ADVERTISEMENT

Gee, who could have possibly seen this happening

Halldan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 1, 2003
186,462
99,924
113

College basketball coaches furious with ‘wild west’ transfer portal​


By

In a shade over two weeks, seven different St. John’s players have entered the transfer portal. Penn State and DePaul currently have seven players exploring their options, and Indiana and Memphis each have five. Michigan State, North Carolina, Creighton, Florida, Texas Tech, Illinois, Iowa, West Virginia and Georgetown have lost key contributors.

These schools are far from alone.

With the belief that players switching schools won’t have to sit out next year — since the Division I council will vote on a rule in April that would allow everyone to transfer once without penalty, and NCAA president Mark Emmert said on Thursday he expects it to pass — fans will need a scorecard to identify rosters.

As the NCAA Tournament reached the Final Four this week in Indianapolis, the transfer portal overshadowed college basketball’s blockbuster event. It’s free agency for amateur athletes. All a player has to do to enter the transfer portal is email his school’s compliance department.

According to the website, VerbalCommits.com, which tracks such data, roughly 1,200 players are currently in the transfer portal, which is already a record amount. A small percentage of that group are walk-ons. At this time last year, the number in the portal was barely 600. There are 357 Division I teams and each school gets 13 scholarships. That means roughly 25.8 percent of players are considering leaving their current programs, a rate that is increasing daily.

“You tell me if that’s healthy or not,” a high-major athletic director said rhetorically, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“I don’t think it’s good for college basketball, but it’s good for the student-athletes, and that’s what we’re all here for,” Villanova coach Jay Wright said. “We’ll all adjust. It’s going to make it a little messier.”

Multiple Division I coaches, speaking on the condition of anonymity, weren’t nearly as politically correct.

“It’s the wild, wild west. It’s crazy town. I think it’s horrendous for the sport,” one high-major head coach said.

“It’s chaos,” a high-major assistant coach said.

“It’s like speed dating, in the transfer portal,” a mid-major head coach

Players, and those who support them getting more freedom, obviously have a different take on the matter. Coaches can switch jobs on a whim. They don’t have to wait a set amount of time before starting a new job. They can choose not to renew a player’s scholarships. Yet the players they leave behind or push out, are subject, under the old rules, to sitting out following a transfer, unless they are granted an eligibility waiver.

“To have it like it was before, what’s the reasoning behind making them sit out a year? It’s so it’ll discourage them from transferring, discourage them from making a decision they believe is in their best interest,” ESPN college basketball analyst Jay Bilas said. “To me, it strains the mind to think that a player coming out of high school with zero college experience should be bound by that decision, and yet that player’s decision should be questioned after the player has college experience. That makes no rational sense, and especially if the NCAA is going to keep calling them kids and saying that they’re amateurs, they are students to be treated like any other student. No other student is told when they can leave and when they can participate in the school’s extracurricular activities.

“If a player’s circumstances change, why shouldn’t he or she be allowed to make that kind of decision?”

Or, as Greg Williams Sr., the father of St. John’s transfer Greg Williams Jr., said: “[Shaka Smart] left 15 players [at Texas to take the Marquette job]. No one is saying anything bad about him. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Now, this of course wasn’t a typical year. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the NCAA gave every single player an extra year of eligibility. Graduating seniors who had already used up four years of eligibility were allowed to play one more season. Another factor is the nature of the season. It was difficult, as schools created pseudo-bubbles to avoid pauses and shutdowns. Players had to keep to themselves. It wasn’t the normal college experience. For a student-athlete spending his first year at a school, it wasn’t an accurate depiction of what the place is typically like. There was little-to-no campus life.

Then again, it’s no coincidence the numbers rose without the fear of having to sit out a season. Tyson Walker, an all-league guard from Northeastern who transferred to Michigan State, said he almost certainly would’ve stayed put had he thought he wouldn’t be eligible to play next year. If he had remained at Northeastern, Walker said he would’ve likely had a strong career in anonymity.

“I’ll get a bigger platform [now],” he said.

