Welcome to the death of basketball

[Flyer Al]

If you hadnt heard, the NCAA has formed a committee to look into the transfer rules for D-1. It came out this week that one of the changes that is being discussed is to allow D-1 transfers to be immediately eligible. That is, they would not have to sit out a year before playing.

Well this article looks at the likely negative effects it would have on the non-power 5 schools/conferences and they chose to use UD as the example in their look into the future. I have to admit, a scenario of players from small schools jumping at the chance to join a larger school came to my mind when I heard about it last week. But I think if players started moving upwards to the power 5 schools, then there will be less room for that current year's high school seniors and they would "trickle" down to the schools because the larger schools will have filled their rosters with transfers. If anything, it would create almost a minor league environment with players staying at smaller schools until they "prove" themselves and move up to larger schools. Neither scenario is optimal and it will be interesting to monitor what influence this committee has when decisions are actually made.

[San Diego Flyer]

I could go years without reading that and feel a lot better.

The unspoken part is that passionate, informed Flyer Faithful basketball fans would quickly grow tired of the charade, and stop paying to see it. What follows is the demise of all the very competitive secondary sports at the U because there would be no more cash cow.

And then you die.

	Flyer Faithful FLYER FAITHFUL Best college basketball fans in the country. Knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and loyal. Help to create one of the toughest home courts in the nation at UD Arena. Over 12,000 fans a game put the Flyers in the Top-30 nationally in attendance. Fan spirit and support growing to other UD sports and athletic programs as well.

[Jeff]

Follow the money guys, follow the money....

[UDGutter2]

I am not for this move, but don't forget, UD has done well with transfers themselves.

[Lifelong Flyer Fan]

Can someone tell me how voting on these type of changes is done? Is it just a committee changing the rule or do all the member NCAA Div I schools have an equal vote?

[CoffeeCan]

Please continue this thread here:
http://udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30358

[San Diego Flyer]

Why would anyone want to keep the Big East thread alive. Open transfers is a totally different issue.

[longtimefan]

Originally Posted by CoffeeCan Please continue this thread here: http://udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30358

Why???

[CoffeeCan]

Originally Posted by longtimefan Why???

Because the better the conference, the less likely someone would transfer to a school in a better conference.

I realize we are not North Carolina or Kansas. But the better our position in the college basketball landscape, the better the recruits and the higher the likelihood that those prized recruits do not transfer. There is little doubt the Big East is a better conference.

The article suggests that we stand to lose good players due to transfers. I am just arguing that being in a better conference would help mitigate that potential situation.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by CoffeeCan Because the better the conference, the less likely someone would transfer to a school in a better conference. I realize we are not North Carolina or Kansas. But the better our position in the college basketball landscape, the better the recruits and the higher the likelihood that those prized recruits do not transfer. There is little doubt the Big East is a better conference. The article suggests that we stand to lose good players due to transfers. I am just arguing that being in a better conference would help mitigate that potential situation.

No, it won't. Seton Hall is going to have their best 2 players transfer every year just like UD. Seton Hall will not attract the key 2 players they need to move up and compete against Duke. Instead their key 2 players will go to Louisville, or the "kids from the old neighborhood" will all come together and decide to get the band back together for their senior year at Florida Gulf Coast and just screw off for their senior year. UD and Seton Hall will attract the late bloomers and the guys who fall from grace and need playing time to prove themselves; much like summer league NBA it will be a pickup game not basketball.

My time following NCAA basketball seems to be getting shorter.

[CE80]

RELAX. I read somewhere that this rule change is not even close to being enacted. I am sure there will be more opportunities for us to get on the ledge before then.

[San Diego Flyer]

Originally Posted by CE80 RELAX. I am sure there will be more opportunities for us to get on the ledge before then.

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by CE80 RELAX. I read somewhere that this rule change is not even close to being enacted. I am sure there will be more opportunities for us to get on the ledge before then.

This, and from what I have heard, the academic requirements that are going to be put in place for a player to be able to transfer and be immediately eligible to play right away could be lofty. If these are not met, a player would still need to sit out a year.

[TerryK_67]

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 ... ... the academic requirements that are going to be put in place for a player to be able to transfer and be immediately eligible to play right away could be lofty .....

And somehow we are to think that the academic bastions of integrity, like North Carolina, will somehow be guided to integrity with this rule????
give me break!

