Conference and New transfer Rule.
 

Very Soon the NCAA will vote on the immediate transfer rule. Understanding the landscape of CBB this is will make it very difficult for the Mid majors. Its another opportunity for the Power 5 to eliminate the small schools contending for there titles and money. For UD this can be and I believe positive. Because of our facilities, fanbase etc we would be on the plus end of transfers wanting to come to Dayton. It is also so important for our Admin to find a better Conference to operate in or over the longer run the A Ten as it stands will hurt our long term goals. Should the rule pass and the ATen continue to go down hill the better players will look for better options. The Time in my opinion is to make a move asap. An example, should the rule pass now a kid like Pipkins at UMass a Soph would be a prime Big school prospect setting Umass back and also the conference. This is real and about to be voted on. We need to be ready.ie all the Major TV contracts come up after 2019 more movement to happen. A lot on Eric and Neils plate.

I don't like the idea at all...am royally 100% against allowing immediate transfers and here's 2 local reasons why.

1) Jaaron Simmons, Alter HS now at Michigan basketball. Here's a kid who left Houston after 1 season to sit a year and play at Ohio U. At OU he was a complete stud and after graduating in '17 transferred to Michigan...where he now sits the bench and undoubtedly regrets the decision. He made this decision after OU supported him attending NBA camps to assess his skills...he returned and thanked them by accepting an offer from Michigan. When he left OU, it took months of 'recruiting' before chose OU and he had to do it knowing he'd sit a year. Once that 1-year penalty was lifted, I believe the he impulsively took the best offer instead of objectively looking at what was truly best for him.

2) Malik Zaire, Alter HS now at Florida. Similar story...by graduating early he decided that ND wasn't for him and took his skills to Florida...where he sat for the majority of his last year of eligibility...and like Jaaron, I strong assume he wishes he'd put more thought behind the move. Any NFL dream Malik had by leading Florida to the SEC Championship game were nixed with a secure spot on the bench, which only became more secure as they lost early and often.

Everyone knows that a scholarship is - and it's emphasized - with the school, not the coach. Reality is what it is and we know that to the recruit it doesn't work that way, but the NCAA folks know this is their 'out' with regards to transferring w/o penalty. I believe it's in the best interest of the athlete to be penalized for transferring and should be stressed during recruiting, too.

Coaches lie...we all know that. But they are more likely to lie to a 3rd year OSU backup lineman than they are to an 18 year old farm boy from St. Henry. Why, because the HS kid will redshirt (like the Myers All-American at OSU from Miamisburg) and not be a difference maker 'next' season whereas the backup can walk in and start immediately for his new team and potentially devastating the other.

With rare exception, I see nothing good by allowing immediate transfers.

So let it be written.
So let it be done.

King Rollo the Enforcer...OUT!

Agree with your rationale, and the Simmons case study is exhibit A as to why it's a bad idea.

Malik's was a little different. Kelly had moved on from Malik for whatever reason and I doubt he would've gotten a fair shake had he returned. At Fla he was basically job-sharing under McElwain until a couple of losses after which McElwain panicked and benched him in hopes of saving his job (didn't work). The interim coach plays Malik and he plays well, then gets hurt. Just a series of unfortunate events for him. I think you'll see the same scenario play out at ND with Wimbush and Hurtz ('Bama QB) this offseason.

Except some coaches look the other way when the recruit is, ... well how should I say this? ..... "Entertained" during his visit. One could also say money is given to how can I say this .... Oh! Presented with a stipend to cover the cost of a transfer?

So you see you could transfer about 2 times maybe 3 in a 4 to 5 year playing cycle and receive certain factors in transferring from one place to another.

But I know all these "things" are ruled illegal by the NCAA so I have no real worries here! :unsure:

Of course there is always that enticement to gain an education taking the curriculum at North Carolina U. :outtahere:

From UD's standpoint this will not be good. For most college basketball teams this will not be good. It will turn all non-power conferences into farm teams for the power conferences. If you play at UD 4 years you obviously won't be good enough for the NBA. If you come to UD and thrive by your sophomore season, you will move on.

What it might do is close the gap between the level of power conferences amongst themselves. A Kentucky would might still go out and recruit one-and-dones but their rivals will go pick an all-star team of juniors and seniors to combat that.

All I can say is that if and when these changes take place and the results of the change start becoming apparent, I will totally abandon my love for college basketball and have no interest in seeing UD compete to be the best farm team. If I wanted to root for regional power houses to win championships, I'd just become more of an NBA fan, not look at OSU as my big brother team.

isn't part of this about graduating players? How will losing the redshirt year and having kids transfer for 2,3 maybe even four times over the course of their careers help them graduate

I think this will hurt schools like UD and conferences like the A10. Any freshman or sophomore who has a great year will be open to being picked off by the P5s and BE in basketball.

So will players still have to obtain a release to talk to other programs? That will be a nightmare for coaches and teammates. How do you manage that? What about within the conference transfers?

This will bring a whole new meaning to one and done. I can see programs telling recruits...you go to Dayton and prove yourself one or two years and when so-and-so graduates/leaves for the NBA, we will bring you in to fill his spot if you play well. Every Rookie of the Year and all-rookie team player will attract attention.

Bottom line is the NCAA would not be doing this if they thought they could win in court on the issue. IMO it's a sad day for programs like UD if this passes. One more reason the BE or ACC become even more critical for Dayton.

