604 Division I Transfers in 2014

[SoonerTraveler]

The numbers are even bigger than I had imagined ...

New Division I chief puts transfer rules on priority list
By MICHAEL MAROT; AP Sports Writer
http://stats.washingtonpost.com/cbk/story.asp?i=20150426144543320759808

EXCERPT from article:

One of the hottest topics is transfers. According to an NCAA report based on statistics from ESPN, 604 Division I men's basketball players changed schools in 2014 compared with 455 in 2013. ...... "No one is happy with the transfer rate, particularly in the sport of men's basketball," Lennon said. "When 40 percent of your students are leaving after their second year, that's a signal something's wrong."

 

[Zimwillett]

Yes. College basketball "free agency" has gotten out of control. By my math, that's about 1.75 transfers per D1 team. That's ridiculous, and I think it hurts the quality of the game.

However, the article suggests placing restrictions on "graduate transfers." I'm not sure that's getting to the root of the problem. I think the bigger problem is players who leave after one or two seasons. In response, I think the NCAA should look at beefing up "penalties" for players based on the length of time at the previous institution. For example, if you transfer after your freshman season, you must sit out 3 semesters with no practice time for the first two. Transfer as a sophomore, you sit out two semesters with no practice time for one. Junior transfers sit out a year, but get full practice privileges during that time.

I think this would drastically cut down on players who are just transferring in search of minutes.

 

[sperry]

Wanting to penalize players for transferring (beyond sitting out a year) is so ridiculous. "Oh, sorry you didn't make the perfect choice of where to go to school as a 17 year old, you're stuck."


Tons of non-athletes transfer. Homesick, don't like their school, their school is too hard, they want to go to a better school, etc. Not hearing anything criticizing them for that choice.

 

[jaymOU]

The real question is ---are there any graduating seniors who might be eligible at OU next year who could realistically help? Most would have to wait until this semester was over to actually transfer. I know there was some discussion in a previous thread about this, but another TaShawn Thomas-like transfer might be what OU needs to get them past the Sweet 16 next year.

 

[DenverSooner]

That is a huge percentage of kids transferring. If you eliminate 25% of scholarship players (because an incoming freshman really can't transfer) it is almost 18% of scholarship players.

 

[campbest]

How many regular students transfer per year?

How many are run off? See BYU this summer where Coach Rice basically told one of his freshman he wasn't in their plans going forward.

A lot of these coaches are grasping for straws in the late signing period, they take someone they hope works out. Don't do much research and in the end most of them transfer.

This is just as much a NCAA/coaching issue as it is the players.

 

[campbest]

Wanting to penalize players for transferring (beyond sitting out a year) is so ridiculous. "Oh, sorry you didn't make the perfect choice of where to go to school as a 17 year old, you're stuck."


Tons of non-athletes transfer. Homesick, don't like their school, their school is too hard, they want to go to a better school, etc. Not hearing anything criticizing them for that choice.

Bingo.

 

[DenverSooner]

This transfer issue is a difficult subject. Certainly kids should be free to go to another school but you would also like to see kids do it at lower percentages. I can think of three kids in the last four seasons at OU that have transferred that make little sense in my opinion. Those guys would be Newell, Hornbeak and Booker. All three were contributing at fairly significant levels.

Perhaps you have a rule if a kid participates in less than X% of games and/or averages less than X minutes per game, the rules are more lenient. I see zero reason to penalize a kid that simply isn't going to get to play at a bigger school. There is nothing wrong with a kid deciding he would prefer to be major contributor at North Texas rather than a bench player or even practice player at OU.

 

[sperry]

This transfer issue is a difficult subject. Certainly kids should be free to go to another school but you would also like to see kids do it at lower percentages. I can think of three kids in the last four seasons at OU that have transferred that make little sense in my opinion. Those guys would be Newell, Hornbeak and Booker. All three were contributing at fairly significant levels.

Perhaps you have a rule if a kid participates in less than X% of games and/or averages less than X minutes per game, the rules are more lenient. I see zero reason to penalize a kid that simply isn't going to get to play at a bigger school. There is nothing wrong with a kid deciding he would prefer to be major contributor at North Texas rather than a bench player or even practice player at OU.

Newell left under a new coach.

Booker and Hornbeak were looking at being career backups. I don't think any of those transfers is surprising.


I mean, I just don't think you see too many cases of kids transferring where you can't really justify it.


Spangler was clearly going to play plenty going forward for Gonzaga. But he got a chance to play at his dream school because of a coaching change? Should he not have been able to transfer?

What about a kid who goes underrecruited out of high school and averages 19 and 10 as a freshman at a small D1 school and gets the chance to go transfer to Duke or Kansas or something? Should he be stopped?

 

[chuckb]

So why is the high number of transfers a problem? Just saying that the number of transfers has increased doesn't make it a bad thing, for all the reasons sperry brought up earlier. Does it mean fewer kids are graduating or going to class? Are there really negative consequences for student-athletes from all the transfers? My guess is that this is just bad for coaches who don't know which players they can count on.

