Transfers changing college sports
I found this article on the impact of transfers on college basketball very interesting. National champion Baylor relied on four key transfer players to win a title. We relied on two key transfer players to build a championship contender. We have also lost key players to the transfer portal. We may not need any transfers this coming year but it's becoming the norm. I didn't realize the NCAA is considering ditching the transfer sit-out rule for an athlete's first transfer and will vote on it April 15. I believe this will apply to other sports as well. I have mixed feelings about it. I'm inclined to favor individual freedom to change schools but recognize possible negative consequences for teams as well. I was wondering what others here think.
Transfer. Do what what's best for you kid. I support you. However, I feel less invested in teams when players aren't with teams for as long as I've been accustomed.
College free agency is upon us, folks!
These days, I root for the name on the back.
A wise man once said, "the name on the front of the jersey matters a hell of a lot more than the name on the back."
I liked this team MORE because of Chaundee and Smith, not less. Ditto Charles Matthews. Now if the team was all transfers I'd probably feel differently...
It's called progress, and it is in lock-step with NIL. College sports are changing. There will be growing pains, and I'm sure some people won't like it, but it has to happen. It's the same trend as in pro sports decades ago. You don't see many athletes play entire pro careers with one team. That was a difficult pill for fans to swallow (especially for big stars), but pro sports have endured. So will college sports.
Our team would have been an Interesting one to imagine if we had kept DDJ and Castelton for example. Hard to imagine that team being superior to the one we fielded this year, but probably also a decent to good team. The more people transfer, the more you’ll need transfers as well. Consider an LOI a one year commitment essentially. In a sport where the best players increasingly look to spend as little time in college as possible, roster management is shifting to fielding the best team you can for a given season, recruiting and portal combined. If players can transfer without penalty and everyone’s on the same page about the way this works, then it’s fair and this will just be the new normal of college sports.
At least in basketball, I think the NBA route is vastly overplayed. How many college players can get drafted in 2 rounds when a large number of them are coming from overseas? The NBA draft only effects the very highest level teams. To me players leaving early for the draft makes college basketball even more interesting because it levels the playing field for smaller schools that can field a bunch of 4th and 5th year starting lineups.
In a sport where the best players increasingly look to spend as little time in college as possible,
This has been the case for a generation now. Kevin Garnett went pro out of high school in 1995 and the one-and-done rule has been around since 2005.
Yes that was somehow supposed to fix the problem of dozens of high school kids thinking they were the next LeBron, and all it did was turn college basketball recruiting into even more of a travesty.
I don't see why the other sports won't adopt the NHL method of drafting. It would sure be better than having a development league.
I think the rule is OK. In the decade between Garnett and one-and-done being instituted, college teams were regularly losing star recruits to the NBA. It gives teams some certainly that they'll have the guy for a year, and players get to make more of a name for themselves by playing college ball.
If you made it a two-year rule, you'd probably see more guys bypass college entirely.
I'm not sure how different it would be with the NHL rule. You'd probably still see a lot of one-and-done guys.
Good thing an LOI is a one year commitment that the school has the option to renew the aid package on.
what happened with that 4 year guaranteed scholarship thing from a few years back? Are many kids signing those in football/basketball? Maybe more minor sports?
That rule has basically been gone for several years. Almost nobody is denied immediate eligibility anymore unless the NCAA fires their random cannon at somebody.
With the scrutiny that is on the NCAA lately from Congress and the Supreme Court, player transfers are the last thing they are worried about. If it doesn't relate directly to their bottom line, the NCAA doesn't care. They will gladly let the players transfer once if it makes them look like they care about the players...which they obviously don't.
On a side note, Harbaugh is one of the first coaches to really speak out in support of the 1 time transfer rule.
I'm for anything that gives a little bit of agency back to the athletes but it is hard to be as invested in the individual players when most of the upper classman are transfers. IE I feel a much greater attachment to Eli Brooks than I do Mike Smith.
(Edit) Agree that anything giving players more agency is a good thing. Disagree or debatable on whether more transfers will decrease fans attachment to players / teams
-- I think the amount of attachment we as fans feels is a combination of factors: performance, playing time, contributions, perceived personality, others
For example, do you feel more attachment to Chaundee Brown or Adrian Nunez? Based on your statement, i would assume Nunez, but it's clearly Brown for me.
Of course a player that barely plays is a little different (maybe that was your point) because we have not had nearly the same opportunity to build that attachment. I think a better comparison is Chaundee Brown or Brandon John's. I'm a much bigger fan of Chaundee Brown's game than John's. Brown is so much fun on the court. I love his impact. BUT I still feel far more emotionally invested in Brandon John's success.
