UDPride Discussion Forums    
     

Go Back   UDPride Discussion Forums > UDPRIDE SPORTS FORUMS > Mens Basketball

» Log in
User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
» Advertisement
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-10-2017, 02:55 PM
Flyer Al's Avatar
Flyer Al Flyer Al is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Miami Township
Posts: 979
Thanks: 384
Thanked 1,005 Times in 313 Posts
Flyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond reputeFlyer Al has a reputation beyond repute
Welcome to the death of basketball

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.
__________________
Check out Hoops Dynasty!
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Flyer Al For This Totally Excellent Post:
Flyer 86 (09-11-2017)
Advertisement
  #2  
Old 09-10-2017, 04:42 PM
San Diego Flyer's Avatar
San Diego Flyer San Diego Flyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 12,793
Thanks: 7,392
Thanked 8,387 Times in 3,747 Posts
San Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Ouch !!

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-10-2017, 05:11 PM
Jeff Jeff is offline
Major
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: OKC
Posts: 677
Thanks: 307
Thanked 364 Times in 188 Posts
Jeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant futureJeff has a brilliant future
Follow the money guys, follow the money....
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-10-2017, 08:26 PM
UDGutter2's Avatar
UDGutter2 UDGutter2 is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Coldwater
Posts: 850
Thanks: 936
Thanked 566 Times in 255 Posts
UDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond reputeUDGutter2 has a reputation beyond repute
I am not for this move, but don't forget, UD has done well with transfers themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-10-2017, 08:49 PM
Lifelong Flyer Fan Lifelong Flyer Fan is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,925
Thanks: 3,897
Thanked 2,889 Times in 1,027 Posts
Lifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond repute
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-10-2017, 08:49 PM
CoffeeCan's Avatar
CoffeeCan CoffeeCan is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 769
Thanks: 171
Thanked 652 Times in 275 Posts
CoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant future
Please continue this thread here:
http://udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30358
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-10-2017, 09:29 PM
San Diego Flyer's Avatar
San Diego Flyer San Diego Flyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 12,793
Thanks: 7,392
Thanked 8,387 Times in 3,747 Posts
San Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Why would anyone want to keep the Big East thread alive. Open transfers is a totally different issue.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to San Diego Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
Flyer14 (09-10-2017)
  #8  
Old 09-10-2017, 10:07 PM
longtimefan longtimefan is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,807
Thanks: 2,567
Thanked 4,748 Times in 2,192 Posts
longtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by CoffeeCan View Post
Please continue this thread here:
http://udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30358
Why???
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to longtimefan For This Totally Excellent Post:
TerryK_67 (09-11-2017)
  #9  
Old 09-11-2017, 08:53 AM
CoffeeCan's Avatar
CoffeeCan CoffeeCan is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 769
Thanks: 171
Thanked 652 Times in 275 Posts
CoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant future
Originally Posted by longtimefan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-11-2017, 09:14 AM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by CoffeeCan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-11-2017, 09:30 AM
CE80's Avatar
CE80 CE80 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,449
Thanks: 3,727
Thanked 4,258 Times in 2,104 Posts
CE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond repute
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.
Reply With Quote
5 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to CE80 For This Totally Excellent Post:
C-time (09-11-2017), Flyer 86 (09-11-2017), m21eagle45 (09-11-2017), San Diego Flyer (09-11-2017), UDBaby (09-11-2017)
  #12  
Old 09-11-2017, 10:21 AM
San Diego Flyer's Avatar
San Diego Flyer San Diego Flyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 12,793
Thanks: 7,392
Thanked 8,387 Times in 3,747 Posts
San Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by CE80 View Post
RELAX. I am sure there will be more opportunities for us to get on the ledge before then.

