This wouldn't be good

[pogo]

God help me but I agree with DJA. I promise to go to church tomorrow and seek absolution.

[proshox]

This thread screams low self esteem. I guess everyone here believes that Doug McD. woild transfer next year if this rule existed.

I tend to beleive that WSU and Creighton could talk to players about final four runs just as easily as any BCS school (except UK, KU, Duke, and UNC).

[pinstripers]

Have no idea how this would effect the Shox. It is a horrible rule for organized basketball. This is yet another "me generation" thing. Immaturity, and selfishness would be rewarded.

[proshox]

Have no idea how this would effect the Shox. It is a horrible rule for organized basketball. This is yet another "me generation" thing. Immaturity, and selfishness would be rewarded.

You are only thinking about the times when a player may want to upgrade. There are plenty of times when a coach recruits over a player. It is common for the coach to tell the player to look for other opportunities. When this currently happens, players either have to sit out or go down a division.

It isn't a "me-thing." It corrects a rule that is biased against the player. Last time I checked the schools only make a one year commitment to each player.....

[pinstripers]

no, I'm not

[proshox]

Well your prior post seems to only consider a player that desires to upgrade.... And apparently the capitalist ideas of this country continue to go out the door when it comes to college athletes;)

[pinstripers]

I presume that you would allow free movement of all players between teams each and every year?

[rrshock]

I presume that you would allow free movement of all players between teams each and every year?

True, but if players keep transferring, at the end they won't be able to graduate causing those numbers to be a problem. Question would be, who does it go against if a player doesn't graduate? The first school or the last?

[SubGod22]

True, but if players keep transferring, at the end they won't be able to graduate causing those numbers to be a problem. Question would be, who does it go against if a player doesn't graduate? The first school or the last?

I believe with the current rule, as long as the player is in good standing when he leaves school A, they're fine and any future problems go against school B. But then again, I could be absolutely wrong about everything.

[Kung Wu]

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.

The 2.6 GPA comes from heavy statistical research by the NCAA. Statistically speaking a student is substantially more likely to graduate when they maintain a 2.6GPA or higher -- and that's all the NCAA cares about -- rewarding students that are likely to graduate. If schools maintain higher standards in specific departments, that's between the student and that department he would be transferring into.

[Kung Wu]

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.

Losing a year of playing time is heinous if you are in a bad situation. Heinous.

[Kung Wu]

Maybe it's late or I didn't get enough sleep last night, but wouldn't a bad tempered, crappy coach just say "Get out, but your sitting out a year"? How is this any different than what would happen now if a player wanted out.

In that case, I don't think it is much different.

Why good coaches are favored is because players WANT to stay. They have a good GPA and are playing for a good coach.

Think of the suckers that got stuck with Frank Martin. All of those people that left lost a year of playing time. College sports should not be a crap shoot for young student-athletes.

[Kung Wu]

I wonder how often that happens today, for a number of reasons. And if the student athlete does, you have an individual who is putting his education ahead of basketball (yes, I know that's the way it's suppose to be, but I bet it isn't that much) so he's going to make that change anyway and he won't be wasting his time the year he sits out.

He doesn't just sit out. They often lose a year of playing time. Not just eligibility, but they only get to play 3 years instead of 4.

[rrshock]

I would like ti see this have something that says a student only gets one transfer then they start losing eligibility.

[Kung Wu]

Well look at it this way, if the big boys didn't want this, it would never see the light of day. If the NCAA ever tries to push too much down their throats, they'll just break away.

To where? The NCAA has been around for 100 years and has a monopoly as a top tier league association. It would take considerable effort to organize anything even remotely close to what they have going. Not impossible, but you would have to have a ton of school administrators, athletic directors, and all kinds of people organized. They could start joining semi-pro leagues I suppose like BYU's men's soccer team did. But that's all far-fetched (for now).