Transfers

[pinstripers]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25157681/the-ncaas-new-policy-on-transfers-has-one-bad-unintended-consequence

good read

[RoyalShock]

I think Parrish is right that the NCAA could do better. But his statement that:

I do not care how difficult a system without transfer restrictions might make the jobs of coaches. I do not care where such a system could theoretically lead.

is ridiculous. The poaching that P5 schools will do to non-P5 schools will get worse, as there will no longer be a disincentive for kids to transfer, or for a school to have to spend an extra year of scholarship during the transfer year.

Non-P5 schools will become minor leagues for the P5's, similar to the Reggie Lynch situation. Although it sounds like Reggie's parents are the ones who made the call to Minnesota. The point is, they didn't offer him a scholarship before, but now that he's proven himself, they're wiling to give him three years of scholarship for two years of contribution.

That said, I also agree with the anonymous coach that a kid shouldn't have to sit out a year because the coach misevaluated him and lets him go after a year or two.

[Dupe]

That said, I also agree with the anonymous coach that a kid shouldn't have to sit out a year because the coach misevaluated him and lets him go after a year or two.

It seems like it would be pretty nice for there to be a distinction in the "reason for transfer." If a kid transfers Reggie Lynch style, make him sit for a transfer year WITHOUT a scholarship. He better really want to go because it will hurt. But if a kid tranfers Derail Green, R'i'a'n' Holland or Corey Henderson style, why shouldn't they be eligible immediately?...ESPECIALLY a kid like R'i'a'n''''' because he is screwed a little bit, having already redshirted. It makes no sense to me that he has to suffer. Then have an option available that they can opt in to the other plan if they want the transfer year. In some cases, a player might want that.

[RoyalShock]

The concern I have with specifying a "reason for transfer" is that people aren't always honest, for reasons that might be silly, but are reasons, nonetheless. One suggestion I've seen is that if a coach pushes a player out, but doesn't grant a release for the player to be eligible immediately, the coach can't use that scholarship the following year.

Whatever the solution is, it has to promote truthfulness from both parties.

[wu_shizzle]

The concern I have with specifying a "reason for transfer" is that people aren't always honest, for reasons that might be silly, but are reasons, nonetheless. One suggestion I've seen is that if a coach pushes a player out, but doesn't grant a release for the player to be eligible immediately, the coach can't use that scholarship the following year.

Whatever the solution is, it has to promote truthfulness from both parties.

You'd think they could consider total minutes played into the equation, almost like a medical redshirt year.

That would allow the Rian Hollands to plays immediately while the Reggie Lynchs would have to sit.

[ShockerEngr]

I don't think there should ever be a requirement that transfers become ineligible for scholarship - the NCAA already uses them enough, at the very least they should be able to have their school paid for...

[Kung Wu]

The concern I have with specifying a "reason for transfer" is that people aren't always honest, for reasons that might be silly, but are reasons, nonetheless. One suggestion I've seen is that if a coach pushes a player out, but doesn't grant a release for the player to be eligible immediately, the coach can't use that scholarship the following year.

Whatever the solution is, it has to promote truthfulness from both parties.

OK so here is the easy solution. Ask them both the same question:

Do both parties mutually agree that transferring is in the best interest of both parties?

If they both answer "Yes", the kid should be allowed to leave and play immediately and the coach gets his scholly back.
If the coach answers "No" but the kid answers "Yes", then the coach loses a scholarship for the following season AND the kid has to sit a season.
If the coach answers "Yes" but the kid answers "No", then the coach loses a scholarship for the following season AND the kid has to sit a season.
If they both answer "No", the kid should be allowed to leave and play immediately and the coach gets his scholly back.

:)

[RoyalShock]

OK so here is the easy solution. Ask them both the same question:

Do both parties mutually agree that transferring is in the best interest of both parties?

If they both answer "Yes", the kid should be allowed to leave and play immediately and the coach gets his scholly back.
If the coach answers "No" but the kid answers "Yes", then the coach loses a scholarship for the following season AND the kid has to sit a season.
If the coach answers "Yes" but the kid answers "No", then the coach loses a scholarship for the following season AND the kid has to sit a season.
If they both answer "No", the kid should be allowed to leave and play immediately and the coach gets his scholly back.

:)

Ok, hang on just a second. My sarcasm meter doesn't work if there's at least 25% reasonability in a post.

Scenario 1: Mutual separation of ways - reasonable.
Scenario 2: Player wants to leave. Why should the program lose that scholarship?
Scenario 3: Player is being pushed out. Why should the player have to sit?
Scenario 4: I don't see that ever happening.

[Cdizzle]

Scenario 4: I don't see that ever happening.

Maybe the player is allergic to bees and there is an influx of bees on the campus of that school?

[Dupe]

Maybe the player is allergic to bees and there is an influx of bees on the campus of that school?

I'd say if the player is allergic to bees and there is an influx of bees on the campus of that school, the player should be allowed to transfer and not sit and the coach shouldn't lose the scholarship.

[RoyalShock]

Maybe the player is allergic to bees and there is an influx of bees on the campus of that school?

Crap! How did I not think of that?

Amended post:

Scenario 4: Call a beekeeper. Or two. Everybody's happy.

[SHOXAAC]

Crap! How did I not think of that?

Amended post:

Scenario 4: Call a beekeeper. Or two. Everybody's happy.

Harvest the honey from the bees and create a fund for the studen-athletes to draw from. That will create quite a "buzz" at the NCAA headquarters.

[RoyalShock]

Harvest the honey from the bees and create a fund for the studen-athletes to draw from. That will create quite a "buzz" at the NCAA headquarters.

Hmmm, a creative way to fund cozt of attendanze?

[Kung Wu]

Ok, hang on just a second. My sarcasm meter doesn't work if there's at least 25% reasonability in a post.

Scenario 1: Mutual separation of ways - reasonable.
Scenario 2: Player wants to leave. Why should the program lose that scholarship?
Scenario 3: Player is being pushed out. Why should the player have to sit?
Scenario 4: I don't see that ever happening.

But 4 is the fun scenario. If they both say "No", they have agreed that they cannot mutually agree that transferring is in the best interest of both parties. It may very well not be. [Dr. Seuss:] But since they were able to agree that it may not be -- they both get to escape harm free.

2 and 3 just tells us that they are acting like children, so they both need a timeout. Coaches: Don't piss off a recruit so badly that when you boot him, he would sacrifice a year just to spite you. Players: Don't piss off a coach so badly that when he boots you he would lose a scholly just to watch you sit out a year.

But if you REALLY have irreconcilable differences, be man enough to agree to say No.

[shoxlax]

Speaking of bees I bet some of you would make good queens.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.