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-11-2017, 10:26 AM
m21eagle45's Avatar
m21eagle45 m21eagle45 is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,615
Thanks: 2,127
Thanked 1,936 Times in 900 Posts
m21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by CE80 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-11-2017, 11:04 AM
TerryK_67 TerryK_67 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: westerville, Ohio
Posts: 1,229
Thanks: 788
Thanked 847 Times in 415 Posts
TerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by m21eagle45 View Post
...
... 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!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-11-2017, 11:22 AM
CE80's Avatar
CE80 CE80 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,449
Thanks: 3,727
Thanked 4,258 Times in 2,104 Posts
CE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by m21eagle45 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to CE80 For This Totally Excellent Post:
Gazoo (09-11-2017)
  #16  
Old 09-11-2017, 11:52 AM
m21eagle45's Avatar
m21eagle45 m21eagle45 is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,615
Thanks: 2,127
Thanked 1,936 Times in 900 Posts
m21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by TerryK_67 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-11-2017, 12:43 PM
hawkoooo's Avatar
hawkoooo hawkoooo is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 460
Thanked 701 Times in 359 Posts
hawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond reputehawkoooo has a reputation beyond repute
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?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-11-2017, 12:48 PM
TX Flyer TX Flyer is offline
1st Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 183
Thanks: 45
Thanked 188 Times in 80 Posts
TX Flyer is a splendid one to beholdTX Flyer is a splendid one to beholdTX Flyer is a splendid one to beholdTX Flyer is a splendid one to beholdTX Flyer is a splendid one to beholdTX Flyer is a splendid one to beholdTX Flyer is a splendid one to behold
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
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-11-2017, 02:28 PM
OCFlyer85 OCFlyer85 is offline
1st Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 117
Thanks: 41
Thanked 85 Times in 40 Posts
OCFlyer85 is a jewel in the roughOCFlyer85 is a jewel in the roughOCFlyer85 is a jewel in the roughOCFlyer85 is a jewel in the rough
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-11-2017, 02:44 PM
bcross bcross is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,017
Thanks: 51
Thanked 614 Times in 316 Posts
bcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant future
Originally Posted by TX Flyer View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to bcross For This Totally Excellent Post:
m21eagle45 (09-11-2017)
  #21  
Old 09-11-2017, 03:21 PM
CoffeeCan's Avatar
CoffeeCan CoffeeCan is offline
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 769
Thanks: 171
Thanked 652 Times in 275 Posts
CoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant futureCoffeeCan has a brilliant future
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-11-2017, 03:45 PM
Flyers98 Flyers98 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 106
Thanks: 67
Thanked 143 Times in 57 Posts
Flyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud of
Originally Posted by TX Flyer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Flyers98 For This Totally Excellent Post:
flyerfanatic86 (09-11-2017), m21eagle45 (09-11-2017)
  #23  
Old 09-11-2017, 04:37 PM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Flyers98 View Post
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.

Last edited by Gazoo; 09-11-2017 at 04:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Gazoo For This Totally Excellent Post:
Lifelong Flyer Fan (09-12-2017), San Diego Flyer (09-11-2017)
  #24  
Old 09-11-2017, 04:41 PM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-11-2017, 04:49 PM
shocka43's Avatar
shocka43 shocka43 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: It's hot and there is fire
Posts: 6,583
Thanks: 3,600
Thanked 6,071 Times in 2,625 Posts
shocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
The lion doesn't lose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to shocka43 For This Totally Excellent Post:
Gazoo (09-12-2017), Lifelong Flyer Fan (09-12-2017), San Diego Flyer (09-11-2017)
  #26  
Old 09-11-2017, 07:10 PM
Flyers98 Flyers98 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 106
Thanks: 67
Thanked 143 Times in 57 Posts
Flyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud of
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-11-2017, 07:52 PM
C-time's Avatar
C-time C-time is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,070
Thanks: 1,533
Thanked 2,169 Times in 1,090 Posts
C-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond repute
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
Reply With Quote
5 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to C-time For This Totally Excellent Post:
Gazoo (09-12-2017), Glen Clark (09-12-2017), Lifelong Flyer Fan (09-12-2017), m21eagle45 (09-12-2017), shocka43 (09-11-2017)
  #28  
Old 09-12-2017, 10:23 AM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
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.

