ADVERTISEMENT

The graduate transfer rule must be changed (and much more)

Halldan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 1, 2003
190,577
106,631
113
I suggested this the other day. Most who responded did not agree.

Please read this linked story and comment on your thoughts.

Plus there's many more entertaining opinions in this article.


i


Dan Dakich, ESPN

The 30-second shot clock is coming, probably next year, and I don't like it -- I love it. As someone who worked broadcasts of NIT games using the new clock, I went in feeling like it would speed up college hoops. However, I found it had no real effect on the games I did ... none, zero, zip. I've just gotten the feeling, the more I've studied, that it would help the game in the long term -- it's a start, anyway. Now let's cut timeouts to three per team, extend the 3-point line to the FIBA length and get rid of replay -- all replay.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the graduate transfer rule.

To recap, this is a rule by which a player who graduates college with a year of eligibility remaining can transfer anywhere in the country, using the loophole that the new school has a graduate program not available at his initial school. The rule may be well-intentioned, but it's flawed.

I've heard members of the hoops media ask why a kid who graduates in four years should be "punished" by not being allowed to move on. Punished? What exactly is punishment about staying at a school that has allowed you to succeed academically and succeed at hoops, all for free? If that's "punished," sign up the other 99.9 percent of the student population for that kind of abuse.

Going hand in hand with this, an interesting dynamic has developed within major college athletic departments, where coaches in all sports are being warned that players can't be let go for "performance reasons." But it's not really just about performance. Late for practice? Gotta keep 'em. Don't do your morning rehab in the training room? Can't get the boot. Academic deficiencies? Nope, work with the poor child. It's gotten to the point where coaches have asked, and rightly so, why non-athletes who are on academic full rides are held to a certain standard to remain on scholarship, but there's no such standard for athletic scholarship kids. The answer from the schools has essentially been the same: "Yep, the climate has changed and will continue to change over the next six months. If you need to dismiss a kid, do it now."

In a world that calls for almost zero accountability, it would be nice if our institutions of higher learning -- the places where leaders are supposedly developed -- took the lead and demanded student-athlete accountability. The last thing needed among college basketball players is more entitlement and less accountability. Why can't college sports be an environment where the powers that be don't bend to the whims and demands of those who have never worked inside an athletic department, much less been asked to run a team? A fella can dream, can't he?

i

Phil Ellsworth/ESPN Images
So long, Billy Donovan

Billy Donovan's move to the Oklahoma City Thunder is a huge loss for college basketball. I believe Donovan was the most normal of all super-successful college basketball coaches. Ever hear some of these coaches talk? You would swear college basketball couldn't exist without them. Not Billy, who always remained humble and helpful. Like Brad Stevens, who made a similar move two summers ago, Donovan has a servant's heart. He mentors not only players, but also young coaches. He's incredibly loyal, as evidenced by him bringing both John Pelphrey and Anthony Grant back to his staff, after they were let go at their previous jobs.

Watching a Florida practice was like watching a great teacher who also had the personality of a drill sergeant. You had the feeling that players were both being taught how to play and learning that failure wasn't an option. I don't know exactly why he left, but I've assumed Donovan left Florida for a variety of reasons, and I promise you the changing landscape and nonsense involved in modern recruiting played a part -- along with the opportunity to coach a really good NBA team with young stars. Add it up, and you have one of the best in the history of college basketball moving on. And not a coach in the country blames him.

The talented Big Ten

As a guy who is lucky enough to broadcast Big Ten games I was really happy to see Michigan's Caris LeVert, Indiana's Yogi Ferrell and Purdue's A.J. Hammons each return to school. I will have IU and Michigan in my preseason top 10, with Purdue just a notch below.

LeVert had a real choice. He was projected as a first-round lock, and depending on his recovery from a knee injury, a possible lottery selection. Ferrell really had no choice but to return. To his credit, he did his due diligence, looked at all angles and made the smart choice. Whether Ferrell can move up in the draft for next year depends on IU's success. With the addition of five-star post recruit Thomas Bryant, the Hoosiers will be the Big Ten's preseason favorite. Hammons just loves Purdue, and the environment Matt Painter has established is the main reason he chose to stay. But Purdue needs a point guard. The Boilermakers are searching the "free-agent market," trying for a repeat of getting a Jon Octeus, as they did last year.

