This wouldn't be good

[ShockTalk]

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.

For most of the players, the big thing here is being able to play immediately after transfer. They're not interested in going to college for 6 years. If a coach/school doesn't release, they'll be blacklisted. Remember, the big boys don't care. Most of their transfers are heading downward, so they'll release and open up a spot. "Hey kid, did you hear about that spot that opened up? I hear their looking to fill it with a D-I ready player. I think they're only one quality player away from a Final 4 run...you just might be him. Maybe you should check it out".

[SubGod22]

What's six years got to do with this? If you don't get the immediate playing time, you just sit a year like you do now. That's 5 years. Most of these kids usually take 5 years to graduate anyway. I really don't see this being a major issue or being used in that negative of a way.

[ShockTalk]

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.

Yup. Let's say a player asks to transfer and wants to play immediately. Coach says you can go, but you gotta sit out a year. Kid thinks about it some, changes his mind, and stays. Next year's recruits start to visit...what do think is going to be said by that player if he's asked by a recruit and he's still just a little unhappy?

[ShockTalk]

What's six years got to do with this? If you don't get the immediate playing time, you just sit a year like you do now. That's 5 years. Most of these kids usually take 5 years to graduate anyway. I really don't see this being a major issue or being used in that negative of a way.

From the article: • Athletes who can't play immediately at the next school would receive an extension of their five-year clock, giving them potentially six years to use their four years of eligibility.

[SubGod22]

Yup. Let's say a player asks to transfer and wants to play immediately. Coach says you can go, but you gotta sit out a year. Kid thinks about it some, changes his mind, and stays. Next year's recruits start to visit...what do think is going to be said by that player if he's asked by a recruit and he's still just a little unhappy?

If the kid really wants out, he'll leave regardless. I wouldn't be too concerned about your scenario.

[SubGod22]

From the article: • Athletes who can't play immediately at the next school would receive an extension of their five-year clock, giving them potentially six years to use their four years of eligibility.

Doesn't mean they'd have to use it or anything. That's my point. I don't get why they'd need this sixth year under any scenario. That part makes no sense to me. So again, that sixth year, even if it's available, really plays no part under any of these scenarios. They'd essentially be transferring under what we currently have and 5 years works just fine and isn't an issue.

[Kung Wu]

Wow. I'm a huge fan of this. I know I'm the only one. I hate the NCAA and the unintended consequences of their rules and rulings. It's refreshing to see them make decisions that support the student for a change.

This rule favors good, caring coaches over bad tempered, crappy coaches.

This rule allows students to make better academic decisions, when they realize the school doesn't have the degree they want to pursue.

This rule allows elite programs to poach but also gives smaller schools a chance at elite talent because the player won't feel trapped going in. Example: If Andrew Wiggins wants to go to Kentucky but knows he won't get PT due to them having two seniors and one junior at his position he really has no choice but to choose Kentucky. Now he could choose WSU his freshman year and give Marshall a chance to win him over -- if it doesn't work out he's not trapped.

This rule gives an institution a little negotiating power: Sure, Self, I'll release Wiggins to you next year for a home game at Koch in 2015.

The article says 500 but links to a transfer list of 445 transfers. It's not the number of transfers that's a potential worry for smaller schools, it's the quality of transfers they should be concerned about. Having a top notch coach mitigates that though. So schools are incentivized to get the best coach they can possibly afford. And I mean quality human being, not just x's and o's.

I know I'll be on a lonely island on this deal but I will always favor pro-student decisions over pro-institution decisions. Maybe not always but so long as the rules are so heavily stacked in favor of the institutions. Also I am a free market guy no matter what. If WSU can't compete in the free market then that sucks, but it is what it is.

[tropicalshox]

What's six years got to do with this? If you don't get the immediate playing time, you just sit a year like you do now. That's 5 years. Most of these kids usually take 5 years to graduate anyway. I really don't see this being a major issue or being used in that negative of a way.

They will have a possible redshirt year which they would not have now. However, I lean towards @Kung Wu: thinking.

[ShockTalk]

Just wanting to understand your position better.

Wow. I'm a huge fan of this. I know I'm the only one. I hate the NCAA and the unintended consequences of their rules and rulings. It's refreshing to see them make decisions that support the student for a change.

This rule favors good, caring coaches over bad tempered, crappy coaches.

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.

This rule allows students to make better academic decisions, when they realize the school doesn't have the degree they want to pursue.

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.

This rule allows elite programs to poach but also gives smaller schools a chance at elite talent because the player won't feel trapped going in. Example: If Andrew Wiggins wants to go to Kentucky but knows he won't get PT due to them having two seniors and one junior at his position he really has no choice but to choose Kentucky. Now he could choose WSU his freshman year and give Marshall a chance to win him over -- if it doesn't work out he's not trapped.

How is this any different than now if the coach chooses to make him sit out? How is the player going to know for sure what the coach will do?

This rule gives an institution a little negotiating power: Sure, Self, I'll release Wiggins to you next year for a home game at Koch in 2015.

I like this arguement.

The article says 500 but links to a transfer list of 445 transfers. It's not the number of transfers that's a potential worry for smaller schools, it's the quality of transfers they should be concerned about. Having a top notch coach mitigates that though. So schools are incentivized to get the best coach they can possibly afford. And I mean quality human being, not just x's and o's.

