- This topic has 22 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ROSEMONT, Ill. — During the Big Ten’s annual spring meetings here the past two days, men’s basketball coaches discussed how they could curb the onslaught of transfers in the sport — something Michigan State’s Tom Izzo described as “an epidemic.”
While no course of action was decided upon, coaches and administrators generally agreed that the transfer situation has spiraled out of control, especially with graduate transfers who are immediately eligible at their new schools.
In other words, “we would like to treat our players even more like chattel than we already do, thanks.”
GFY, B1G
especially with graduate transfers who are immediately eligible at their new schools.
“Especially”? Really?
I would like to know the percentage of transfers that are the graduate transfers. I would expect that they are a timy percentage of the total transfer population. They have already spent at least 3 and usually 4 years at that school and play one year at a second. How does that earn an “especially”?
The worst in my mind is the kid that plays one year and then bolts. And then we have the really special kids that transfer twice with the second time usually to Div2 so that they don’t have to sit out a year.
I’ll buy that the transfers are an issue that upsets up the norm. However as long as coaches can use the “waver wire” to dump players they don’t like for whatever reason I’m simply not seeing the problem.
” How does that earn an “especially”? ”
Because, as BJD alluded to, the coaches don’t have any control over the player in this case. If a player decides to transfer before graduating, a lot of coaches will place qualifiers on their release (i.e. can’t transfer to a team in conference, etc.)
And why are the grad transfers leaving? Because they don’t have a meaningful role where they are. And as noted upthread, their coach can easily dump them like yesterday’s garbage on a whim (let alone the “unpaid” even at the “full cost of attendance” level issue alone).
I much prefer making peace with it and establishing one’s program as a place that is noted for making incoming guys feel comfortable and welcomed.
I have no problem with kids being able to transfer if they so choose. As BJD referenced, they are not chattel. The wisdom of such decisions, however, is a different matter all together and a case by case situation.
Collins says NCAA data shows that fewer than 25 percent of graduate transfers go on to finish their master’s degrees, which is ostensibly why the rule was first put into place.
I do kind of have an issue with that.
Why? The kid gave you 3yrs; boosted your coveted progress to a degree, sees bench ahead…? C’mon,man.
Wulfpack, ain’the buttin’ heads, but the following through is up to the player.
Much as the pre-amble is to the discontented.
So because some choose not to exercise a rightful freedom towards what you feel is its full advantage, remove the freedom?
Brilliant.
You might want to expound upon that thought a little more, and reconsider what you are really saying. Well, assuming you’re not a millennial twit, that is, and I know you are not.
There’s been a lot of discussion around this issue, so don’t shoot the messenger.
Here’s a good rundown on some of the pros/cons of the rule, and some voices, including Cut over at Duke:
I wish more kids would stay four years at the school where they enroll out of high school. I think they would learn some valuable life lessons in a lot of cases if they did.
I also don’t have a problem with transfers being what they are right now. The schools already have a lot of power in the relationship with the kids. The transfer option is about the only leverage the kids have so I can’t see taking that away. Coaches have to manage expectations more than they used to in the past with this set up.
This is a natural result of the AAU high jack of high school basketball. When kids played their HS ball at the HS where they lived, they learned about making their team better and doing the best they could with the team that was there. Today it’s all about finding the situation “that suits my game so I can showcase my talents.”
Matt Painter is against the graduate transfer rule. Honestly, he makes a point that is hard to refute:
Painter, who was on Thursday’s ESPNU College Basketball podcast, said players haven’t used the rule for its true intent — academically seeking a master’s degree at a new school.
“Eighty percent of these guys are doing it for basketball reasons, if not more,” Painter said.
“Are they going to get a master’s degree? Well, the NCAA’s paying for it for one year, and we all know most master’s degrees are two years,” Painter said.
Hmm. Personally, I think this rule is hilarious.
You have easy-arse degrees sanctioned by the NCAA and / or you keep these kids at school year round, then you whine like a baby when a kid doesn’t get an MBA he had no plan on getting.
This entire system is a joke. Half of these kids are only in school to ball, which is a good thing for the school because they have no intention of treating them as students.
It’s a bastardized institution and the best thing that can happen from a morality pov is that the institution as it exists today is terminated. (And college football is my favorite sport by a country mile.)
Matt Painter is against the graduate transfer rule. Honestly, he makes a point that is hard to refute:
Painter, who was on Thursday’s ESPNU College Basketball podcast, said players haven’t used the rule for its true intent — academically seeking a master’s degree at a new school.
“Eighty percent of these guys are doing it for basketball reasons, if not more,” Painter said.
“Are they going to get a master’s degree? Well, the NCAA’s paying for it for one year, and we all know most master’s degrees are two years,” Painter said.
I’m not sure what needs refuting. I didn’t see anything mentioned that justified changing the graduate transfer rules.
The players aren’t looking for a master’s degree. So what? If a kid without a degree can transfer, why not let one with a degree transfer. If a kid has worked hard enough to get a degree (even one that doesn’t provide marketable skills), why should he be held hostage to that institution?
They should just eliminate the “masters degree not offered by current school” requirement. If the kid has graduated, he is free to transfer, take a few post-grad classes in WHATEVER INTERESTS HIM. Period, full stop. Kudos to the kid for working hard and getting his degree fast. Deserves the bonus, and the chances to have a more fulfilling senior season on the court.
Again, the kids ain’t getting paid. Is it REALLY too much to grant them this little bit of freedom if/when they WORK academically to EARN it?
No it’s not bjd. I think for most kids the full ride is a fair deal. However, for thd big 10, acc, sec and Pac10 – that’s debatable. What isnt debatable is that the NCAA and schools generate the majority of their revenue from basketball and football; all other sports lose money and a ton of it.
FWIW: this thread is the kind that keeps me coming back – good topic, good discussion on both sides. All things considered, my 2 cents is revoking the graduate transfer option is unfair to the “student-athlete” and as mentioned, one of the few things on their side as leverage to do what they want and schools can’t control. Therefore, it will be revoked soon.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