Last edited by xubrew; 09-12-2017 at 10:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to xubrew For This Totally Excellent Post:
Glen Clark (09-12-2017), Radar (09-12-2017), rollo (09-12-2017)
  #29  
Old 09-12-2017, 10:33 AM
San Diego Flyer's Avatar
San Diego Flyer San Diego Flyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 12,793
Thanks: 7,392
Thanked 8,387 Times in 3,747 Posts
San Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
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.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to San Diego Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
Gazoo (09-12-2017), TerryK_67 (09-12-2017)
  #30  
Old 09-12-2017, 10:45 AM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer View Post
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??
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-12-2017, 11:05 AM
San Diego Flyer's Avatar
San Diego Flyer San Diego Flyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 12,793
Thanks: 7,392
Thanked 8,387 Times in 3,747 Posts
San Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeSan Diego Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
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.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to San Diego Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
shocka43 (09-12-2017)
  #32  
Old 09-12-2017, 11:13 AM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Men's XCC I'm not sure of, but I'm pretty sure Colorado is #1 on the women's side. To answer your point I could probably easily name at least six or seven who are in the top ten, but couldn't tell you exactly what their ranking is. Then again, I can't do that for football or basketball at any given point either. I like the polls, but I only casually follow them.

The rule enforcement is NOT lax for all the other sports. I don't know what you're basing that on. Kids get blocked from transferring and/or are forced to sit out a year all the time. Can you name just one example to counter that?? When has it ever been lax?? The same compliance officers who deal with football and basketball deal with all of the sports, and they are certainly not lax when it comes to transfers and permission to contact.

Last edited by xubrew; 09-12-2017 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-12-2017, 11:22 AM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer View Post
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?
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
Men's XCC I'm not sure of, but I'm pretty sure Colorado is #1 on the women's side. To answer your point I could probably easily name at least six or seven who are in the top ten, but couldn't tell you exactly what their ranking is. Then again, I can't do that for football or basketball at any given point either. I like the polls, but I only casually follow them.

To be fair, you were asking the wrong person To your point, the national interest in all the other sports is low. But, I think you'd be surprised at how strictly enforced the rules are. Coaches are just as competitive in women's soccer as they are in men's basketball, and if they feel they can get a player from another school that won't have to sit a year, they'll try. And if it doesn't work out, they'll have to not transfer or sit out and pay for it if they do. What's also in play is the type of academic scholarships they're able to get at another school. Sometimes that can help cover the cost.

Last edited by xubrew; 09-12-2017 at 11:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-12-2017, 12:01 PM
Lifelong Flyer Fan Lifelong Flyer Fan is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,925
Thanks: 3,897
Thanked 2,889 Times in 1,027 Posts
Lifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond reputeLifelong Flyer Fan has a reputation beyond repute
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%)
Reply With Quote
4 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Lifelong Flyer Fan For This Totally Excellent Post:
fuz_forward (09-12-2017), Gazoo (09-12-2017), Glen Clark (09-12-2017), San Diego Flyer (09-12-2017)
  #35  
Old 09-12-2017, 12:30 PM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Gazoo For This Totally Excellent Post:
shocka43 (09-12-2017)
  #36  
Old 09-12-2017, 12:43 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
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.

Last edited by xubrew; 09-12-2017 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-12-2017, 12:49 PM
Flyers98 Flyers98 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 106
Thanks: 67
Thanked 143 Times in 57 Posts
Flyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud ofFlyers98 has much to be proud of
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.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Flyers98 For This Totally Excellent Post:
O'side Flyer (09-13-2017)
  #38  
Old 09-12-2017, 12:55 PM
m21eagle45's Avatar
m21eagle45 m21eagle45 is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,615
Thanks: 2,127
Thanked 1,936 Times in 900 Posts
m21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Gazoo View Post
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.

Last edited by m21eagle45; 09-12-2017 at 01:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-12-2017, 01:39 PM
springborofan springborofan is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Springboro
Posts: 1,175
Thanks: 1,006
Thanked 1,281 Times in 515 Posts
springborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond reputespringborofan has a reputation beyond repute
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
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to springborofan For This Totally Excellent Post:
m21eagle45 (09-12-2017)
  #40  
Old 09-12-2017, 01:51 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
I don't have THAT strong of an opinion either way. A player gets four seasons. Making them sit out a year does not take a season away from them, and allowing them to play right away does not give them an additional year. If anything, making them redshirt a year probably pays off in the long run because they get an extra year to practice and develop, as well as an extra year of college paid for. I can think of several examples where transfer players were huge impact players in their final seasons. Well, under the proposal, those players would have already been gone.

