So basically they could do what the coaches already do once they become a good coach at a low major. Sounds fair to me
Bilas: Solving the transfer question is easy, let them play
- Thread starter rick64
- Start date
You're missing the forest for the trees. Whether the number is 700 or 550, the point remains that college basketball players transfer in similar numbers to regular students.
Why do "regular" students transfer? Well, considering that more than half of the students who leave a 4 year college transfer to a 2 year school, financial considerations would appear to be a prime motivator.
Since that should be much less of a factor for college athletes (whose schooling is paid for), in theory basketball players should be transferring less than others. Not just as much or more.
And I'll take snarky all day over sanctimonious. We are discussing an issue. Generally, whether players should not sit at all (you seem to favor this), whether they should sit for a short window of time ( Bilas' opinion, depending on the timing of the transfer), or a longer period of time (current rule).
So how exactly did you get to be morally "right" in this debate, and everyone else wrong?
Are your opinions always right no matter what? Because I fail to see how this is anything more than your opinion (no matter how confidently you project your superiority).
No, the percentage of DI basketball players who transfer is significantly lower than the percentage of non-athletes. That's the reason the numbers were brought up.
As to why I believe the rule is wrong, my rationale was clearly stated in my responses to your posts last night. Feel free to read through those on your own time. I see no need to rehash what has already been clearly stated.
Poor mistreated D-1 athletes. Maybe if their handlers weren't steering them to the wrong schools they wouldn't be in such a hurry to jump ship.
This would be great for the middlemen though. Get paid for 4 years on some guys instead of 1.
I bet there's less of a market in delivering guys who have to sit for a year. Whatcha think?
No, that's incorrect.
https://www.si.com/college-basketba...-high-school-recruits-transfer-behavior-study
That's a good article showing the trend of top 100 recruits over about a decade.
The average transfer rate is 1/3 and trending up.
Not sure about the rate for lower profile players. Do you know those numbers?
I'm sorry, but the fact that you see no difference in college coaches and college basketball players is amazing.
Could you please do college basketball a huge favor and quit following it? The NBA is around the corner, just focus on that.
The numbers I gave earlier represent all players. That's great that one-third of top 100 recruits transfer. But they're also only 8% of the total incoming freshman class across all DI schools in a given year.
I'm not sure what I think about the substance - but my initial thought is if Bilas has suddenly made a pronouncement on the issue, that just means it's likely the NCAA has recently said the opposite on the same issue.
He's fairly predictable. Used to love him. I'm sure he's crushed that I no longer do.
He's fairly predictable. Used to love him. I'm sure he's crushed that I no longer do.
Do you have the figures for all players? You keep shooting down every stat I post, but have none of your own. You only tell me that I'm wrong.
Do you have some reason to believe that 9 years worth of data (900 data points) on top 100 players differs significantly from the rest of the population? If you have that info, I'm all ears. Links are also nice. But forgive me if I'm a little tired of your "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" act.
I'm going to go ahead and do the math.
546 D-1 players left last year to go play basketball somewhere else. That isn't counting those who leave school and don't play, or those who go pro.
That means 12% of all D-1 players left last year to go play basketball at some other college.
That trend has risen over the past dozen years from 9% to 12%.
So if 9-12% per year have been leaving to play at some other college for quite a few years now, and college lasts 4 years, how many are leaving all together?
I realize that some players transfer more than once, but even taking the low number, roughly a third+ are transferring at some point to go play at some other college.
Which is about the same as the normal student transfer rate.
Which you've been telling me I'm wrong about for a couple hours now.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball
546 D-1 players left last year to go play basketball somewhere else. That isn't counting those who leave school and don't play, or those who go pro.
That means 12% of all D-1 players left last year to go play basketball at some other college.
That trend has risen over the past dozen years from 9% to 12%.
So if 9-12% per year have been leaving to play at some other college for quite a few years now, and college lasts 4 years, how many are leaving all together?
I realize that some players transfer more than once, but even taking the low number, roughly a third+ are transferring at some point to go play at some other college.
Which is about the same as the normal student transfer rate.
Which you've been telling me I'm wrong about for a couple hours now.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball
The percentage of athletes in a given season who are also a DI transfer has been stable for the last 4 years at ~13% - ~14%. But for the ease of discussion, let's call it 12%.
That 12% is a mix of players that transferred after their first year (RS Fr or Soph), their second year (RS Soph or Jr), their third year (RS Jr or Sr) or their fourth year (RS Sr).
Also for the ease of discussion, let's say that the 12% is equally divided across all four years and that each transfer is a unique player.