Are you speaking of a male "Jane Albright" type here? And yeah, smaller schools today are not trying to get the best coach they can possible afford today. If those high quality human beings while also being a very good x' and o's coaches happen to be in short supply, guess what schools will have the market cornered.

I know I'll be on a lonely island on this deal but I will always favor pro-student decisions over pro-institution decisions. Maybe not always but so long as the rules are so heavily stacked in favor of the institutions. Also I am a free market guy no matter what. If WSU can't compete in the free market then that sucks, but it is what it is.

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.

[RoyalShock]

Maybe the answer to this is there but I'm just not seeing it. I thought the player asks permission to seek a transfer school first and not conditionally based on other factors. The only way a player says, "hey coach, I want to transfer to KU" is after he's already been given permission, correct? I'm fairly confident the NCAA would word the rule such that a coach could not do what Kung Wu is suggesting.

[ShockTalk]

So, I wonder if a coach can grant a player the ability to transfer, but reserve the right to require he sit out a year if if he chooses certain named schools. Then, if he chooses a school in which he would have to sit out, strike a deal with that school to release immediately.

[proshox]

Wow. I'm a huge fan of this. I know I'm the only one. I hate the NCAA and the unintended consequences of their rules and rulings. It's refreshing to see them make decisions that support the student for a change.

This rule favors good, caring coaches over bad tempered, crappy coaches.

This rule allows students to make better academic decisions, when they realize the school doesn't have the degree they want to pursue.

This rule allows elite programs to poach but also gives smaller schools a chance at elite talent because the player won't feel trapped going in. Example: If Andrew Wiggins wants to go to Kentucky but knows he won't get PT due to them having two seniors and one junior at his position he really has no choice but to choose Kentucky. Now he could choose WSU his freshman year and give Marshall a chance to win him over -- if it doesn't work out he's not trapped.

This rule gives an institution a little negotiating power: Sure, Self, I'll release Wiggins to you next year for a home game at Koch in 2015.

The article says 500 but links to a transfer list of 445 transfers. It's not the number of transfers that's a potential worry for smaller schools, it's the quality of transfers they should be concerned about. Having a top notch coach mitigates that though. So schools are incentivized to get the best coach they can possibly afford. And I mean quality human being, not just x's and o's.

I know I'll be on a lonely island on this deal but I will always favor pro-student decisions over pro-institution decisions. Maybe not always but so long as the rules are so heavily stacked in favor of the institutions. Also I am a free market guy no matter what. If WSU can't compete in the free market then that sucks, but it is what it is.

Great post..... The rules as designed for players vs. coaches are currently outrageous. We have seen how players like Clevin can get screwed in many instances. A little power to the players is worth some downside risk.

[wusphlash]

Can you spell anarchy. Don’t like this at all.

1. Players are not limited on which schools they consider and certainly not forced to sign a LOI. These are young adults who should be able to consider their options, make a decision and deal with any consequences thereafter. There are already adequate transfer processes in place if they determine their first choice was the wrong one..
2. You’re inviting other coaches/boosters to recruit, or poach, players off other teams. Are there enough compliance officers to police that kind of activity? No. Is it the player’s best interest for some other party to convince him that he’s really not happy where he is? Not necessarily. It would certainly happen.
3. The NCAA has already broached this type of situation by allowing graduated players to transfer under the premise of “Available Masters programs”. “I graduated with a degree in Sociology but I want to transfer because my current school doesn’t have a Masters program in bioengineering..” Yeah, right.

And by the way, no player should be used as a bartering chip for scheduling purposes. That goes completely against the “I’m all for the players” argument.

Personally, I don’t think this is in the players best interest at all. It provides for the possibilty of them being manipulated and used. It certainly doesn’t reinforce what I think is a very important life lesson, personal accountability.

It’s just a bad idea.

[DoubleJayAlum]

This rule allows elite programs to poach but also gives smaller schools a chance at elite talent because the player won't feel trapped going in. Example: If Andrew Wiggins wants to go to Kentucky but knows he won't get PT due to them having two seniors and one junior at his position he really has no choice but to choose Kentucky. Now he could choose WSU his freshman year and give Marshall a chance to win him over -- if it doesn't work out he's not trapped.

A few problems with this scenario:

(1) It will destroy a guy's desire to be a team player and rewards selfishness. If he is hoping to attract a better offer, he'll want to make he sure he gets his points and minutes. Rather than passing and setting screens, he is more likely to shoot the rock at every opportunity. Essentially you Juco-izing mid major basketball where everybody is more concerned about where they are playing next instead of where they are playing now.

(2) Related to #1 - I don't want to turn into what is essentially a JUCO for top tier programs. You then end up cutting deals with the major programs saying yes, I'll house player X for a year or two and give him a certain number of minutes because I don't want to piss off coach X and risk having him house his talent at another school instead. Why would any top tier coach want to put up with that crap? Not only will we lose our best players, but it will be harder than ever to hold onto our best coaches as well.

Royal's right --- with the mere stroke of a pen, this rule would destroy all of the parity that has been built up in college basketball.

[MoValley John]

I dont have time to read the rule today, I like the concept. At the same time, part of me wonders if this rule is being proposed to help the Kentucky's of the world, not with a farm system, but with their looming APR problem. I'm out of town with three of my sons this weekend, I'll have to look into this later when I have more time and a less paranoid attitude.