First off, this year is a bit of an outlier because anyone can have a "free" transfer. Plus seniors who would ordinarily be out of eligibility can take a flier on another program. It won't be like this most years.
Overall, it's basically just a tradeoff. Yes, it's a little weird having players come and go more freely. But that's what happens in pro sports and nobody seems to mind. Also, the portal makes things exciting during the offseason, especially for teams that aren't already loaded.
Not least: It's better for the players. Students can transfer whenever they want. Athletes deserve the same freedom.
I have mixed feelings too. I ultimately think that you have to let players transfer unimpeded. But that will be bad for some kids. And it does make college sports less appealing.
When it comes to professionals, I sometimes wonder if players realize that we fans--the people who pay their salaries--need to believe at least a little bit that they care about the teams that they play for. I understand that players need to look out for themselves. And I want them to be able to do that. But sports lose some of their magic when you feel like you're rooting for mercenaries who happen, for now, to wear a given uniform. And that will hurt college sports to the extent that it applies.
I've never thought too deeply about it but this is at the core of why I care so much more about Michigan Football and Basketball than I do the Packers or Clippers (my pro teams in those sports). Also why National team soccer is so appealing. You feel like the players care just as much as you do about the jersey (or kit) they are wearing.
Yeah, I wouldn't take away free agency, but I think pro sports lost something when you were no longer rooting for the same core of players year in and year out. And there is something particularly appealing about watching a player like Jordan Morgan start out where he did and then end his career where he did. I feel almost proud of those guys, goofy as that might be.
Yep. There is something uniquely appealing about rooting for Brandon Johns to put it together as a senior. Sure you could recruit over him with a transfer and maybe the team would be slightly better for it, but man it would make me so much happier if the guy I've been waiting for 3 years to put it together, finally does.
Exactly. I’m excited to see Johns breakout next year. I don’t really care about Colin Castleton or maktar Njdye (sp?) or even DDJ. I’m probably projecting, but I think it is a bit symbolic of loyalty in society. You’re only valuable at your job until a robot or someone cheaper and younger is available. You want to trade in your spouse after 7 years. Etc. College sports are/were special because a lifetime commitment lasts 4 years and at least in Bo’s day you left as a champion with a legacy.
The NBA needs to address players being “cut” and joining playoff contenders. The Lakers just acquired Andre Drummond, the Nets acquired Lamarcus Aldridge and Blake Griffin. These guys aren’t the players they once were, but to be able to add them to your roster for free is ridiculous.
I made the same point re: the NBA below.
I followed the Pistons from the time they drafted Thomas and Tripucka until they ultimately won two NBA championships.
What made it exciting was that it was the same core of players throughout the entire building process. You could see the team getting better and better every year...and then they made some moves to build around the core...but it was always about Thomas, Laimbeer, Dumars, Rodman, Salley, etc. Players they drafted or that they signed early on and then stayed with the team for many years.
I think it will be good for parity. You get guys like Juzang who don't play much at Kentucky cuz they're stuck behind 10 other 5 star recruits so they transfer to different programs and make a serious impact. You give underrecruited players (like 3 of the guys they mentioned on Baylor) a chance to shine on bigger stages.
It's a good thing to give players the freedom that other students have.
If the NCAA (lol)/conferences/schools want to do right by athletes here they'll get ahead of unintended academic consequences because I do worry about players who go to 2+ schools not getting the academic/scholarship support they need to graduate on time due to things like credit transfers and differences in requirements for a major.
Ex: The B1G could show real leadership by having a rule that you have to give a player X semesters of a scholarship when they transfer, with X defined by how many semesters are needed to graduate from that institution.
Ill be honest. I have slowly lost interest through the years - G League and Trasnsfers have me less invested.
How has the G-League reduced your interest in college basketball? I've never even seen a G-League game on TV. Is that a thing?
I'm not big on freshman transfers because there is something to be said for commitment and patience. After that kids should be able to move along if they feel inclined to do so.
What about a hybrid system where you sit a year if you transfer as a freshman, but after your sophomore year you can be instantly eligible? It would encourage guys to give their initial school a chance without completely closing the door on the transfer option.
I think you've captured the pros and cons of the transfer issue very well.
Students and players should probably have the freedom to choose to change schools, if that is their desire.
The downside is the lack of continuity and uncertainty it creates for any team.
Personally, I miss the era when college or professional players stayed in one place.
We'll never see anything like the Detroit Pistons ever again...who continually improved and grew with the same core of players from the early '80's until their championship years.