Walker thinks the no-sit-out rule going into effect would be a positive, because there are plenty of players who could find better situations given the freedom to do so. Hofstra’s Tareq Coburn, who transferred from St. Bonaventure after his freshman year and had to sit out, believes the heavy amount of transfers will breed even more of them, that it will teach student-athletes to take the easy way out instead of trying to work through adversity. St. John’s transfer Marcellus Earlington agreed with both of them.

“I think it’s good for the players. I don’t know how good it is for the sport, though,” he said.

There can be positives to sitting out. Take Coburn as a sample. As a freshman at St. Bonaventure, he hardly played. The year off gave him a chance to regain his confidence, focus on academics and work on his body. He developed into an All-CAA player and an honor student.

Some of the best teams in recent memory have been built on transfers who used the sit-out year productively. This year’s Baylor team, for instance, is led by one-time transfers like Davion Mitchell and MaCio Teague, who waited a year after switching schools.

“There are definitely bonuses [to sitting out],” Coburn said.

Another issue the high-major coach raised is that the extra year often ensured transfers graduating. When Coburn transferred, he lost half of his credits. What happens when a player exhausts his eligibility, but has classes to make up?

The expectation is that this will only be the start. There will be heavy movement every spring. The days of teams gradually improving over time will end. It won’t be about whether a program will lose players, just how many.

“It’s going to be the new normal,” the mid-major head coach said. “The people that can adapt to it and do well with it are going to be successful. You’re going to have to embrace it as, ‘We know every year we’re going to lose four guys in the spring, and we’re going to have to replace them in the transfer portal.’

“Are you going to sit there being bitter, or are you going to sit there and say, ‘We have to get another guy?’ ”
 
The new transfer rule is going to help coaches who relate well to the athletes and hurt the ones that don't.

I'm shocked that St. John's has seven transfers after the promising season they had, leads me to believe that Anderson doesn't relate well with his players.

Lastly, Wright get's it - “I don’t think it’s good for college basketball, but it’s good for the student-athletes, and that’s what we’re all here for,” Villanova coach Jay Wright said. “We’ll all adjust. It’s going to make it a little messier.”
 
And Anderson has 400 wins at 4 different schools without being able to relate to players? That’s hysterical.

More likely some combination of kids he didn’t recruit, kids who were or are being recruited over, kids not happy with PT or the result of having to fill a short-handed roster.

Coaches that are loved by players are losing kids. There are so many factors that go into this it’s hard to read too much into any one situation without knowing all the details.
 
Except for a small percentage, I don't actually believe its in the players best interest long term.

The sit-out year helped all players academically and led to more players getting their degrees by giving them an extra free year of school. By extension, it also gave them the chance to transfer again without sitting out once they Graduated.

However, although I don't believe its in their best interest, I still would vote for it (no sit-out) because ultimately its their right and should be their decision to make.
 
The thing to me is why was the sit out instituted. Answer is clearly to make fewer kids transfer. In other words. To punish kids who transfer. That majes it the wrong thing to me.
 
The thing to me is why was the sit out instituted. Answer is clearly to make fewer kids transfer. In other words. To punish kids who transfer. That majes it the wrong thing to me.
I’m with you on this. Even recognizing it may not be the best thing for the sport. Coaches can leave, coaches can run kids off, but players have to sit (and then there was how the waiver process was applied without consistency)?

I would have preferred a rule that allows every kid the right to leave with immediate eligibility if the HC goes. But even that restriction is problematic.

I don’t think there is a great solution, but at the end of the day the players were going to get this. Now programs need to adjust.
 
To punish the young people or to keep the coaches from going after other teams players?
Either one punishes the player. In one the coach cheats. He pays no price. But the player gets punished
 
Either one punishes the player. In one the coach cheats. He pays no price. But the player gets punished
Punishment of living the luxury life of a college athlete for an extra year? I wonder how many students on academic scholarship have feelers put out for them to transfer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: shu09
The thing to me is why was the sit out instituted. Answer is clearly to make fewer kids transfer. In other words. To punish kids who transfer. That majes it the wrong thing to me.
It was instituted for the overall good of the sport. The extra sit-out year doesn't actually hurt anyone but it does make kids think twice before transferring because when you are young, a year off seems like an eternity.