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by TerryK_67 And somehow we are to think that the academic bastions of integrity, like North Carolina, will somehow be guided to integrity with this rule???? give me break!

Well it works pretty well with the admissions process through the clearinghouse. I am sure this will be similar. 2 different areas here.

[hawkoooo]

Would these rules only apply to the "Power 5?" If they would apply to everyone I'm not sure what the problem. Ya'll do realize people transfer TO Dayton right?

[CE80]

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 This, and from what I have heard, the academic requirements that are going to be put in place for a player to be able to transfer and be immediately eligible to play right away could be lofty. If these are not met, a player would still need to sit out a year.

I saw that too. The task of the academic advisers will be to keep the student-athlete eligible to play at the current school but not to transfer and play right away.

[TX Flyer]

So you think they'd choose dayton over a Kentucky? Either way it kills the small schools. There would be no point in any of the schools outside the top 75-100 teams to play

[bcross]

Originally Posted by TX Flyer So you think they'd choose dayton over a Kentucky? Either way it kills the small schools. There would be no point in any of the schools outside the top 75-100 teams to play

Let's be honest, how does that differ from the way things are currently?

[Flyers98]

Originally Posted by TX Flyer So you think they'd choose dayton over a Kentucky? Either way it kills the small schools. There would be no point in any of the schools outside the top 75-100 teams to play

How many kids in the last 20 years has Dayton had that were good enough to play a significant role at Kentucky? The answer is somewhere between zero and none.

Putting aside the sitting out a year for a moment, I cant even think of a kid who left Dayton and went to a better program, let alone Kentucky or Duke. Closest I can think of is Meacham going to Illinois, and that could be argued.

It certainly doesn't help us but I agree with the previous comments that we aren't going to lose our best 3 players every year. Each school is still only going to have a certain number of scholarships available and every transfer they take is one less spot for an incoming 3 or 4 star recruit, and we will likely be the beneficiaries of the "secondary market" with kids that go to schools a tier or so below us who bloom and want to play on a bigger stage but aren't good enough to play at a P5 school.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Flyers98 How many kids in the last 20 years has Dayton had that were good enough to play a significant role at Kentucky? The answer is somewhere between zero and none.

Julius Mays transferred to UK?? That's WRIGHT STATE for those of you scoring at home.

Wright could have transferred and played nearly anywhere. He just didn't.

Roberts could have transferred and played nearly anywhere as a senior.

Siebert could have gotten his 1 year of attention with the NCAA run, then transferred back to a Big 10 school.

Scoochie, you were amazing for the first 3 years. Good luck at Butler for your senior year.

Hey XW, thanks for the 1 really good year. See you next year playing for Wisconsin. "Don't begrudge the man, you would do the same thing to move up in your career and make more money."

You know that sinking feeling we get after about 5 good years with a coach? That feeling that he's going to move on to a bigger job any year now? Well. . . imagine that feeling every single year with every player who has a good year.

[Gazoo]

This is effectively the Monty Hall problem. The P5 will trade away the goat behind door #1 and take a chance at the $1M prize behind door #2.

Hey you had a guy shoot 45% from 3 last year? Our shooter stunk. We'll set him loose and you might get him (and probably not) but we'll definitely take your shooter. Good luck re-recruiting to fill your best player's shoes every year between March and June.

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Julius Mays transferred to UK?? That's WRIGHT STATE for those of you scoring at home. Wright could have transferred and played nearly anywhere. He just didn't. Roberts could have transferred and played nearly anywhere as a senior. Siebert could have gotten his 1 year of attention with the NCAA run, then transferred back to a Big 10 school. Scoochie, you were amazing for the first 3 years. Good luck at Butler for your senior year. Hey XW, thanks for the 1 really good year. See you next year playing for Wisconsin. "Don't begrudge the man, you would do the same thing to move up in your career and make more money." You know that sinking feeling we get after about 5 good years with a coach? That feeling that he's going to move on to a bigger job any year now? Well. . . imagine that feeling every single year with every player who has a good year.

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.

[springborofan]

Putting the inevitable seediness that this will spawn aside, I don't think it would hurt UD too much. It's a two way street remember. UD may lose a player from time to time but UD may also be a nice landing spot for a former 4 star player at a blue blood school who has been recruited over. I think it's a wash for a UD but it would really hurt a Duquesne or a school like Ohio University

	Duquesne DUQUESNE Duquesne University is a private, coeducational university, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania located on 48 secluded acres, on a bluff above downtown. Founded in 1878 as a Catholic college by the Order of the Holy Spirit. It is the only Spiritan institution of higher education in the world. Duquesne offers 10 schools of study and 100 degree programs to 6,000 undergraduates and 3,800 graduate students. Fellow members of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Dukes.