I mean, this is exactly what the Warriors and Spurs dynasties did (GS obviously added KD, but this was after they achieved Bad Boys-level success with a purely home-grown core). It's also what a lot of the better teams in the league are currently doing (Denver, Utah, Philly, etc.). Drafting well and retaining your core is still the most viable route to a deep playoff run for most franchises.
That strategy is the only viable option for small-market teams. But they are still at a competitive disadvantage to teams with the legacies and/or market to haul in the best free agents. The Nets and Lakers (if they get healthy) are still the front-runners this year.
Sure, if you can persuade the best players in the world to come play for you, that's generally a good idea. But the notion that Zeke/Dumars/Rodman will never again come up together and win some championships is pretty clearly false -- we've seen an extremely close parallel in Steph/Klay/Draymond in the last decade, and we're almost certain to see it again going forward.
I think the point being that it’s supposedly more fun to watch when it’s not the exception to the rule.
Yes, this was my point.
Maybe I overstated it a bit when I said we'd never see anything like the Bad Boys Pistons, but it's much more rare.
Look at all of the best teams in the '80's and '90's. Pretty much all made up of talent that was drafted, grew and improved together, and then stayed together for many, many years.
In the last 20 years, that's become more the exception than the rule.
Listen, I'm all for winning championships...and would celebrate any championships in Ann Arbor or Detroit, but it just feels more special as a fan when it's not a team of superstars who just decided they wanted to play together and win a lot of games.
Today's Pistons are NBA Players who happen to play in Detroit. The guys in the late 80's were PISTONS who played in the NBA. As long as Chuck Daly was there, none of them would have chosen to leave "for a better situation."
There was less movement then for sure. But those great Pistons teams were also built with add-on players. The Bad Boys became great when Aguirre replaced Tripucka.
The later championship team was composed of pick-up players: Billups, Rip, Wallace, Rasheed, McDyess, etc. I don't think this dampened anything.
I'm unconflicted in my support for this. I think there are basic fairness issues at play. And I also feel like it leads to a better competitive landscape with less wasted/redundant talent stuck on the wrong teams.
I also really don't feel a loss of emotional investment -- I didn't enjoy watching Chaundee Brown any less this year because he wasn't here at signing day and won't be here in a couple years. College rosters are inherently ephemeral. Enjoy em while they last.
I didn’t feel any less connected to Mike Smith or Chaundee Brown because they were transfers. Hell, Corner Three Chaundee was my favorite player this year.
I think this relative free-agency is good for kids. However I do worry about the corruption it may encourage. The corruption of recruiting is always bad enough. Now you basically have to recruit a player every season or they will transfer. So the opportunities for corruption are even higher.
These are the rules play accordingly. Juwan is playing accordingly most importantly evaluating properly. I’m all for it.
Also it’s a two way street. Coaches get rid of players too because they weren’t what they expected.
If millionaire coaches can leave one school for another with no real negative consequences, the unpaid help should as well.
The NCAA should handle transfers like a game of musical chairs..... you have to grab a seat when the music stops, you can't just shop for the team you want to be on.
I kind of like it. These kids should be able to decide where they play. If they aren’t happy then why should they be forced to stay their for their entire career. Coaches jump ship all the time.
Just look how much better our football team has gotten with it!
IMHO, anything that puts power back in the hands of those who play the game is a good thing. Actually, as others have said already, I see this as a potential positive for a lot good if not necessarily great players who would otherwise be stuck on benches or depth charts because the guys in front of them are even better when they are already rather good. If they have the freedom to go somewhere and shine, then I don't see how this is bad. The idea that one should be loyal to a university to the point of suffering through seasons without a chance to prove oneself is a really strange idea, quite honestly.
Between transfers and the possibility of paying student athletes, college athletics will be on the same level as minor league baseball in the not to distant future. While fans will say they are for it, they will soon realize that a constantly changing roster leading to a feeling of not being as connected to the players/teams is not what gent signed up for.
There will be growing pains but some of the issues you didn't address with regards to the portal. Schools are still only allowed to sign 25 players a year. Now coaches are really good at moving players around be it early enrollment counting against the previous year or Gray shirting and placing players with the following class. Still, every person signed from the portal is going to count against a graduating high school player.
Another angle is that not everyone who enters the portal is going to end up on a scholarship at another school. Look at all of the players who have left since Harbaugh took over. Now see how many of those players received a scholarship from a new school? In some cases players are going to realize that dropping down the depth chart sure beats being stuck in the portal with no scholarship.