Originally Posted by xubrew
Okay. If this is implemented and in a couple years the transfer rate is five times higher than what it is now with everyone flooding out of non P5 programs, then you and everyone else who are wringing their hands hands reserve any and all rights to say "I told you so."
I can't help but notice that it seems to be the same people who thought the graduate transfer rule would kill the sport, and then thought the cost of living stipends would kill the sport.
|
After 1 year you're declaring victory? I'm sure 1 year into the government programs everyone felt the same way. Come see me in 10 years when it takes root.
Originally Posted by Flyers98
I think another thing that gets lost in all this is that if we have a kid who is good enough to get poached by Kentucky or Duke after a year, he's likely good enough to go to the NBA instead of transferring at all. In making that statement I am assuming that a kid is not going to transfer from Dayton to sit on the bench at a Kentucky or Duke so we are really only talking about the elite players who may only be in college for one year anyway.
I do realize that there will be kids who might have a chance to transfer from UD to OSU or somewhere like that but I have to think that will still be a two way street. There will certainly be kids like Siebert who for whatever reason couldn't get on the court at a bigger program but can excel a "step down" at a place like UD given the chance to play. Top programs are still going to recruit over kids, kids will leave when the NCAA vacates wins and puts teams on probation, kids will leave when there are coaching changes. I just think there are way too many variables to definitively say "this is going to play out this way," if it happens at all.
|
I'm not at all worried about UK or Duke. I'm concerned about South Carolina, Texas, Kansas State, Iowa, and other marginal programs where UD would become the minor leagues / tryouts for a bigger school. Throw their (public school) football money at it along with triple the stipend and bigger exposure and then expect the kid to stay loyal to UD? All righty.
As for catching a falling knife, sure, we could. How much fun would it be trying to re-recruit your major players every year?
Originally Posted by m21eagle45
The proposed rule would only allow a player to transfer once and not have to sit out a year. In your example, if JS decided to leave UD he would have to sit out a year.
As for your other examples, BR and CW were both local. CW had big time options before UD and picked UD. He wasn't going anywhere. BR was a 2 star recruit. It is possible, but him being from Toledo, I do not see that happening. SS isn't leaving UD for Butler. He was great at UD, but was not an elite player that could have transferred anywhere.
|
First, you mean the
currently proposed rule would only allow a player to transfer once without sitting out. "You're overreacting! Next you'll say colleges should start paying players as if they weren't amateurs!"
Second, do you honestly propose to know that BR and CW would not chase bigger exposure and more money just because they are local? Gads, I hope you don't own a business. People are people. They will chase the money. And who can blame them. And CW could not have changed his mind if he didn't like the direction of the program? You're taking a nearly infinite number of variables and holding them all constant and then mocking the idea that there could be literally anything that would cause a 19 year old boy to change his mind. Wow.
But the best one is the idea that SS could not have transferred anywhere. Sure, he can make minced meat out of some of the best programs in the country while playing for UD, but, "he was . . . not an elite player that could have transferred anywhere." Anywhere? The winningest PG in UD history who had a ridiculous record against P5 schools could not have transferred "anywhere"?! Double WOW.