[AZFlyer85]

I believe this could also be good for UD. Jordan Sibert couldn't get on the floor for OSU, he would have played here immediately. Other kids who want playing time could come here and get it immediately. It will be a balancing act, and a lot will depend on how our commits perform.

[CoffeeCan]

This new rule, if enacted, would benefit schools with coaching stability. And those would more than likely be a Michigan State than a UD.

The better the program, the more likely they are to keep their coach. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. But in general, UD is not an end destination. Maybe AG will not be the norm and be successful and stay for a long while. But in general, a coach at UDs level will be successful and leave for a better conference. Any school will bounce a coach that is not successful, but they will not have to worry as much about their coach taking a jump to a better school as the non-Power schools will.

[shocka43]

Look at the transfer of recruits after a coaching change...players that started to get a little more love and attention from "bigger" schools following signing.

This would essentially allow a kid that exceeds his "mid major expectation" to get on the train out to any P-5 school that may have some adversity or a need for a body. Sorry, but if a rule like this was to be enacted, it doesn't benefit anyone that has a standard for "student athlete". Sure, there are ways around it now...but there also are some inconveniences for one to transfer such as sitting out or garnering a release.

[Flyers98]

Good points all but I just don't see it playing out as this worst case scenario. I love our guys but CW could not have transferred anywhere in the country. Same with Roberts. Why in the world would Scootchie leave UD for Butler last year?

Look if it takes fans all of 30 seconds to identify the flaw I am sure there are voices yelling loudly in committee meetings from not only schools like Dayton but power 5 schools as well. Does Indiana want their best players being poached if they have a down year or a coach ****es someone off? How does something like this even get implemented? Seems like a big enough deal that some working group isn't just going to impose it on the whole of college sports. I am guessing this is an executive committee or even full membership level decision. If we were anywhere close to this becoming reality I'm guessing you would be hearing a lot more about it.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by xubrew There are only five sports that currently have a Year in Residency rule (or, the rule that makes players sit out a year) and they are men's basketball, women's basketball, baseball, football, and men's ice hockey. In every other sport, players can transfer one time and play right away if they leave eligible and if they are eligible at the new school they are going to. The stated reason that those five sports, and only those five sports, require a year in residency is because of academics. Those five sports historically perform poorly academically. The idea is that they have a year to get academically acclimated first. And, there you have it. If that is the only stated reason (and it is) then if a student is above a 2.6, then the thinking is that they shouldn't need a year to get academically acclimated. These are also the players that won't hurt a team's APR if they transfer out. All this handwringing is a little ridiculous. Sixty percent of basketball players who transfer don't even transfer to another div1 school. They go to div2, NAIA, or wherever. So, this rule won't effect them anyway. For the other forty percent, the rules are still pretty much the same. They still need permission to contact from their current school, and they will ultimately still need a release from their current school. If a school like Dayton is worried that players will leave them to go play for Kentucky, then they can simply not release them to play for Kentucky, which would still force them to sit out a year (and pay for it themselves) if they went to Kentucky. Just being real. The number of men's basketball players who will want to "transfer up", AND have a 2.6, AND get permission to contact, AND be offered a spot at a new school once they've gotten permission to contact, AND get a release from their current school to go the new school is going to be so small that almost everyone who is complaining now won't even notice the difference. As much as Rick Pitino knows about the X's and O's of basketball, he knows very little about NCAA compliance and its rules. He's proven this with how Louisville is appealing the ruling, and he's proving it again with how he completely misunderstands what this rule is, why it's in place, and why they are looking to (and likely will) change it. It really won't end up making THAT much of a difference. If a player is run off, and has a 2.6, then they won't have to sit out a year. That is really the only major side effect this rule is going to have. In fact anything Rick Pitino advocates for, you're probably wise in considering whatever the inverse of that thing is.

Brew, c'mon, you're smarter than this. Have you spent so much time in the compliance department that you're actually starting to believe the crap from the seminars the NCAA makes you attend??

You say these rules only apply to a few sports and it's because of academics. As they said in Animal House (cough) (bulls**t) (cough).