That would mean that after a freshman class's first year, about 3% will transfer. After that same class's second year, another 3% will transfer. After that same class's third year, another 3% will transfer. And finally, after that class's fourth year, another 3% will transfer.
This means that over the undergraduate career of that cohort of athletes, a total of 12% of them will have transferred at some point.
As far as my "I'm right and you're wrong act" you referenced above, I did not provide any links because they would've been the exact same links you had previously provided. I had assumed that you were familiar with the content and wouldn't need things spelled out for you. Apologies for giving you too much credit in that respect.
Ok, even though you're being a jerk about it, I'm going to assume that you are genuinely looking at the data wrong (and not trying to be misleading).
546 players transferred out last year and landed somewhere else to play basketball. I'm using "last year" loosely. According to last year's transfer list, which was the data source used by the NCAA. I understand that the list includes players who transferred out sometime between Fall 2015 and Spring/Summer 2016.
The 12% number I used was based on 546 players from a possible 4500+ players on rosters. That's 351 teams times 13 players each. I realize that not every roster is full, but I wasn't trying to get this down to the nickel.
So, if 12% transferred out last year, and we are going to stick with the convention that they were evenly divided by class, then 12% would have transferred from each class (not the 3% you stated).
Do you see why that is?
Say there are actually 4,400 total athletes. Divided evenly between classes, that would be 1,100 freshmen , 1,100 sophomores, etc.
Let's also divide the transfers evenly. That would give us right around 136 Freshmen, 136 sophomore, dot dot dot.
136/1100 gets us right back around that 12% number. So 12% of freshmen this year, 12% of sophomores next year, 12% of juniors, the year after...
Add all of that up and tell me what you get.
Maybe you are confused by the graph at that NCAA link. It really isn't worded the best. But that 546 number isn't the cumulative number of transfers enrolled in school. That's the list of people who left one school in 2016 to play at a different one in 2017.
If you have any doubts, look over the PowerPoint and also the ESPN source list. Maybe even compare the various ESPN lists (note that almost all names are different). It should become very clear that those 546 are only one year worth of transfers.
If you want to come back and apologize, I'll accept it. We all make mistakes.
I absolutely was being a jerk in my last post, but turnabout is fair play. So there's no need for me to apologize.
That said, I was annoyed by your preceding personal attacks and threw together a hasty response that was woefully inaccurate as you have pointed out above.
Simply put, my last post was way off the mark.
I really wasn't trying to attack you. I'm only trying to discuss my opinion of the overall issue.
You seem to have a religious zeal about this issue. I honestly think it's a matter of opinion with a lot of gray area.
I get that there are positives to total freedom of movement. In a perfect world, players would select the right school, and only leave because it turned out to be the wrong school (in rare instances).
A lot of other factors are at work here. IMO, changing this rule would get really ugly and be bad for the overalll game.
But it's only my opinion. There's nothing I can do about it if they change the rule (or don't). Other than watch the games (or not).
Nope. He's a bag of hot air. Acts as if UNC has done nothing wrong and has said winning the ACCT is harder than getting to the FF. His opinions are completely regurgitated nonsense.
Hysteria about this rule is about the money involved.
I read the article linked. This rant by Bilas is a lot of yada yada. (Most rants are) His point is right on.
I read the article linked. This rant by Bilas is a lot of yada yada. (Most rants are) His point is right on.
Last edited:
Can it be said what's really going on here?
It's the social justice mentality, and you can see it clear as day with the victimhood angle they play nearly every time. Athletes that are given access to the finest coaches, facilities, educations, promotion etc but are victimized youth preyed upon by evil universities, rich coaches, and whatever the hell else boogie man in the closet.
In reality those coaches earned their title and paid their dues. Most of them played for less than these kids do, like Calipari, and worked their way to where they are today. That's what this sht is all about. But to the types that want total anarchy as a way to snub "the man" they are just raped individuals held against their will by some old guys that want to be entertained.
This "play immediately" bs is just another attempt by the group consumed with radical ideology to tear down a system promoting a perceived "injustice". If the game was destroyed in the process, believe it or not, they would rejoice.
This group should be tolerated at zero and their grievances dismissed entirely if people truly care about preserving the college game in the long run.
It's the social justice mentality, and you can see it clear as day with the victimhood angle they play nearly every time. Athletes that are given access to the finest coaches, facilities, educations, promotion etc but are victimized youth preyed upon by evil universities, rich coaches, and whatever the hell else boogie man in the closet.
In reality those coaches earned their title and paid their dues. Most of them played for less than these kids do, like Calipari, and worked their way to where they are today. That's what this sht is all about. But to the types that want total anarchy as a way to snub "the man" they are just raped individuals held against their will by some old guys that want to be entertained.