If they want to get rid of transfers and force kids to stay at the school they committed to as a 17 year old, then they should require scholarships to be 4 year commitments from the school as well, not year - to - year commitments that schools renew if they feel like it.

Sometimes it's not the right fit. Kids want to play and sometimes the coach leaves or gets fired and it's in both the team's and player's best interest for him to move along. Unless there's some problem caused by transfers other than the number of transfers themselves, I fail to see the problem.

 

[Zimwillett]

Wanting to penalize players for transferring (beyond sitting out a year) is so ridiculous. "Oh, sorry you didn't make the perfect choice of where to go to school as a 17 year old, you're stuck."


Tons of non-athletes transfer. Homesick, don't like their school, their school is too hard, they want to go to a better school, etc. Not hearing anything criticizing them for that choice.

I definitely can't disagree with any of that. My point was more, if the goal is reducing the number of transfers, eliminating the "graduate transfer" rule is the wrong place to start. If a "kid" has finished his/her degree and wants to seek graduate opportunities elsewhere while playing out his/her athletic eligibility, why restrict that? That's every bit as ridiculous as any of the suggestions I made.

And I wouldn't necessarily say I "want" the NCAA to implement my suggestions, but I think it targets a bigger "problem". And yes, I do think the trend of players bolting the moment something doesn't go their way is a problem. So what if you're a career backup, have to wait your turn to start or have to deal with a coach you maybe don't love? That's life, and 17, 18, 19 is a perfect time for "kids" to start learning to deal with it.

 

[bgrch1350]

I'm not a fan of this graduate transfer with immediate eligibility. A college pays for your tuition and you get to bail right after to play for another team.

 

[campbest]

I'm not a fan of this graduate transfer with immediate eligibility. A college pays for your tuition and you get to bail right after to play for another team.

But isn't that what a scholarship is?

The athlete has met his contractual obligation with the school upon graduation.

 

[dahldennsull]

But isn't that what a scholarship is?

The athlete has met his contractual obligation with the school upon graduation.

agree, you graduated. OU couldn't stop me from going and working for another school's engineering department after I graduated, neither could companies that gave me scholarships. I fulfilled my duties in our contract, and am now open to the market

 

[sperry]

I'm not a fan of this graduate transfer with immediate eligibility. A college pays for your tuition and you get to bail right after to play for another team.

And you've played basketball and made money for them for four years. The school isn't exactly getting a raw deal here.

 

[bgrch1350]

And you've played basketball and made money for them for four years. The school isn't exactly getting a raw deal here.

Most likely you have made money for them for 3 years bc you had to have most likely redshirted one year.

And the school is getting a raw deal bc the school invested in your development and your bailing on them at the height of your talent bc you don't have to redshirt. I'm ok if you transfer and sit out a year, I'm not for immediate eligibility bc you graduated. Smaller schools take a huge hit bc of this. On Espns top 20 transfers of this year, of the 9 that are eligible to play immediately, 6 of them are from smaller schools.

 

[Max Power]

Most likely you have made money for them for 3 years bc you had to have most likely redshirted one year.

And the school is getting a raw deal bc the school invested in your development and your bailing on them at the height of your talent bc you don't have to redshirt. I'm ok if you transfer and sit out a year, I'm not for immediate eligibility bc you graduated. Smaller schools take a huge hit bc of this. On Espns top 20 transfers of this year, of the 9 that are eligible to play immediately, 6 of them are from smaller schools.

Have you ever left a job for a better position at another company? Did the first company to hire you and train you get a raw deal then?

 

[Zimwillett]

Most likely you have made money for them for 3 years bc you had to have most likely redshirted one year.

And the school is getting a raw deal bc the school invested in your development and your bailing on them at the height of your talent bc you don't have to redshirt. I'm ok if you transfer and sit out a year, I'm not for immediate eligibility bc you graduated. Smaller schools take a huge hit bc of this. On Espns top 20 transfers of this year, of the 9 that are eligible to play immediately, 6 of them are from smaller schools.

We're really down to ROI for the university? Excuse me if I don't weep for the universities' position in this particular "business" relationship.

Plus, in an ROI calculation, what is the value to a university of an alumnus with a degree who intends to continue on to graduate work? I think it would only be fair to include that in any valuation model.

 

[bgrch1350]

Have you ever left a job for a better position at another company? Did the first company to hire you and train you get a raw deal then?

What makes it a better position at another company since you are comparing the 2? They started at the school their at now and they will play the same position at their new school. They aren't getting paid anymore money.

 

[Max Power]

What makes it a better position at another company since you are comparing the 2? They started at the school their at now and they will play the same position at their new school. They aren't getting paid anymore money.

Better education, more games on TV so more chances to be seen, more scouts present since you can transfer to a school with better players. You said yourself kids from smaller schools are going to big schools, that's what the big schools can offer.

So yes it is like leaving for a better job, since the value of a scholarship and the other benefits is a form of payment.