It's for money, Brew. Just say it. It's OK. The reason is money. They probably added ice hockey because they got themselves cornered by ice hockey players who had bad GPAs. "Oh, screw it, add ice hockey and baseball to the list, Americans barely care about that at the college level anyway, and we all know this is about basketball and football."

"Sixty percent of basketball players who transfer don't even transfer to another div1 school. They go to div2, NAIA, or wherever." 60% who transfer TODAY. You know, before it was costless and painless to transfer. You're going to say that sitting out a year has no impact on this?! That attitudes toward transferring will not change when the rules change?

"For the other forty percent, the rules are still pretty much the same. They still need permission to contact from their current school, and they will ultimately still need a release from their current school. If a school like Dayton is worried that players will leave them to go play for Kentucky, then they can simply not release them to play for Kentucky, which would still force them to sit out a year (and pay for it themselves) if they went to Kentucky." And if every other non-P5 school advertises that they'll release anyone and everyone if their stats blow up, and Dayton makes it clear they will not, you think this will have zero impact on recruiting? Really? The marginal player who feels incrementally tied to Dayton will not see this as a disadvantage?

You're 100% viewing the future through today's lens. You're like the person in 1960 who says "expanding this government program won't have any impact on the future attitudes of Americans towards entitlements, you're all being ridiculous."

It's possible it could be implemented in a way that will have no impact, it's also very possible that it will be implemented in a way that will have a very big impact.

[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.

[Gazoo]

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.

[bcross]

Originally Posted by Gazoo 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.

This seems like a bunch of hyperbole to me.

Most of UD's recruits have P5 offers coming out of high school, but chose UD instead. Were not making our bread and butter with a bunch of no name recruits who were overlooked in high school. I'm not sure how the allure of those mid-pack P5 schools is going to increase after a couple years of playing at UD when it wasn't an issue a couple years prior.

[m21eagle45]

Originally Posted by Gazoo 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.

1) Yes, I mean the currently proposed rule because that is the rule currently proposed. What else is there to debate other than dooms day hypotheticals that you are so sure will happen?

2) CW already had big offers. He chose to come to UD over those big offers. In his own words, he came to UD to build something and to show local talent they could go to Dayton and be successful.

BR would be the least surprising to me to transfer out of the ones you suggested, but I still can't see him transferring. He used that fact that he had no big offers as a chip on his shoulder. Maybe knowing CW and BR personally is affecting my view of your hypothetical dooms day you are saying would have happened. I was in school and around the program BR's last 2 years and CW's first 3 years.

3) SS was a good player at UD, but he was not an elite player. And you know exactly what I mean when I said he couldn't transfer anywhere. Meaning he wasn't good enough to go to the blue bloods and be an instant impact guy. He would have been solid bench player, but he is not starting at Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, or even a schools like Villanova, Gonzaga, or Xavier. I think we are letting recency bias cloud our judgement a little bit.

	Xavier XAVIER MUSKETEERS Dayton's biggest rival dating back to the early 1900s. Founded in 1831, Xavier University is a Jesuit, Catholic university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Its three colleges offer 78 undergraduate majors, 43 minors and 11 graduate programs to 6,646 total students, including 3,961 undergraduates. The University is the sixth-oldest Catholic university in the nation and one of 28 Jesuit colleges and universities nationwide. Xavier's nickname is the Musketeers and are fellow A10 Conference members.

[shocka43]

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."

No one can make an educated decision, in any aspect, and just throw it out there and say "I told you so" when it doesn't work out.

By that time the damage is done. And the P5 schools benefit the most. When the non P-5 schools are cannibalized, to benefit the P-5, the folks driving the ship (P-5) will end up with the ultimate say. Guys like Pitino, while advocating for Miami of Ohio, isn't telling the whole story. He doesn't want it because he doesn't want to have to compete to keep a kid from transferring to another competing school in their conference. Sure, you mention that kids still have to request a release, but in the scheme of things, it will be bad business not to grant a release for future recruiting.

As other's mentioned, it benefits a player to have a 5th year. Academically they can get grad school paid for, they mature as a player, etc. The only people it hurts are those where a year not on the floor delays their ability to play professionally.

There is a reason the rules are applied to certain sports and certain sports only...and that is because they are the big business sports that drive revenue.

