DJ Irving, no Holland = much less of a chance of ever pulling off a big-time win.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,160 Posts
I don't see it. The reason why mid-majors pull off upsets and have a chance to win games in the tournament is because of upper-classmen stars who were overlooked by other schools (think about guys like Blakely, Holland, Coppenrath, etc.)

They light it up their freshman and sophomore years now knowing they could transfer but they have to sit out. This totally changes that dynamic. I just think the above scenario is much more likely than the thought process of dropping down a level.
Hadn't considered this scenario...wow...the more I think about it the more trouble this is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,779 Posts
I think the GPA part is going to be the source of "reverse grade fixing", where a student gets a lower grade than they earned just to keep them from transferring, with and without the connivance of coaches or administrators. Teammates will give wrong answers to other teammates or spit in their lab work to keep their GPA down. Teachers who are fans will go from high graders to low overnight. Without a little coordination between graders some ultra promising players will get flunked out.

Some schools, like Kentucky, will get new players at semester break to replace those who didn't perform in the OOC games. Schools will trade players. It'll be like MLB without the money, at least for tax purposes.

The for-profit schools will have "instant semesters", where a student/athlete whose GPA is too low can transfer, instantly get a higher GPA and then transfer to some other school, like Kentucky, and play right away.

The opportunities look endless.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,174 Posts
UVM has had its fair share of transfers. The kids who transferred out didnt mind sitting out a year. IF a kid wants to go to another school he will. It doesnt matter if he HAS to sit out a year. I dont think kids are necessarily going to start transferring just because they dont have to sit out. IF they want to play higher up or get more playing time they will.

I do think this will lead to more transfers. I just dont think it will have as big as an impact as everyone thinks. 1 positive is it will be easier for teams to replace players when kids decide to leave very late in the year. UVM got lucky with being able to get Blue so late.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top