This wouldn't be good

[CBB_Fan]

Two things:

1. A 2.6 GPA is not good enough. An engineer at Wichita State with a 2.6 GPA would not be eligible for any scholarships and would lose any scholarship they had without a probation. Raise it to 3.0 or higher and it would be a true reward for being academically solid.

2. This only works if the coach has the authority to grant a player the immediate transfer, not if the players can earn the right automatically.

[1972Shocker]

This only works if the coach has the authority to grant a player the immediate transfer, not if the players can earn the right automatically.

Which is what is proposed I believe.

Athletes would still need permission from their former school to practice and compete right away at another school, but even if the request was denied, they'd still be able to accept a scholarship from the school of their choice and compete after sitting out a year.

[proshox]

I like this rule change and think the best programs will benefit. I think WSU is a top 25 program and will be on the good side of this rule change.

[ShockTalk]

I like this rule change and think the best programs will benefit. I think WSU is a top 25 program and will be on the good side of this rule change.

That is not a good reason to like it, IMHO.

[SubGod22]

If the coach has to give his blessings, there's nothing wrong with this. Those who feel they're bigger than the program they're at will sit, those who maybe aren't quite at the level they were recruited or simply don't fit in with the coaches, can transfer elsewhere and play. The more I think about it, I have no problem with it.

[proshox]

The rule punishes players in piss poor situations. It doesn't exist in all sports and we do not see chaos elsewhere.

[pinstripers]

Makes every player a one-and-done possibility. Might be good for personal liberties, but is bad for organized basketball. Impossible to plan and recruit.

[1972Shocker]

Since the school losing the player has to grant permission to, in effect, waive the one-year rule how is this effectively different then what we now have? If a coach is not happy about a player transferring he determines whether or not the player sits out a year, instead of that being automatic. Is it really that much different.

How many players do you think would transfer from WSU to KU and be allowed to play immediately? And perhaps vice versa. Probably not many.

[RoyalShock]

The coach/program already has to let a player out of this scholarship or the player loses a year of eligibility. What happens now when a coach plays hardball? He gets hammered by everyone and gets a bad reputation. The same thing would happen in the proposed system if a coach didn't give his blessing. Essentially, the coach has no realistic way to deny the transfer without it hurting him and the program.

There needs to be a disincentive to transferring. Recruiting is difficult enough with the number of transfers now. I could easily see it turning into a situation where a coaching staff is having to fill, on average, 1-2 additional spots per year.

Without that mandatory sit-out year I see a significant number of players not taking their initial school choice as seriously.

No, the current system isn't perfect but this proposed change won't do anything but speed up the revolving door, IMO.

[tropicalshox]

It's different since the transfer can still get a scholarship even if he has to sit the one year If permission is not granted. He also gets a sixth year of eligibility.

[1972Shocker]

It's different since the transfer can still get a scholarship even if he has to sit the one year If permission is not granted. He also gets a sixth year of eligibility.

Good point trop. I don't like that part of it.

[1972Shocker]

This would be a great question for Coach Marshall's weekly radio show. I would be interested to hear what his thoughts are about this.

If I read the article this will be a decision of the NCAA Board of Directors and not subject to a vote of the member schools.

[ShockTalk]

Don't know if this is something to consider, but we've talked in the past about the negative recruiting image a school/coach could have if they don't allow a new recruit out of his commitment if he changes his mind. That is why most recruits are released, so other schools can't use that against them.

If a school/coach has a history of not releasing current players so they could play elsewhere immediately, that could affect new recruiting. We're talking high school kids here, so don't give that "if they don't want to be here" crap. High schoolers make mistakes and they know it.

Kids are also going to butt heads with the coaches. They're going to think they're not getting enough playing time. "I think I'm now to good for you" (even if he really isn't). It's a lot easier to buy into this junk if they know they can just move on and play immediately. Just wait until some big name school doesn't get that 5 star high school PF and finds a way to "legally" dangle those Final Four runs in front of your groomed Junior or Senior-to-be.

Over 500 players transfered last year. My guess is that it will triple. It will be a policing nightmare.

Remember, CU may move on, Ill St may take their football and other sports elsewhere. After a year or two of Valley one bids due to a lower RPI conference, Marshall may move on. Then tell me again how this rule change is working out for you.

[SubGod22]

Except in this case, the player won't lose any eligibility. That's why coaches get hammered now. The kids lose a year. That wouldn't be the case in these situations.

[RoyalShock]

Except in this case, the player won't lose any eligibility. That's why coaches get hammered now. The kids lose a year. That wouldn't be the case in these situations.

But the coach isn't going to want someone playing for him who has already asked to leave. That's the issue. The coach doesn't have a reasonable option other than saying "sure, get outta here". With the sit-out year, a player has a reason not to go looking for greener grass, unless he's truly serious.