[C-time]

Pitino sums up how bad he thinks it would be in this article. http://www.courier-journal.com/story...van/642093001/

This excerpt sums it up pretty well: “This is probably the worst piece of proposed legislation I’ve seen in my lifetime,” University of Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino said Thursday afternoon. “And it wouldn’t be bad for the University of Louisville. But it’s terrible for Miami of Ohio. If somebody has a young man that suddenly blows up and he’s at a mid-major school, this would kill mid-majors. Anybody who blows up: ‘You know what, I can go play at Duke, Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky. Let me transfer to a bigger level.’ It also gets AAU coaches and sneaker companies involved in trying to promote their player.

Archie also chimed in: “It would turn into one of the dirtiest recruiting periods that you’ve ever seen,” Indiana basketball coach Archie Miller told Scout.com

[xubrew]

There are only five sports that currently have a Year in Residency rule (or, the rule that makes players sit out a year) and they are men's basketball, women's basketball, baseball, football, and men's ice hockey. In every other sport, players can transfer one time and play right away if they leave eligible and if they are eligible at the new school they are going to.

The stated reason that those five sports, and only those five sports, require a year in residency is because of academics. Those five sports historically perform poorly academically. The idea is that they have a year to get academically acclimated first.

And, there you have it. If that is the only stated reason (and it is) then if a student is above a 2.6, then the thinking is that they shouldn't need a year to get academically acclimated. These are also the players that won't hurt a team's APR if they transfer out.

All this handwringing is a little ridiculous. Sixty percent of basketball players who transfer don't even transfer to another div1 school. They go to div2, NAIA, or wherever. So, this rule won't effect them anyway. For the other forty percent, the rules are still pretty much the same. They still need permission to contact from their current school, and they will ultimately still need a release from their current school. If a school like Dayton is worried that players will leave them to go play for Kentucky, then they can simply not release them to play for Kentucky, which would still force them to sit out a year (and pay for it themselves) if they went to Kentucky.

Just being real. The number of men's basketball players who will want to "transfer up", AND have a 2.6, AND get permission to contact, AND be offered a spot at a new school once they've gotten permission to contact, AND get a release from their current school to go the new school is going to be so small that almost everyone who is complaining now won't even notice the difference.

As much as Rick Pitino knows about the X's and O's of basketball, he knows very little about NCAA compliance and its rules. He's proven this with how Louisville is appealing the ruling, and he's proving it again with how he completely misunderstands what this rule is, why it's in place, and why they are looking to (and likely will) change it. It really won't end up making THAT much of a difference. If a player is run off, and has a 2.6, then they won't have to sit out a year. That is really the only major side effect this rule is going to have. In fact anything Rick Pitino advocates for, you're probably wise in considering whatever the inverse of that thing is.

[San Diego Flyer]

Did Title 9 stick to it's original intended purpose? You speak of this change as if it won't be abused and/or modified. I think it will be like opening the barn door eventually. The effectiveness of this change will be akin to a moving train.

[xubrew]

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer Did Title 9 stick to it's original intended purpose? You speak of this change as if it won't be abused and/or modified. I think it will be like opening the barn door eventually. The effectiveness of this change will be akin to a moving train.

It's not really a change. All other sports do it this way anyway. In fact all other sports don't even require a certain GPA to transfer and play right away if they get a release, and somehow have lower transfer rates.

Players who are below a 2.6 will still have to sit. Players who don't get a release will still have to sit. I don't see the "tampering" increasing all that much because if you tamper now there isn't much of a consequence. They have to sit for a year anyway, so what's the difference??

[San Diego Flyer]

By "all other sports" I assume you mean "all other than the 5 you listed". The rules inforcement is lax for sports that can't support themselves. No one pays any attention to Cross Country because they could all transfer in the middle of the night and no one would miss them in the morning. Can you name the top Cross Country team in the poll this season?

The P5 programs may fight this, but if it passes they will be the first ones to abuse it in the sports that pay the freight. IMO the framework for transfers will be nothing like it is today if this measure is adopted.

Like someone always says, follow the money trail.

[Lifelong Flyer Fan]

The immediate eligibility rule certainly bit UD in the *** a few years ago in Men's Soccer . I guess we shouldn't have given a release.