It should be a great season in the league I love. And oh yeah, it doesn't matter who they have or who they lost, the Wisconsin Badgers will challenge and end up top three in the Big Ten.

Other thoughts

• My advice for young players is to study the NBA playoffs, and watch how players get into a defensive stance. Watch the communication on both ends of the floor. Guess what else I've seen? Blockouts. That's right, defensive players getting their rear ends into the thighs of offensive rebounders, and physically keeping them off the boards. I always thought if something was important enough for the pros, it's important enough for all hoopers. DVR the games, study the players and you might be surprised how often they do what your coach tells you to do.

• My first pick in the NBA draft? Duke's Jahlil Okafor. Karl-Anthony Towns is fantastic, but not quite at the overall level of Okafor. Both are great kids, play with poise and heart and have amazing futures. If I had to pick one right now it's Okafor, who has a more versatile game. He's more comfortable on the perimeter, and far superior to Towns at making others better. Both will take a while to handle NBA ball-screen defense, but as smart as they play that will come sooner than later. What will ultimately determine each player's success is the ability to add to their games as they progress in their careers. All the greats do it -- all the guys a notch below don't.

• As I'm writing this the Cavs are crushing Chicago in Game 2 of their Eastern Conference series. I'm gonna go with the Cavs in the East (over the Wizards in the next round) and Golden State over the Rockets in the West. When it's all said and done Golden State will reign supreme, proving once again that broadcasters make the best coaches.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...uate-transfer-rule-changed-college-basketball
 
  • Like
Reactions: mountain25
I think if you're going to have a rule that requires transfers to sit out a year, then all transfers should be required to sit out a year, eliminating the loophole that allows graduating players to play immediately at their new school. Let them sit a a year, then play in the next season. This would allow more of the students transferring for a graduate program to actually finish their graduate degree. I don't know the number of students who use this loophole who actually finish and obtain their graduate degree but since the athletic scholarship would dry up after that first year (and they are just taking the graduate courses to that they can play one more season), I'd bet the number is staggeringly low.
 
The rule is flawed in that it was put in place for purely academic reasons. Is it fair that the kid goes to school and is developed for a few years under one coach and then sees his chance to become almost like a free agent and "take his talents elsewhere" as a graduate? Probably not, but how can anyone prove that a player is leaving just to go to a better athletic program rather than leaving to further his education?
 
You guys are missing the boat on this.

If a kid does the right thing and graduates early and has a year or two left of elig, why should he be forced to goto the specific grad school that he went to as an undergrad.

I think a lot of people on this board are caught up on it because it happened with Gibbs.
 
You guys are missing the boat on this.

If a kid does the right thing and graduates early and has a year or two left of elig, why should he be forced to goto the specific grad school that he went to as an undergrad.

I think a lot of people on this board are caught up on it because it happened with Gibbs.
I certainly am not because as I noted we benefited from this rule in the past with both our men's and women's programs. And we're benefiting now with Anderson.

If a player wants to pursue a grad program elsewhere that's fine. He'll need 2 year in many instances anyway to do that.

But if this is purely a BB decision than the transfer rules available in all other situations should also apply here.
 
And why should a guy like Gibbs be stuck playing for a knucklehead coach? He had a chance to get out of dodge and he did. The whole system is tilted for coaches not players. Look what Shamaker did to his players. They signed with Seton Hall, validating him as a top recruiter. He used that situation to take the first big offer he could get and leave. Fix that kind of mess first.
 
Wait so some of you guys are upset about an academic first rule? This board upset abouit a rule putting academics first am i reading that right?
 
Make everyone free agents after each year. I could have transferred to any college that wanted me, no penalty imposed. The brilliant physics student who attended Berkley to study under a professor can leave Berkley and follow the prof and even study physics right away. Sorry, I just don't think the possible disruption to rosters is a good enough reason to artificially limit where a kid can play. (I also think the flow of kids will not only be up; good players closed out of PT at a top 15 school may want more PT at a top 60 school) And at the very least, kids who transfer should not be limited whatsoever on where they want to go next. Frankly, the school has no right to interfere in that decision, just like it doesn't when a non athlete transfers. This is all NCAA bullshit to protect schools and coaches with no regard for the players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pirate6711
We have definitely benefited from the loophole, most recently with D Simmons being allowed to play this year for our Women's team. But would SHE really have been any worse off if she were required attend SHU this season while not playing and then play next year? The team would have suffered but she would have likely been able to finish her degree by the end of her second year at SHU. Maybe she stays and finishes her degree on her own dime next year but my feeling is that most of these students never stick around long enough to complete the degree.
 