Just like academic minimums are for the good of the sport and benefits the players in the long run. Its not a punishment to force kids to go to class and do work but if you took away academic requirements and gave the players the freedom to choose, how many would take academics seriously and get their degrees? Sometimes you have to give up some individual freedoms for the overall greater good.

Who actually benefits from no sit-out? One could argue that it benefits the high-end Programs and coaches the most. It definitely benefits coaches who change jobs who can instantly rebuild their roster. For every kid helped by it there could be others hurt by it who lose opportunities to incoming transfers.

Bottom line is the players have the right to move freely but its questionable if players actually benefit from this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shu09 and SHUSA
I don’t know in the aggregate if the players benefit. And it is such an individualized outcome who knows if there can ever be an answer to that. The players obviously want the right to transfer without sitting out. It probably benefits some coaches and programs and will hurt others. But the players would rather it this way and that is where the sport is going to end up long term IMO.
 
I’m waiting for the first coach to leave and take half his team with him.
 
I don’t know in the aggregate if the players benefit. And it is such an individualized outcome who knows if there can ever be an answer to that. The players obviously want the right to transfer without sitting out. It probably benefits some coaches and programs and will hurt others. But the players would rather it this way and that is where the sport is going to end up long term IMO.

As with most things there is no one size fits all answer. Many players do benefit from their sit-out year on and off the court and for a variety of reasons. Some don't. Others don't need that year and for others still, it's an impediment.
 
Doesn’t this all just magnify that D1 MBB and the NCAA is just a sham when we are talking about the student athlete? This is the system they created. It’s a business and has nothing to do with educating. Should we really be surprised at these decisions and the consequences- intended or unintended?
 
Yeah. I buy this phrasing. But just symantics. You don't deter people by giving something nice.
That’s just a load of crap. We try to deter young people from things like drugs by keeping them busy with things like sports. There are a lot of good deterrents in the world.
 
That’s just a load of crap. We try to deter young people from things like drugs by keeping them busy with things
You think the sit out rule was put in the hinder transfers cause sitting out a year is actually good for the athletes. That is your right. I think you're nuts. We may use sports to deter them from drugs, cause many think sports is fun. While many use the sitout year to their benefit, it is there to control transfers to make the game easier to manage for coaches and admibs.
 
Doesn’t this all just magnify that D1 MBB and the NCAA is just a sham when we are talking about the student athlete? This is the system they created. It’s a business and has nothing to do with educating. Should we really be surprised at these decisions and the consequences- intended or unintended?
Yes. Exactly.
 
That’s just a load of crap. We try to deter young people from things like drugs by keeping them busy with things like sports. There are a lot of good deterrents in the world.
well its not a punishment. the sit out rule was in place and player had the choice whether it was worth it to do so or not. many players still made that choice and gladly lived with the sit out year.

not everyone is going to be happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shu09
You think the sit out rule was put in the hinder transfers cause sitting out a year is actually good for the athletes. That is your right. I think you're nuts. We may use sports to deter them from drugs, cause many think sports is fun. While many use the sitout year to their benefit, it is there to control transfers to make the game easier to manage for coaches and admibs.
No I think the sit out rule was put in place because coaches are sleezy and would take every good player that a guy like Sha gets. What would’ve stopped Powell from going to
Duke if he got a Chris Duhon type offer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hallsome
well its not a punishment. the sit out rule was in place and player had the choice whether it was worth it to do so or not. many players still made that choice and gladly lived with the sit out year.

not everyone is going to be happy.
It IS punishment. I think that is obvious from your phrasing. The sit out year did not always exist. At some time it was instituted. And I assume kids will still be able to take a redshirt year. If most players decide to take the red shirt, I will change my mind
 
Another question is how athletes in almost every sport got a free transfer but football and basketball players didn’t
 
It IS punishment. I think that is obvious from your phrasing. The sit out year did not always exist. At some time it was instituted. And I assume kids will still be able to take a redshirt year. If most players decide to take the red shirt, I will change my mind
by your definition NIL will be a punishment. didnt exist, then instituted.
 