If they want to keep it the same, then great. If they want to change it, then great. I don't think it matters a whole lot either way and don't understand why everyone is going crazy. If the reason for the YIR is because of academics, then it makes sense to waive it for anyone with a GPA of 2.6. And honestly, that's not as many basketball players as you think.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-12-2017, 02:48 PM
CE80's Avatar
CE80 CE80 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,449
Thanks: 3,727
Thanked 4,258 Times in 2,104 Posts
CE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond reputeCE80 has a reputation beyond repute
Somebody please start a new thread when the rule actually changes. Until then I'll worry about other things.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-12-2017, 03:46 PM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-12-2017, 04:25 PM
shocka43's Avatar
shocka43 shocka43 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: It's hot and there is fire
Posts: 6,583
Thanks: 3,600
Thanked 6,071 Times in 2,625 Posts
shocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
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.
__________________
The lion doesn't lose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to shocka43 For This Totally Excellent Post:
Gazoo (09-12-2017)
  #44  
Old 09-12-2017, 04:32 PM
bcross bcross is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,017
Thanks: 51
Thanked 614 Times in 316 Posts
bcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant futurebcross has a brilliant future
Originally Posted by Gazoo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to bcross For This Totally Excellent Post:
m21eagle45 (09-12-2017)
  #45  
Old 09-12-2017, 05:24 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Gazoo View Post

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."
Originally Posted by shocka43 View Post
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.
So the reason for the year in residence rule is because of the money? Is that what you're saying? That's why men's basketball, football, and other high revenue generating sports such as women's basketball, baseball, and ice hockey have these rules?

Okay, maybe it is.

But if that's the case, then I guess by changing the rules to make it more like the other sports that don't make any money at all must mean that they no longer want a rule in place that is about the money.

I really think that you're both wrong. I think it's about paperwork. Or, more specifically, wanting less of it. It may sound like I'm kidding, but I'm not. They don't want to deal with waivers, and this is a way to not have to.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-12-2017, 05:56 PM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by bcross View Post
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.
Maybe. But think about this. You're SS. You have an offer as a high school senior to play at Butler. Butler currently has a junior PG who is pretty darn good, no shot of starting for 2 years. And they have a current freshman PG 1 year ahead of you who is ranked as high as you. Competition is good, you're up for it (starting your sophomore season most likely). But then UD comes calling. You can play in the NCAA tournament. You can play in big preseason tournaments. You can play a very reasonable regular season schedule. And you can do it for 4 years because you'll play real minutes starting as a freshman, and maybe even start by the time you're a sophomore / junior.

What would you do? Some would go to Butler. Others would go to UD. My sense is that often we get the guy coming to UD who expects he will likely play as a freshman. As others have said, the guy coming to UD who could play major minutes as a freshman at a serious P5 school is not incredibly rare historically, but, it's not like there are 3 in every class either. It's pretty rare.

So now SS spends 3 years at UD and sees a poor recruiting class or graduating seniors. He knows he's not going to be on a great team his senior season. So he uses his transfer to play backup at a big school who's PG tore his ACL. Make a run, have some fun. What would you do?
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Gazoo For This Totally Excellent Post:
shocka43 (09-12-2017)
  #47  
Old 09-12-2017, 06:05 PM
shocka43's Avatar
shocka43 shocka43 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: It's hot and there is fire
Posts: 6,583
Thanks: 3,600
Thanked 6,071 Times in 2,625 Posts
shocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
So the reason for the year in residence rule is because of the money? Is that what you're saying? That's why men's basketball, football, and other high revenue generating sports such as women's basketball, baseball, and ice hockey have these rules?

Okay, maybe it is.

But if that's the case, then I guess by changing the rules to make it more like the other sports that don't make any money at all must mean that they no longer want a rule in place that is about the money.

