New NCAA Transfer Rule in the Works?

[TreRoberson4Heisman]

Indifferent on this - on one end a player can breakout at a mid-major and go to a P-5. On the other hand, a highly touted recruit could leave a P-5 in search for more playing time.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2731630-ncaa-reportedly-may-vote-to-let-division-i-transfers-to-be-eligible-immediately

http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121

 

[Bird Friend]

Indifferent on this - on one end a player can breakout at a mid-major and go to a P-5. On the other hand, a highly touted recruit could leave a P-5 in search for more playing time.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2731630-ncaa-reportedly-may-vote-to-let-division-i-transfers-to-be-eligible-immediately

http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121

Indifferent? We're already damn near a juco getting the boys ready for a bigger stage. I don't see how this helps a non-P5 school. Under-reruited players can bop on over to a better school after a year or two at a mid- or low-major. Over-recruited kids may want more PT, but they want to play in the tourney, too. The only way I see this working well is if the GPA is set really high, as in almost unattainable.

 

[SgtHulka]

Much like everything else in life, I'm sure the rich and powerful are just doing this to help the middle major guys out. They really have our best interests in mind, and while it may appear on the surface that everything is skewed in their favor, deep down in their hearts they really strive to improve our lives. Embrace it. Trickle down recruitenomics will make your fan life better

 

[Metamoron]

This. Would. Suck.

 

[RedbirdSoxFan]

When a coach leaves a University for a bigger/better opportunity, while under a contract, the school receives a buyout. Why not make it so that when a player leaves a school while under scholarship, that school receives compensation from the school that he transfers to.

 

[TIMMY]

When a coach leaves a University for a bigger/better opportunity, while under a contract, the school receives a buyout. Why not make it so that when a player leaves a school while under scholarship, that school receives compensation from the school that he transfers to.

How about an extra scholarship for whatever eligibility the transferring athlete leaves behind?

 

[Metamoron]

No scholarship. Give us a home game. Make the big boys come to our place to play if they take someone.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Yeah! And they should buy a round of hotdogs for the home crowd at that game!

 

[TreRoberson4Heisman]

"What would make sense would be to allow players whose coach leaves or is fired to transfer and be immediately eligible," he said. "That would make athletic directors a little less quick on the trigger to fire coaches." - Purdue HC Matt Painter

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20606338/ncaa-mull-working-group-proposal-immediately-eligibility-transfers

 

[isuquinndog]

I understand the argument about coaches can leave whenever leaving the kids hanging. I get it and that sucks. Something should change with that.

However, this rule will ruin non P5 teams. We've talked before about how the P5 wants to break off in basketball like it did in football with a new subclass...this will make sure it happens. They better set up rules about players recruiting players because that's what is going to happen. Player A who is at Kentucky calls up All-American buddy Player B who plays for ISU (it could happen, WSU had all-americans last year) and says "hey, if you played with us here, we could make a super team and win it all, come join us!" Boom, player transfers.

Coach K to a recruit, "Well, we don't have room for you this season, but why don't you go to Directional School and then you can transfer after your freshman year and join us."

I just don't get how there can be anything positive out of this for anyone but the P5. Its just a way to get them to be able to poach players they overlooked with no penalty.

 

[Source]

Spack discusses his take on the transfer rule: https://audioboom.com/posts/6277637-brock-spack-isu-football-coach-9-7-17?t=0

 

[Bird Friend]

Spack discusses his take on the transfer rule: https://audioboom.com/posts/6277637-brock-spack-isu-football-coach-9-7-17?t=0

Currently, football is a different animal in that a kid can go FBS to FCS without penalty. Spack benefits from this arrangement right now. This rule would make it possible to go the other way, too, without penalty.

So in the future you've got a star kid who is recruited by a P5 school but knows he'll sit for two years while the all-conference player in front of him finishes out his college career. Shoot, send the kid to a school where you know he's gonna get PT from day one (and maybe runs a similar system), hope he doesn't get hurt, and tell him to call you in two years when he announces he's transferring.

Kid gets to play right away. Non-P5 school benefits from a star-caliber player for 1 or 2 years, but then loses momentum when the kid moves on. One-and-done takes on a whole new meaning. How many kids have we had transfer here from a big-name school and really dominate? I don't think that changes with the new rule. I don't see kids dropping off the P5 roster and coming to ISU for more PT unless the kid wasn't good enough to play at that level anyway. Rather I see kids going from P5 to P5 where a school has a spot open.

This rule could really suck. Just think about what we could have seen this year if we still had MiKyle and Deontae . . . This rule will make every recruit who has a "blow up" frosh year a one-and-done.

 

[V Boy]

This is just further evidence that the people running college basketball are not the NCAA. They are the people who use college basketball to further the perceived financial interests of players and those surrounding them. It's really sad and it is ruining the game.

College hoops is going to be full of Zach Loftons. Is that good for the game? If you don't like it you can just check out and play somewhere else. If you're good you can just upgrade.

If you're a 10-year-old boy watching ISU basketball and the whole team is different every year how are you supposed to care about these players?

The NCAA should be going the other way with this. They should be trying to provide more continuity to college basketball. Making it more important to make an initial commitment to a school, not making it irrelevant. Getting rid of the grad transfer rule or making it such that a grad transfer has to sit out a year.

If you're ISU this would mean perpetually become catching lightning in a bottle. Non-conference play would be more difficult to win big games because most of the roster would be player together for the first time and often on the road. The seasons would be more reliant on winning Arch Madness to make the NCAAs, which makes the regular season more irrelevant.

It's just a bad, bad idea for fans. It's transactional and it, without question, benefits the big schools at the expense of schools like Illinois State.

You have to wonder.....when will all of these non-P5 schools fight back? When will they pull out of the NCAA Tournament and hit the NCAA where it hurts (remove the big upset from the first couple rounds of the Tournament)? The NCAA just keeps bitch-slapping them and they just sit there and take it.

Fight back as a collective or become irrelevant.

 

[JHBird]

Yeah! And they should buy a round of hotdogs for the home crowd at that game!

:text-+1:

Finally somebody is thinking like I do.