Another question is how athletes in almost every sport got a free transfer but football and basketball players didn’t
$$$$$$$$. I think that’s kind of like wondering how gymnastics, volleyball, water polo, and baseball don’t get the coverage on tv that football and basketball get.
 
No I think the sit out rule was put in place because coaches are sleezy and would take every good player that a guy like Sha gets. What would’ve stopped Powell from going to
Duke if he got a Chris Duhon type offer.
Nothing, and why should he be stopped? If Willard got an offer to coach Duke he would be free to leave and not have to sit out a year. Why not the players?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHUSource
Nothing, and why should he be stopped? If Willard got an offer to coach Duke he would be free to leave and not have to sit out a year. Why not the players?
Willard is a grown man and this is his profession. These young people are supposed to be at these institutions for educational purposes. They’re clearly not. It’s time college sports pay the players and stop the ones who don’t want to be students from showing up to class. You think it’s wrong Willard doesn’t have to sit out but these players do. How about the students who should be in those seats but don’t get in because they took a student half as qualified. Funny how the perk of not having the qualifying scores to get in the schools is often overlooked. What percentage of Duke players would’ve got in without basketball?
 
Either one punishes the player. In one the coach cheats. He pays no price. But the player gets punished

This opinion is so off base. Coaches are PROFESSIONALS. They can change a job any time they want (subject to contract terms) just like you and I can. It is their job. It's how they make a living.

College basketball players are not employees. They are students who happen to play a sport. They are not punished in any way. In order to ensure the competitive integrity of the sport (e.g. tampering), the rules used to be that they had to sit out a year of competition. They are not prohibited from using a scholarship for that year. They are not prohibited from going to class or practice. The only limitation is the games for those two semesters. That is not punishment at all.
 
Nothing, and why should he be stopped? If Willard got an offer to coach Duke he would be free to leave and not have to sit out a year. Why not the players?

Because coaching college basketball is Kevin Willard's job. He can change a job just like you and I can.
 
Left unsaid is the athlete who transfers, but all his/her credits don't and their eligibility is used up before they accumulate the necessary credits to graduate.
 
Maybe this is the beginning of the end for college basketball as we know it. Already evolving with G League paying kids out of HS. If you want to get paid to play that’s an option. With media, these kids have National followings in HS.

Why not an expanded G League system to give kids the opportunity to play and earn rather than have this whole student athlete sham. NCAA, colleges and coaches won’t be happy as their wealth will be at risk.
 
How about Minnesota: 8 transferring out. That includes their leading scorer Carr and three others who had started at some point during the year.

Incoming are three from William and Mary, Lafayette and GW. Welcome to the BIG fellas!
 
Maybe this is the beginning of the end for college basketball as we know it. Already evolving with G League paying kids out of HS. If you want to get paid to play that’s an option. With media, these kids have National followings in HS.

Why not an expanded G League system to give kids the opportunity to play and earn rather than have this whole student athlete sham. NCAA, colleges and coaches won’t be happy as their wealth will be at risk.
In theory the expanded G League works, however are people really going to watch the G League instead of their college teams? Is there a market to bring in enough revenue to pay players? G League guys are making 35K and have all the bills that come with being an adult in the real world. Maybe it's just me, but college seems like the better choice 99% of the time.
 
G- league Elite team will skim off top 5-7 players. I have no problem with that. Maybe K and Cal will.
 
In theory the expanded G League works, however are people really going to watch the G League instead of their college teams? Is there a market to bring in enough revenue to pay players? G League guys are making 35K and have all the bills that come with being an adult in the real world. Maybe it's just me, but college seems like the better choice 99% of the time.
So right now based on what you’re saying, being in college is a better deal than being in the G-League. Hardly slavery...lol

If the talent goes to the expanded G League more people will watch...didn’t say it would be easy, but there is a path. Think about it though...if NBA could develop a AA and AAA level league you double the spots and can develop kids earlier.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT