Matt Painter had the idea that a player shouldn't be eligible for the one-time transfer rule until after their sophomore season. Barring certain circumstances, I like that model better than the current one. Thoughts?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I like the reciprocity. There should be a couple of escape clauses. One for the athlete -- the departure of the coach. And one for the school -- some strict span of malfeasance by the athlete. And possibly -- given the toxic nature of social media -- if the locals are determined to make the athlete's life wretched -- one that recognizes the very public nature of athletic competition.I like it…as long as the agreement is reciprocal. Currently, athletic scholarships are year-to-year, and the school chooses whether or not to renew. If the athlete is effectively bound to the school for two years, then the school should also be bound for two. Make the athletic scholarship guaranteed for freshman and sophomore year and go for it.
You just described the current rules.i would like to see the rule as a one time free transfer rule with no sitting out, after that is you want to transfer then you must sit out a year. no more free transfers every year.
Agreed. Make em at least give it a two year try. I can’t respect any player that quits after one year or less.
Then you should’ve studied the programs and coaches better that were recruiting you and made a better choice.What if you show up on campus and find out you are playing for a Bob Knight wannabe, or half the team is involved in selling drugs, or other similar things?
I kinda agree.I like the new rule but wish kids would give it more time than just 1 season.However,we dont know what kids are told by coaches and their staffs to get them to sign so perhaps those promises made never materialized or wasnt as robust as was led on.Seems like a solution looking for a problem.
Is there a huge issue of players leaving after one year.
Not that it's not happening. But is it a problem?
Is the game much worse now because of it.
Other than, I'm old and we didn't do it this way before, are the players or game worse off.
Johnny Juzang and Charles Matthews wouldn't say so.
You just can’t ban the player from transferring when the coach has freedom to leave without repercussions.
I always say the way to handle it is to limit the SCHOOLS not the players. Limit teams to only take in 2 transfers max a year. It will cap the problem and essentially achieve the same result unless guys want to transfer to Transylvania. Plus it will ruin Arkansas basketball, I’m a fan of that too.
That is a very good counter and yeah can’t have that happening either. Maybe there could be an exemption allowed for a school for that circumstance. I’m not sure but somehow it does have to be controlled because as of now, it’s out of controlYou've hit on an interesting dilemma. Georgia was flattened by players transferring out, and probably something internal to Georgia spurred that. If Georgia had been restricted to 2 incoming players they couldn't have fielded a team, and the NCAA isn't in the business of keeping schools from fielding teams. I'm not sure what the balance might be, but a whirlwind player bazaar doesn't seem optimum.
THe answer is early returns are it''s going to make the game less competitive....and let this play out 5 more years I think the problem grows larger and larger.....so yes there is a problem.Seems like a solution looking for a problem.
Is there a huge issue of players leaving after one year.
Not that it's not happening. But is it a problem?
Is the game much worse now because of it.
Other than, I'm old and we didn't do it this way before, are the players or game worse off.
Johnny Juzang and Charles Matthews wouldn't say so.