I really think that you're both wrong. I think it's about paperwork. Or, more specifically, wanting less of it. It may sound like I'm kidding, but I'm not. They don't want to deal with waivers, and this is a way to not have to.
You may be correct, but I am not buying the fact they want to change a process due to the administrative work that in entails. The NCAA has shown over the years to be hypocritical in the leveling of discipline to schools/coaches, equitable "caring" for non P-5 schools/conferences, etc. I have seen first hand the expectations that Emmert has for himself and his cronies versus that of the typical fan. They claim "student-athlete" and academics when we all know the big business behind it. So for me to assume that a pretty big change with the way athletes are handled by the NCAA makes me pause.

The main issue that it boils down to is the fact that making it easier to transfer on a whim, makes it easier for shady moves and taking the "amateurism" out of college athletics. Also, there are multiple groups here...the NCAA, P-5's, non-P-5's, coaches, and athletes. There are different incentives for each depending on which one of the two rules we talk about.

The year for the 1 year residency rule currently in place is about control. The more control the schools have over an athlete, the better for them. If it wasn't about control and stability then why do schools have to request waivers? It is the same as a "no-compete clause" in business. The athletes know the schools are in control of their future should they want to continue playing sports. The schools and the NCAA drive the ship. Changing the rule makes it easier for shady business. Changing the rule makes it easier for a school with resources to nab a player once a scholly frees up in year two and they just played a year of "JV" for a mid-major.

I typically advocate for the athlete. Having school choice definitely benefits the athletes. But given the money driven business of NCAA sports, the desire for adults that are part of this business to take advantage of athletes expands with a rule change. Currently I think it takes some thought and planning for a player to decide to leave. Are players going to pull a Crosby each year and want to pack their bags? I simply think that this will cause problems.
__________________
The lion doesn't lose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to shocka43 For This Totally Excellent Post:
Gazoo (09-12-2017)
  #48  
Old 09-12-2017, 06:07 PM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
So the reason for the year in residence rule is because of the money? Is that what you're saying? That's why men's basketball, football, and other high revenue generating sports such as women's basketball, baseball, and ice hockey have these rules?

Okay, maybe it is.

But if that's the case, then I guess by changing the rules to make it more like the other sports that don't make any money at all must mean that they no longer want a rule in place that is about the money.

I really think that you're both wrong. I think it's about paperwork. Or, more specifically, wanting less of it. It may sound like I'm kidding, but I'm not. They don't want to deal with waivers, and this is a way to not have to.
The rule is there to protect the school, not the athlete. Let's be totally honest here. Schools didn't want their own talent poached by other schools. If they're going to invest millions in luxurious stadiums and donor packages, they need to know they're going to have a consistent product on the field where they have a little bit of control.

Now, back when there were >100 serious contenders for talent that was a problem. But what if we play 20 game conference schedules and lock out the little guy from the NCAA tournament? What if non-P5 schools can't keep up with the stipends of the big state schools? What if, through conference realignment, you slam the door shut on the majority of your competition?

Well at that point the football schools only have about 20 - 30 serious contenders who control all the money, and basketball has about 30-40. No need to transfer from Notre Dame to Wisconsin, they're at no serious risk.

It's the same logic that says "you can get into the NCAA tournament, just beat someone in March to prove how good you are."
"No one will play us in March except our crappy conference foes."
"No? That's a shame. Here's your NIT bid."

They can just say "you're free to get transfers too, what's the big deal?"
"No one will transfer to a school who has no hope of making the NCAA tournament due to conference realignment etc."
"No? That's a shame."
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-12-2017, 06:54 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
You may be correct, but I am not buying the fact they want to change a process due to the administrative work that in entails.
That's actually one of the main reasons legislation gets through. That's why minors can now count toward eligibility. They just got sick of getting waiver after waiver after waiver. If you're always granting waivers, then why have the rule? This also isn't really coming from the schools. And, you later say that it's about big

[quoteThey claim "student-athlete" and academics when we all know the big business behind it. So for me to assume that a pretty big change with the way athletes are handled by the NCAA makes me pause.[/quote]

I can understand that, but while pausing do you ever think about how the pretty big change is making the revenue sports MORE like the non-revenue sports when it comes to what the rules are for transfers?

I really don't care what they do. I know everyone is going to find a doomsday scenario with virtually every change the NCAA makes. In reality, I just don't think this matters all that much. If it were up to me, the rule would be 2.6 across the board for all sports. If you're at or above it you don't have to do a year in residency. If you're below it, then you do. But, I don't really feel strongly enough about it to really care what they do. Either way, a kid is getting to play for four seasons. If they were to take a season away, then I'd have an issue. If they were to add a fifth season, then I'd have an issue. That's not what they're doing, so I really don't care and I really don't think it matters, especially for sports where the majority of players fail to meet the requirements for not having to sit out a year anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-12-2017, 07:57 PM
longtimefan longtimefan is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,807
Thanks: 2,567
Thanked 4,748 Times in 2,192 Posts
longtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond reputelongtimefan has a reputation beyond repute
Anyone who thinks this rule change would not hurt the "smaller" schools and help the "bigger" schools is naive.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to longtimefan For This Totally Excellent Post:
shocka43 (09-12-2017)
  #51  
Old 09-12-2017, 08:30 PM
shwag33 shwag33 is offline
2nd Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 50
Thanks: 12
Thanked 43 Times in 25 Posts
shwag33 is a jewel in the roughshwag33 is a jewel in the roughshwag33 is a jewel in the rough
Originally Posted by longtimefan View Post
Anyone who thinks this rule change would not hurt the "smaller" schools and help the "bigger" schools is naive.
It would be free agency every year.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-12-2017, 09:13 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
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
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to xubrew For This Totally Excellent Post:
Gazoo (09-13-2017)
  #53  
Old 09-12-2017, 09:38 PM
shwag33 shwag33 is offline
2nd Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 50
Thanks: 12
Thanked 43 Times in 25 Posts
shwag33 is a jewel in the roughshwag33 is a jewel in the roughshwag33 is a jewel in the rough
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-12-2017, 10:27 PM
shocka43's Avatar
shocka43 shocka43 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: It's hot and there is fire
Posts: 6,583
Thanks: 3,600
Thanked 6,071 Times in 2,625 Posts
shocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
The lion doesn't lose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-13-2017, 09:43 AM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
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!!
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to xubrew For This Totally Excellent Post:
rollo (09-13-2017)
  #56  
Old 09-13-2017, 10:12 AM
m21eagle45's Avatar
m21eagle45 m21eagle45 is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,615
Thanks: 2,127
Thanked 1,936 Times in 900 Posts
m21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Gazoo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to m21eagle45 For This Totally Excellent Post:
rollo (09-13-2017)
  #57  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:46 PM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by m21eagle45 View Post
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?
We need to fully let anyone who identifies as a girl be a girl.

Hah! The next thing you know, boys will be competing in girls sports and claiming to be women.

Oh COME ON, you're being ridiculous.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...e-championship

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 View Post
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.
CW chose to come to UD the first time. What you're ignoring is this: what if there was effectively painless free agency, and he had 3 more choices to make? You're claiming he could have chosen UD 4 times, when in fact he only chose UD once.

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 View Post
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.
Bull pucky. I'm not saying he was a top 5 PG in the country, but he absolutely could have transferred and started at a number of other top 25 schools. His shooting, finishing ability, defense, ability to distribute, quickness, and moxy were not holding him back.

You can find 5 schools where he would not have started, but, the exception doesn't prove the rule. The question is this: might there have been teams with better prospects than UD (who wasn't even ranked) where he could have transferred and started? It only takes 1.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:51 PM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
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 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:54 PM
m21eagle45's Avatar
m21eagle45 m21eagle45 is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,615
Thanks: 2,127
Thanked 1,936 Times in 900 Posts
m21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Gazoo View Post
We need to fully let anyone who identifies as a girl be a girl.

Hah! The next thing you know, boys will be competing in girls sports and claiming to be women.

Oh COME ON, you're being ridiculous.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...e-championship



CW chose to come to UD the first time. What you're ignoring is this: what if there was effectively painless free agency, and he had 3 more choices to make? You're claiming he could have chosen UD 4 times, when in fact he only chose UD once.



