Can you imagine the outrage if this happened and Cal was the one recruiting grad transfers from other teams? UL has signed 1-2 transfers every year for the last 5 years or so it seems.
702 transfers this year but one and done is ruining college basketball.
- Thread starter ~Keyser Soze~
- Start date
Wonder how many of these 702 are grad transfers, thus eligible immediately, or regular undergrads who have to sit out a year?
Excellent post. I hate the one and done but it has been reality and acknowledging that this is allowed means getting the best recruits each year and hoping one or two might stay. You might argue that some coaches are ahead of the game with the transfer rule. I suppose if Cal wasn't as fantastic a recruiter then the transfer rule might become more important for Kentucky. But, Diallo vs. Johnson seems like the opportunity we had and it sure would seem that Diallo is the better recruit. I agree with the OP that the Transfer Rule is surprisingly getting very little sports reporter attention and it might be worse than one and done. At least with one and done it is a goal not a given like a top transfer leaving his program in a mess to save another one.
Just my guess, but I'd bet the number of grad transfers is a pretty small % of that 702; the vast majority are the usual transfers that have been around for a long time.
Of course, now that Crean is gone, that 702 may drop since Creaning took care of half of them
Of course, now that Crean is gone, that 702 may drop since Creaning took care of half of them
The reasoning is OAD is a facade of academics. Where the transfer actually supports academics, the likelihood to graduate increases as the player sits out a year or attends graduate school.
Personally I think the grad transfer rule is worse than the one-and-done rule.
So, you think the Kentucky guys are fake about their academics? We have more OAD than anyone.
As for it being a priority, Yes! Their goal is to remain
eligible and to get credit for both semesters.
Usually a transfer (not all) is looking for
pt and as a rule will be in school for 5 years, will get a degree and will go pro in something other than basketball. Nothing wrong with that,,,
Transfers are not taking any talent out of college basketball as a whole.
Spin it anyway you want and I absolutely love Cal--he has never been the one causing it.
But all the same I'd still take my old much-more-interesting-than-the-NBA college basketball in a heartbeat if I could get it.
Spin it anyway you want and I absolutely love Cal--he has never been the one causing it.
But all the same I'd still take my old much-more-interesting-than-the-NBA college basketball in a heartbeat if I could get it.
most people who think this never went to college. if they did...they know a vast majority of college football/basketball athletes for every program is basically a facade of academics. its a pretty terrible argument.
521 of them are going to kansas
On average there are 13 one and done players per year and it's "ruining college basketball." On the other hand, 700+ transfers is not an issue. Personally I dont care about either, guys should do whatever the want to do with their careers, but if one is an issue, the other should be too.
Big difference between academics being priority number 1 and it being a "facade."
Your original question..was is UK OAD's academics
fake? My answer."yes" as compared to priority.
You say all sports academics is a facade. Yes I
agree as compared to teachers, doctors engrs, etc.
Maybe a better question. Are UK OAD a grade above
that facade and really want an education. I say not.
This is gibberish.
Of course taking all the 13 top competitors out of any sport will make it less interesting.
And I never said removing those players was "ruining college basketball" all by itself.
But it is hurting. Whereas moving 700+ players around is not hurting. Not a bit. How is it supposed to be hurting?
If you can show where one single relevant player from a relevant team transfered to another less relevant team, then you'll have a tiny bit of a case. You certainly won't have a case involving numbers like 700+, but you will have a case involving numbers like: 1.
Do you even have that?
The NCAA is a fraud of academics. That is the last thing they care about or they would have already given the death penalty to an institution that an outright fake classes for 20 years.
I also just saw a story about a kicker at UCF who the NCAA told couldn't make youtube videos anymore because he was making money from his channel that he was using to support his mother and siblings back home. He was a marketing major and it was part of his curriculum as well as preparing him for his future career (editing, film, etc). The last thing the NCAA cares about is the "Student" part of Student-Athlete. At least OAD's are attending classes and staying eligible and using their time in college to prepare them for their eventual careers, as is the intent of college.
Wow, you took that super personal. I was saying the narrative is one and done is ruining the game, I wasn't saying that you said that. There are over 300+ D1 teams, and somewhere north of 4,000 players, the notion that 13 guys leaving after a year ruins the game is ridiculous. Also, I wasnt saying transfers hurt the game, I'm just saying if you have an issue with 13 one and done guys, you should have an issue with 700 transfers. Again, I personally don't care about either, just saying people who push the one and done narrative should have an issue with transfers.
I didn't take your response personally at all. I'm just saying that removing 13 stars from a sport that has never had more than about 40 stars in any one year obviously has a diluting effect. Whereas leaving 700+ players in has no net diluting effect whatsoever no matter how much you shuffle them around, again short of moving relevant players to irrelevant teams which I haven't seen happen. It's not personal sensitivity. It's just math.