It might become so absurd that the same coaches will be snatching up these players from the same schools over and over. For instance, hiring an assistant from a top coach might just make you one of that top coach'es farm teams.

And the question Alex is “Why we need to be in a better conference”.

Discussion and vote may have been moved to 2019

Sorry Johnny, i dont think you are good enough for us here at <insert school> but if you go to Dayton University and tear it up we will bring you in next year.

The kid will be out for himself and only himself. A player like that would be difficult to coach.

See, to me that isn't the question. If college basketball gets to the point that the power conferences control everything, I won't care if Dayton is in one or not, college basketball will be dead to me. The best part of NCAA basketball to me is that 100s of programs have the opportunity to get to the NCAA and do damage. They can dream of winning the whole enchilada though that never happens. Even we were seeing great things two years ago mainly driven off the potential of Big Steve.

Once you cut it down to 50 or 60 teams that can pick the best apples off the tree of the rest, I will quit caring and watching. And you know what? If the Flyers were in the Big East under those rules, they would be the bottom of the top and still have their best and brightest snatched away.

This sounds like a terrible idea for most schools. It will just further solidify the existing hierarchy in college sports, there will be fewer and fewer Cinderella's.

The players would probably like this though, but it would be a total headache for coaches.

The graduate transfer rule is bad enough, we do not need more harmful rules.

And,further, schools like UD and the A10 schools need to build their continuity by having players in their system for 4-5 years as very very very few A10 players are ever good enough to really leave early.Schools that can keep a couple pretty good recruiting classes intact for those years can make sweet 16's and beyond.

Now, just for example, you take a kid like Kostas who might be feeling left out right now based on his mpg and/or lack of being further along in his game and he might feel like he's got a better chance somewhere else and being able to transfer with no repercussions (sitting out another year, etc.) makes this possible. It has nothing to do with him being ready to "up his game" at a more distinguished basketball school but everything to do with another school soliciting him and selling him their BS.

This rule is purely about $$$. The TV contracts are the life blood of the NCAA. The networks need to have the best players playing for the best schools so they can drive the best viewership to make the most money. Period. This rule helps funnel the best players to the best schools quicker to achieve that goal. It's all about the money. The NCAA is purely a minor league to the pros in both football and basketball. They could not care less if any athlete gets a degree (they only publish graduation rates because it's politically correct) and they are totally against parity outside of the power 5 conferences. The networks don't want to see Bowling Green playing Wyoming for a football championship or LaSalle playing Cleveland State for a basketball championship. So, the NCAA will do what it can to make sure that doesn't happen. If the NCAA truly cared about amateur athletics, athletes, and parity, they should take their profits every year and divide them equally among all the schools. Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg, the weakest Div. 1 school should have the exact same ability to succeed as the richest school. Is this socialism, probably, but this is amateur athletics, not the pros. Flame on!

Nope. Follow the money. The power 5 will see the obvious benefit to them, and the NCAA will make more $$$ on TV ratings as the other conferences will become farm teams.

The sad thing, is that for every 1 kid who really does become "that" player, another 15+ will not, and regret it, likely without a degree after four years.

I think the proposed rule change only allows a player to transfer once and play immediately. Still doesn't help the "farm club" fate for non-P5 schools, though.

The pros have a pretty good model for socialism in the NFL.

I don't like the idea of "transfer & play". I'm OK with the graduate rule (more from a student continuing an education; I have to admit I haven't analyzed stats to see if that really works out). I would agree with a student being able to leave when the coach leaves. I would allow them to play right away but not with that coach.

By allowing a player to leave if a coach leaves, you'll have to change the LOI to say the player is signing to play for the coach, not the University.

Here's my Royal solution...if a coach leaves and player(s) want to leave, too, they can only play right away if they transfer to where the new coach is going. After all, if the reasoning for the transfer is that the player wants to play for the coach, then he should go with him...which makes things awkward when the coach has to tell the player he doesn't want him at the new University.

My thought is that signing the LOI with the U is like most of us checking AGREE when we sign up with something online -- you do it because you have to in order to proceed.

I'm guessing there wasn't an official LOI when Huggy Bear was signing up players when he was a "free agent coach" and they didn't know K-State was going to be the next stop.

An update posted today, no timeline presented:



Mitch Sherman
ESPN Staff Writer

The Division I transfer working group is meeting today and tomorrow in Indianapolis to further develop concepts to bring uniformity and reform to the NCAA transfer rules. While much has been discussed publicly about immediate eligibility for all transfers and a separate idea from Big 12 representatives to grant freedom for players whose coaches leave, any potential legislation will come from this group. And its priorities are more mundane, seeking to create a proposal on notification procedure, tampering and academic guidelines. The bigger ideas will come together only after all parties -- student-athletes, school presidents and coaches associations included -- are presented ample opportunities to help shape a proposal. "The feelings of panic from certain groups, I guess that's expected," said South Dakota State AD Justin Sell, chair of the working group. "I've been working really hard to tell people we're not there. There's going to be multiple times to give feedback. I think that's really important."

Sounds like such a major change would take a lot of input from broad reaching people/groups and then some further back and forth. My take - not going to happen soon (this year anyway).

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...ecommendations

...The committee also reiterated its support for a concept that would allow student-athletes meeting a high academic standard — for example, a minimum grade-point average between 3.0 and 3.3 paired with progress-toward-degree requirements — to compete after transfer one time, no matter what sport the student plays...

No more blocking transfers to certain schools.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/s...fer-permission