Bull pucky. I'm not saying he was a top 5 PG in the country, but he absolutely could have transferred and started at a number of other top 25 schools. His shooting, finishing ability, defense, ability to distribute, quickness, and moxy were not holding him back.

You can find 5 schools where he would not have started, but, the exception doesn't prove the rule. The question is this: might there have been teams with better prospects than UD (who wasn't even ranked) where he could have transferred and started? It only takes 1.
What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with this. I am done with you on this topic...Unreal. What does gender identity have anything to do with transfer rules?

Last edited by m21eagle45; 09-13-2017 at 02:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:34 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Gazoo View Post
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.

Last edited by xubrew; 09-13-2017 at 02:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to xubrew For This Totally Excellent Post:
m21eagle45 (09-13-2017)
  #61  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:15 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Gazoo View Post
We need to fully let anyone who identifies as a girl be a girl.

Hah! The next thing you know, boys will be competing in girls sports and claiming to be women.

Oh COME ON, you're being ridiculous.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...e-championship



CW chose to come to UD the first time. What you're ignoring is this: what if there was effectively painless free agency, and he had 3 more choices to make? You're claiming he could have chosen UD 4 times, when in fact he only chose UD once.



Bull pucky. I'm not saying he was a top 5 PG in the country, but he absolutely could have transferred and started at a number of other top 25 schools. His shooting, finishing ability, defense, ability to distribute, quickness, and moxy were not holding him back.

You can find 5 schools where he would not have started, but, the exception doesn't prove the rule. The question is this: might there have been teams with better prospects than UD (who wasn't even ranked) where he could have transferred and started? It only takes 1.
Ummm.....huh?? You might want to have your house checked for lead.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:58 PM
TerryK_67 TerryK_67 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: westerville, Ohio
Posts: 1,229
Thanks: 788
Thanked 847 Times in 415 Posts
TerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond reputeTerryK_67 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
Ummm.....huh?? You might want to have your house checked for lead.
you keep quoting these academic requirements as if they will mean something.... If I recall correctly, North Carolina's "defense" in their NCAA investigation is that "academics" are the school's responsibility, not the NCAAs.... so the NCAA should stay out of it....
What will be different here? If a place like NC wants it to turn out a given way, guess which way it will turn out.....
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:20 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,202
Thanks: 382
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,011 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by TerryK_67 View Post
you keep quoting these academic requirements as if they will mean something.... If I recall correctly, North Carolina's "defense" in their NCAA investigation is that "academics" are the school's responsibility, not the NCAAs.... so the NCAA should stay out of it....
What will be different here? If a place like NC wants it to turn out a given way, guess which way it will turn out.....
Nothing I say really means anything. I'm simply saying what I think is going to happen. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-13-2017, 06:07 PM
shocka43's Avatar
shocka43 shocka43 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: It's hot and there is fire
Posts: 6,583
Thanks: 3,600
Thanked 6,071 Times in 2,625 Posts
shocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond reputeshocka43 has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
The lion doesn't lose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to shocka43 For This Totally Excellent Post:
Gazoo (09-14-2017), UDGutter2 (09-14-2017)
  #65  
Old 09-13-2017, 08:32 PM
Bucketnight Bucketnight is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ponte Vedra, Fl
Posts: 259
Thanks: 277
Thanked 329 Times in 103 Posts
Bucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond reputeBucketnight has a reputation beyond repute
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...
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:58 PM
C-time's Avatar
C-time C-time is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,070
Thanks: 1,533
Thanked 2,169 Times in 1,090 Posts
C-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond reputeC-time has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Bucketnight View Post
When will the sky stop falling...
When it hits the roof! or the ceiling! or whatever it was that Michael Jordan said!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-14-2017, 09:54 AM
Gazoo's Avatar
Gazoo Gazoo is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,611
Thanks: 2,754
Thanked 3,269 Times in 1,483 Posts
Gazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond reputeGazoo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by m21eagle45 View Post
What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with this. I am done with you on this topic...Unreal. What does gender identity have anything to do with transfer rules?
You made the argument that Decision #1 is final, and that's as far as the discussion goes. I'm making the argument that Decision #1 opens the door to Decision #2, Decision #3, etc. It's just the first change, and each time the first change happens people want to say "come on, it's just one little change." And then once that change is accepted you start working on the next change.