In 2014, we have a very good goal keeper in Chris Froschauer, a junior. In September of 2014, we play and defeat OSU 1-0.
Chris Froschauer transfers to OSU.
In the Fall of 2015, we go on a roll win the A10 tourney and thus in the NCAA. We win round 1 and our reward is to go to Columbus and play OSU in round 2.
Regulation ends in a tie 1-1. We play 2 OT and still a tie, so since it's a tourney it goes to Penalty Kicks with guess who in goal. Dayton loses 4-3 with their former goalie making all the saves.
I will always believe it cost our program a berth in the Sweet 16.

(And it is not the same as Jordan Sibert playing against OSU in the NCAA, because aside from sitting out a year, JS played very little at OSU. CF was in goal for UD almost 100%)

[Flyers98]

To be brutally honest, as a UD alum and fan, I really only care about DI basketball. I do care generally about the success of the athletic program but men's basketball is the undisputed King (and benefactor) of the department.

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.

[CE80]

Somebody please start a new thread when the rule actually changes. Until then I'll worry about other things.

[xubrew]

I can't help but think that if the roles were reversed, and they had just proposed implementing the YIR rule for the first time, all the same people who are wringing their hands now would be wringing their hands about how the bigger programs were trying th make it to where the guys who don't get much playing time would be discouraged from transferring to a smaller team so they could play more, and how it was all just another plot to screw over the smaller programs. Some people just find all kinds of reasons to think they're being screwed.
Posted via Mobile Device

[shwag33]

Originally Posted by xubrew I can't help but think that if the roles were reversed, and they had just proposed implementing the YIR rule for the first time, all the same people who are wringing their hands now would be wringing their hands about how the bigger programs were trying th make it to where the guys who don't get much playing time would be discouraged from transferring to a smaller team so they could play more, and how it was all just another plot to screw over the smaller programs. Some people just find all kinds of reasons to think they're being screwed. Posted via Mobile Device

Even if what you say is true, I'm not sure the most p5 schools would want this. The dukes/NC would benefit, but the recruiting resources and stress levels for the staff would go through the roof.

	Duquesne DUQUESNE Duquesne University is a private, coeducational university, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania located on 48 secluded acres, on a bluff above downtown. Founded in 1878 as a Catholic college by the Order of the Holy Spirit. It is the only Spiritan institution of higher education in the world. Duquesne offers 10 schools of study and 100 degree programs to 6,000 undergraduates and 3,800 graduate students. Fellow members of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Dukes.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by xubrew If it were up to me, the rule would be 2.6 across the board for all sports.

Why?

So you're saying if I go to Texas, and Texas provides a horrible environment for learning and no support, I should be punished (with sitting out a year) for transferring to another school that will provide me a better learning environment? This seems counter-intuitive.

It sounds to me like you're providing an argument for any arbitrary rule made by the NCAA.

Originally Posted by xubrew I can't help but think that if the roles were reversed, and they had just proposed implementing the YIR rule for the first time, all the same people who are wringing their hands now would be wringing their hands about how the bigger programs were trying th make it to where the guys who don't get much playing time would be discouraged from transferring to a smaller team so they could play more, and how it was all just another plot to screw over the smaller programs. Some people just find all kinds of reasons to think they're being screwed. Posted via Mobile Device

[xubrew]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Why? So you're saying if I go to Texas, and Texas provides a horrible environment for learning and no support, I should be punished (with sitting out a year) for transferring to another school that will provide me a better learning environment? This seems counter-intuitive. It sounds to me like you're providing an argument for any arbitrary rule made by the NCAA.

Because schools don't lose APR retention points for athletes who transfer out with a 2.6 GPA or better. I remember when that rule passed. The same people that are always predicting doomsday scenarios were doing it then too.

I'm not going to say that the APR isn't arbitrary in and of itself (although THEY claim that it's not), but that's the reason. That's also the reason that I'm almost 99 percent sure that the required GPA to not have to sit out will be a 2.6.

[shocka43]

Brew...you mention making the revenue sports like the non-revenue...no one cares about the non-revenue sports. In the scheme of things, the non-revenue sports are there for posturing (such as UD wanting a overall good athletic reputation for conference affiliation). Some of the non-revenue sports are there for quite a bit of Title compliance. No one is making noise because a women's shot put athlete transferred from UD to some other school with women's track and field. A star running back from tOSU transfers to Florida...that's an entirely different level of importance to certain schools/programs/players/revenue.

Sorry, but trying to justify the change with the guarantee that some selected GPA is going to keep the process honest doesn't hold water.

We see athletic powerhouses getting away/trying to get away with with academic fraud issues frequently. A 2.6 at UD isn't the same as a 2.6 at another institution. So that is a rather arbitrary number depending on the school you are at.

I would keep the 1 year of sitting out and remove the requirement that you be released by your university. Therefore it is still the student athlete's choice, but there is a little skin in the game...you have to sit a year and miss out on doing what you want to do. I want the students to be in control but I don't want it to be a free for all either. GPA's are irrelevant. Keep a minimum GPA across the entire country regardless of the player being a transfer, traditional, online, girls rowing, or men's basketball player. I don't what there to be an incentive for college coaches and programs to work together to buck the system. Coach A tells player B...Go play for my buddy down the road and when a scholly frees up next year you can come back to me. There are plenty of shifty coaches that would take on a one year player if it was someone they didn't have a chance at in the first place. I am not a fan of rules being put in place that have a chance at further separating the competitive balance among DI programs. Don't want to sit out a year...Go to DII or DIII.

[xubrew]

I only mention that the revenue sports are like the non-revenue sports to point out how flawed this logic is...

"The reason for the year in residency rule for football and basketball is because of money!! And the reason they're changing the rule to make it more like the non-revenue sports is because of money!!"

It's as if people think something is fishy as to why the rules are different, and when a change is being made that just happens to make it more like everything else, they think something is even more fishy. Truth be told I find that a little humorous, that's all. People are going to find something wrong with everything. If a rule came out that all non power five schools could add an extra scholarship, people would be complaining about how the roster size would be more difficult to manage, and how team chemistry would go down the toilet, and how it's just another example of how the NCAA is trying to screw them.

I would keep the 1 year of sitting out and remove the requirement that you be released by your university. Therefore it is still the student athlete's choice, but there is a little skin in the game...you have to sit a year and miss out on doing what you want to do

This won't ever happen, but I'd be fine with it. The issues with tampering would go through the roof if players suddenly didn't need permission to contact or a release, but I'd have no problems with this rule. The way I see it they're not really "missing out." They get five years to play four seasons. That's the same whether they make them do the year in residency or not. They just have to take a break for a year, that's all. They don't actually lose the season.

This will not be the death of college basketball. If it happens, then I don't think anyone will really notice or care once it comes to be. The graduate transfer rule and the cost of living stipends were supposed to be the end, yet all the doomsday prognosticators are still here and it's as if they barely noticed. They won't notice this either. Conference realignment, ending long standing rivalries, autonomy, bad TV deals that result in teams not being on in their local markets except on channels almost no one gets, replay timeouts that last five minutes, bloated conferences playing bloated conference schedules, etc. Those things will do more to cause the death of college basketball than this ever will. I know it may be disappointing to some if this doesn't end it all because it will be one less thing that they're able to complain about, but I just don't see it happening. Take it for what it's worth. I don't care if they do it or not because I don't think it will matter that much either way.

Anyway, carry on!!

[shocka43]

Brew...

I don't recall stating that the current 1 year rule was about money...I said it was about control and schools maintaining control over a player. I also said that the current rule prevents the big schools from pilfering the small schools. It prevents a free for all.

I stated that the elimination of the 1 year rule is about money for the NCAA and the ability to make more of it by permitting teams to use the non-P5 as the minors and opening up more avenues for shifty deals. It also allows the big schools to benefit financially while the smaller schools potentially suffer.

There are many groups that are impacted by rule changes. You can't look at it from just the NCAA's view...the school's view...the player's view...everyone has a different reason or need for the rule being one way or another. Not all of their interests are the same and I think that is where you are misunderstanding me.

In the end I see a circular discussion by all of us on here and no one brings up the question of "What is best for the student-athlete"? The reason it hasn't been brought up is that everyone knows it is about money, power, and control. We are focused on the corruption that may go on and the athletes are the pawns in the game. Face it, very few, if any, DI athletes are going to transfer because of academics. They are transferring for athletics...it isn't "student athlete" it is "athlete student" and nowhere in this discussion is anyone bringing up academic arguments that make any sense other than a minimum to transfer.

[Bucketnight]

I am once again amused and confused at the level of consternation some people feel when facing their inability to control the choices of others.

When will the sky stop falling...

[C-time]

Originally Posted by Bucketnight When will the sky stop falling...

When it hits the roof! or the ceiling! or whatever it was that Michael Jordan said!