This "play immediately" bs is just another attempt by the group consumed with radical ideology to tear down a system promoting a perceived "injustice". If the game was destroyed in the process, believe it or not, they would rejoice.
This group should be tolerated at zero and their grievances dismissed entirely if people truly care about preserving the college game in the long run.
This rule debate is about money. Money for the schools, for the conference, for the coaches, for the networks...
If this was rule aimed at the sport of wrestling, NO ONE would care. NO ONE would say anything, positive or negative.
If this was rule aimed at the sport of wrestling, NO ONE would care. NO ONE would say anything, positive or negative.
So what? It's a popular event on the grand scheme, is it not? If it was a cake baking class no one would care if they switched mid semester to casserole dish 101 either. Of course there's more talk about it.
There is a large segment of followers, albeit a minority, that want the system decimated over perceived injustices, by any means necessary. If that means the game is reduced to a farm system for pay, that's where it will go. Anyone who loves the sport should stop accepting these ideas as legitimate. These are activist, they don't want changes. They want an entirely new system all together. And one that will not resemble college basketball.
If we could accept a few changes, like creating an immediate playing path for coaching change transfers or something similar, that would be fine. But the types I'm referring to will never stop at that.
A one year sit rule is a great deterrent for several reasons, both ethical and destructive.
I'd recommend a one year sit out rule for coaches changing schools. (kidding)
You must be comfortable with your head in the sand. It's Money.
This rule is about making a few administrators with quivering lower lips feel good about themselves by lying to themselves about doing good for the players. It's bad for the sport making it bad for the players. I don't give a damn about the guilt ridden administrators. Compared to the overall cash flow and monetary potential of the sport, this is likely to have a very small percentage impact.
In regards to wrestling, you use an example of a sport few care about and then exclaim few would care about a rule change? Well DOH!
I think they all should have to sit, with the caveat that they can apply for hardship exceptions, etc.
Well, that's so wrong, but the reply helps me understand where you are off the tracks.
Where I disagree most with Bilas is that he (and many others) seem to view any and all rules changes in terms of how it affects the elite players (i.e. one-and-done players), and seems to ignore the fact that the large majority of players and schools also are affected by rules changes just as well.
We talk about being in the one-and-done era but the truth of the matter is that every year only a handful of players out of literally thousands of college players are one-and-done. That's not to say that one-and-dones aren't important, they certainly are because they're the elite players who help drive ratings etc., but everything can't be about them.
One example is Bilas likes to drone on and on how unfair it is for the NCAA to not allow players to receive outside endorsements etc., and how they're being taken advantage of etc.
From a purely theoretical viewpoint I agree with him. But where I disagree is thinking that opening it up to some sort of free market is going to solve the issue while keeping the game of college basketball viable. For the large majority of players, receiving a scholarship and a small living allowance is more than enough to offset what value they're actually bringing in to the school.
Regardless of the rules, there will always be a few elite players who the colleges will never be able to pay them their true market value, and thus one could argue they are being exploited. But I don't think changing the rules to accomodate a handful of players is a good idea, if it ends up threatening the ability of 99+% of the athletes in college athletics to receive scholarships for playing a sport.
I rate bias' opinion way below that of your dog!She thinks enacting what Jay professes would result in utter anarchy... she also thinks UNCheat shouldn't get away with decades of academic fraud just because some "regular" students took part in the scam.
And she hates ESPN.
These rules do affect non-elite players as well. While they may come into play a lot more for high profile athletes the NCAA still had all it's "student -athletes" by the balls.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time...aye-ineligible-ncaa-youtube-videos?source=dam
That's my point. The rules affect ALL players but more times than not the talking heads like Bilas (and to be fair many in this and other boards of top schools) only seem to consider how it affects the top players and programs.
its baffling that this matters so much to people. kids life or fan nostalgia. in no other area of life would something like this be a debate.
This isn't about freedom and equality for the "kids."
It's about how can the people with the deepest pockets and most power use the "kids" to their advantage.
That's how I see it anyway. It isn't about nostalgia to me. It's about organizations/associations being able to establish reasonable rules to protect their members/prevent anarchy.
On the flip side, I have no problem with the players banding together to negotiate in their own best interests. I'm not sure that "anyone can leave at anytime to play immediately wherever they want" would be where they would land. But maybe I'm wrong.
prevent anarchy....you read too much conspiracy nonsense on the internet. its just college hoops....walk away from the ledge.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Refs don’t think we’re missing enough players- Latest: BigBlueManSouthCentralKY
-