Said differently, "give an inch and you'll take a mile." This is one of the additional inches being given to the big schools, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-14-2017, 09:59 AM
m21eagle45's Avatar
m21eagle45 m21eagle45 is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,615
Thanks: 2,127
Thanked 1,936 Times in 900 Posts
m21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by m21eagle45 View Post
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.
Originally Posted by m21eagle45 View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Gazoo View Post
You made the argument that Decision #1 is final, and that's as far as the discussion goes. I'm making the argument that Decision #1 opens the door to Decision #2, Decision #3, etc. It's just the first change, and each time the first change happens people want to say "come on, it's just one little change." And then once that change is accepted you start working on the next change.

Said differently, "give an inch and you'll take a mile." This is one of the additional inches being given to the big schools, IMO.
Never said anything about it being a final decision. I said proposed rule. You may need to check your reading comprehension.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:43 AM
superfan99 superfan99 is offline
1st Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 172
Thanks: 249
Thanked 132 Times in 54 Posts
superfan99 has much to be proud ofsuperfan99 has much to be proud ofsuperfan99 has much to be proud ofsuperfan99 has much to be proud ofsuperfan99 has much to be proud ofsuperfan99 has much to be proud ofsuperfan99 has much to be proud ofsuperfan99 has much to be proud ofsuperfan99 has much to be proud of
Originally Posted by m21eagle45 View Post
Never said anything about it being a final decision. I said proposed rule. You may need to check your reading comprehension.
lol. These kind of posts are hilarious. Especially when m21eagle is the one that completely missed Gazoo's point. Like when the grammar police have a misspelled word in their own post.

Gazoo's point has nothing to do with "final decision" or "proposed rule". He is saying that this rule (which may or may not seem like a big deal) will lead to another rule, which leads to another rule, so on and so on.

I thought he explained his point well with this example: "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" and then he explained it poorly with his transgender example and confused everyone, but he is making the same point. He is trying to look "big picture" and how it could affect things in the future, not just look at this one rule.

Change is always incremental and then you look back and all the incremental changes add up to a big change. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to superfan99 For This Totally Excellent Post:
Gazoo (09-14-2017)
  #70  
Old 09-14-2017, 11:18 AM
m21eagle45's Avatar
m21eagle45 m21eagle45 is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,615
Thanks: 2,127
Thanked 1,936 Times in 900 Posts
m21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond reputem21eagle45 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by superfan99 View Post
lol. These kind of posts are hilarious. Especially when m21eagle is the one that completely missed Gazoo's point. Like when the grammar police have a misspelled word in their own post.

Gazoo's point has nothing to do with "final decision" or "proposed rule". He is saying that this rule (which may or may not seem like a big deal) will lead to another rule, which leads to another rule, so on and so on.

I thought he explained his point well with this example: "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" and then he explained it poorly with his transgender example and confused everyone, but he is making the same point. He is trying to look "big picture" and how it could affect things in the future, not just look at this one rule.

Change is always incremental and then you look back and all the incremental changes add up to a big change. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
I get what you are saying, but he said that I was making the point that the decision was final. I never once said that. Obviously there can be changes and things added to proposals, but right now, all we have is this proposal to debate.

This whole argument started when he said Siebert could transfer here and leave after 1 good year and not sit out. I said according to the proposed rule he would have to sit out if he left UD because it said you would only be able to transfer once and be immediately eligible. So he may be looking big picture and looking 10 steps ahead, but right now we are still are not even to step 1.

Last edited by m21eagle45; 09-14-2017 at 12:15 PM.. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-15-2017, 01:35 AM
Glen Clark Glen Clark is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Between Kroger & Esther Price
Posts: 4,554
Thanks: 5,811
Thanked 3,340 Times in 1,504 Posts
Glen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond reputeGlen Clark has a reputation beyond repute


_____________________
The man who says that he has no illusions has at least that one.
Joseph Conrad
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.6 By   Branden

     
 
Copyright 1996-2012 UDPride.com. All Rights Reserved.