There are several one and done guys who aren't stars. Besides, college basketball is fueled by programs and rivalries more than stars like the NBA since all players turnover frequently since they only have 4 years of eligibility.
It isn't fake. And I wasn't the one who said it's all a facade. with high level D-1 athletes.
I understand that perception, but I don't completely agree with it.
For many, it begins as a means to an end before evolving into something else.
UK does a good job with their one and dones of putting them in position to continue their education down the road.
What happened at UNC was a facade. Not fair to paint OADs with the same brush, imo.
Absolutely. I was being hyperbolic acting like all 13 were stars. And there are certainly other factors. But it is a real effect and it has noticeably effected the quality of the product, though it's not the only thing that has and not all the changes are bad.
Not making an argument either way. The VAST majority of OADs are only in college because of the NBA rule.If not for it, those players would never take a class.
When compared to a transfer, or more to the point, a graduate transfer, the view is a joke. One will never complete college the other has already earned a degree and working toward an advanced degree.
Which is more serious about education.
Facade - an outward appearance that is maintained to conceal a less pleasant or creditable reality.
They tolerate going to class (outward appearance) whether they want to or not concealing the reality (that they cannot go straight to the NBA).
I do not think taking the top 13 players from high school hurts college basketball one bit. We do not follow players until 1) they are being recruited by our team, 2) have signed to play for our team or 3) sign for a rival and fail miserably.
If the angle you're playing is that most would rather be pro already, fair enough.
But there are many OADs who are good students, care about education, and eventually return to school after going pro.
From that standpoint, the classes they attend for a year (and usually the summer before that) are anything but a facade.
Who said anything about taking the top 13 players from high school?
I certainly didn't.
If you're talking about a different conversation that's cool but in that case I don't see why you quoted my post.
vast majority of college players are only in college because they play sports to begin with. and most while in college (no matter for 1 year or 4) take absurdly stupid classes.
there is ZERO academic argument to be made here. ZERO.
I don't buy that for 1 minute. Not everyone attends UNC. I coached many kids that played college ball.
None made Pro, but many have great jobs and are
outstanding citizens. The problem is that so many
kids don't want to pay the price to be successfully.
Too many generations of hand-outs. (entitlements)
Thanks LBJ..Not
What exactly is "absurdly stupid?"
Also, definitely NOT "zero" argument to be made. That's a little ridiculous to lump all college athletes in the same box, so to speak.
According to what I just read more than a third of college students transfer before graduating. Basketball players are included in that number but it appears regular students transfer at a higher than D1 basketball players. Transferring colleges is just a really normal thing, its not ruining cbb.
Or if they are the BEST player on their team, they are destroying that team to go to another team. So it does have two sides to talk about.
I can't say it any better than @uk78 except to add the way the rule about grad. transfers is written it has the potential to start "NCAAD-League" teams for players who need the time to develop. Jmo.
you are kidding me right....do you know how hard is it get in to normal schools on the merits? and a vast majority of these guys no matter where they go to school take bull shit classes. you really think sports recreation management is a real thing? getting a good job is irrelevant to the work done in college. was in hong kong last year for work...dude flat out admitted he hired and payed 6 figures to former rugby players...didnt even matter what they majored in. he just wanted to stack his company team! lol
again i dont care, i'm fine with it, it gives these guys at least a fighting chance...but lets not kid that these are anything close to real students. taking advanced swimming as a junior after transferring is just as "fraudulent" as being a 1 and done and not going to classes.
too many generations just want to live in a made up false narrative of these "student athletes", some sad romantic notion that its more pure or something.
That is about as far from the truth as possible. We may have a team full of NBA players, but there are teams that have NEVER had a player picked in the draft.
Simple math says that of the 5000 college basketball players ion D1 only 40 make it to the NBA each year, another group goes overseas, and then the VAST majority are there to get an education and use their learning for a real job.
They may be there because of sports, but that is the whole point (using athletics to give someone a chance at a future they would normally not have.
Also, you are now insinuating that the APR and GPA of these players is laughable since they "take absurdly stupid classes."
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/07/15/one-third-of-undergrads-transfer-colleges/
A July 6, 2015 study published by nonprofit National Student Clearinghouse Research Center shows that of the 3.6 million college students surveyed nationwide — all of who started their undergraduate careers in 2008 — 37.2% transferred between universities. In addition, of the students who chose to transfer, 45% decided to change schools more than once.
These statistics show only a minor rise from the center’s 2012 report, which demonstrated a transfer rate of up to 34.4%.
The reason for the transfers is also important. Athletes tend to transfer for playing time. Where as regular students transfer to be closer to home, costs, or flexibility.