College basketball has way bigger problems than the graduate transfer rule. In most cases, it's not used by impact players like Sterling Gibbs. It's used by kids who actually are motivated by grad school and it passes under the radar because it's insignificant, except for in the player's post-basketball career.

If we had a functional basketball program and a coach with a clue, Gibbs would still be here. In these cases, coaches have only themselves to blame for their seniors wanting out.
 
College basketball has way bigger problems than the graduate transfer rule. In most cases, it's not used by impact players like Sterling Gibbs. It's used by kids who actually are motivated by grad school and it passes under the radar because it's insignificant, except for in the player's post-basketball career.
That's the point people are missing are are being intentionally ignorant of. The impact players (like Gibbs) and guys who use it as a way to move up from being good in a mid major role to a major conference (Damion Lee going from Drexel to Louisville) are few and far between. Before Anderson signed, I was going through the graduate transfer list to see potential targets and it amazed me how many guys on the list averaged single-digit minutes per game.
 
Well, if they are using the loophole for a legitimate academic reason and not for some athletic purpose, what harm is there requiring the student to sit out a year and focus on their studies? If they were truly interested in pursuing the graduate degree, would it not make more sense to be funded at a school for 2 years as opposed to just 1? I am fairly sure that the funding for these students goes away at the end of that first year as they have exhausted their eligiblity. So they play that first year, complete half of a graduate program, and then leave school without completing the degree. Doing so makes it hard to say that they are pursuing this option for a purely academic purpose (the reality is that academically they would be better served by sitting the year and then being eligible to play the second year).

And I am not even sure that I agree with having transfers sit, ever. Just think that if you are going to have a rule that says that transfers need to sit, then there shouldn't be a loophole for graduating students.
 
Well, if they are using the loophole for a legitimate academic reason and not for some athletic purpose, what harm is there requiring the student to sit out a year and focus on their studies? If they were truly interested in pursuing the graduate degree, would it not make more sense to be funded at a school for 2 years as opposed to just 1? I am fairly sure that the funding for these students goes away at the end of that first year as they have exhausted their eligiblity. So they play that first year, complete half of a graduate program, and then leave school without completing the degree. Doing so makes it hard to say that they are pursuing this option for a purely academic purpose (the reality is that academically they would be better served by sitting the year and then being eligible to play the second year).

And I am not even sure that I agree with having transfers sit, ever. Just think that if you are going to have a rule that says that transfers need to sit, then there shouldn't be a loophole for graduating students.
Then change the "4 in 5" rule to "4 in 6." Graduates don't sit out a year because if they did, the fourth year of eligibility would not be within five years of college.
 
OK by me. Though I am pretty sure that D. Simmons was originally approved to enroll at SHU, sit out a year and then play in her second year (Alabama was not cooperating with allowing her to play immediately) so I don't think the 4 in 5 or 6 rule is prohibitive to students in these situations.
 
OK by me. Though I am pretty sure that D. Simmons was originally approved to enroll at SHU, sit out a year and then play in her second year (Alabama was not cooperating with allowing her to play immediately) so I don't think the 4 in 5 or 6 rule is prohibitive to students in these situations.
It was only because of an exemption that she would have been allowed to play the sixth year. Because of how Alabama was handling it, that was the NCAA's compromise. They easily could have said "no" and not allowed her to play in the sixth year if Alabama didn't sign off on it. Alabama eventually signed off, so it's a moot point, but that sixth year for Daisha was not automatic by any means if the NCAA didn't rule the way it did prior to the Alabama AD changing his mind.
 
you could do the Grant Gibbs 5 in 7 or the even more rare Jamie Crockett 16 in 4 years.
 
Then change the "4 in 5" rule to "4 in 6." Graduates don't sit out a year because if they did, the fourth year of eligibility would not be within five years of college.

That is the new rule for all transfers in exchange for no more hardship waivers.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT