Transfer rules need to be updated

[SHUmash90]

i don't understand how a kid would be punished by having to sit out a year if he transferred schools because his position was recruited over. That's the issue with kids gambling with the one and done programs that will clearly recruit over you with 1-2 years. Take frank Jackson from duke. If he can't get drafted because he has development to do and duval picks duke then frank loses his starting PG spot and the kids NBA prospects may be over. He could have a shot in this case to develop somewhere else but can't if he sits a year.

Do I have this right that he would have to sit no matter what the reason ? What are the exceptions?

 

[shu09]

I completely disagree. All transfers should sit one year. If there is no deterrent, you'll have uncontrolled free agency in college basketball. That would be a very, very bad thing.

Just because you sit doesn't mean you can't get better and develop. There are no restrictions on practicing with your new team.

And let's stop the charade that these are "kids." These are fully grown men. A high schooler is a kid.

You sympathize with a Duke player possibly losing his starting spot to a stud freshman point guard? Wow, what a soft society we have become. That's called life, there is always someone out there who is better. Suck it up and deal with it.

 

[Section112]

Punished??? He knew he was going to Duke where they recruit really good kids at every position every year. How is the poor baby being punished? He can stay in the draft if he wants to chance it or take his chances at Duke. He also can by the way get a great education due to his basketball prowess and lots of kids will take that in a second so cry no blues for this kid. That is how the cookie crumbles my mother used to say. The transfer rules have nothing to do with his plight and yes he sits if he transfers because another kid is better. He can also work really hard and try and beat him out or stay another year to develop his skills. Kid has lots of options.

 

[hallgrad80]

112 , You're right on target with your comments as schools like Duke, Kentucky ,Kansas, and others recruit over players all the time and if you go to those schools it comes with the territory.

 

[Pirate6711]

I have no issues with eliminating the sitting out a season rule as long as coaches can revoke scholarships for any reason. It's an arbitrary rule that isn't even applied equally across sports.

Give the athletes more rights with the scholarship rules and when/how coaches can take them away, then sitting out rules will be fairer.

 

[SoOrange84]

112 , You're right on target with your comments as schools like Duke, Kentucky ,Kansas, and others recruit over players all the time and if you go to those schools it comes with the territory.

I still do not understand the concept of "recruiting over" someone. It is a coaches job to put the best team possible on the floor, regardless of who is already at the school.

I do agree however, that kids should have to sit out a year, before they can play at another school

 

[JTSHU]

in this day in age a 17, 18, 19 year old is a kid. Mentally a kid. Experience in life a kid.

 

[P1RAT3]

Without making kids sit out a year the transfer issue would be much much worse than it is now.

Agree that something should be done though. This seems too harsh but maybe you lose a year of eligibility along with having to sit out a year. Some exceptions would apply obviously.

 

[SOBO1]

When you commit to a school like UK, Duke, UNC, etc it is with an understanding that there will be multiple 5 star players coming in every single year. If you can't handle the competition at your position then don't commit to a school like that.

 

[QueRico]

Please define "recruited over". If a PG signs to a school, does that mean that the school is not supposed to recruit any more point guards for 4 years - or only lesser players? But what about those players? This is why there isn't (or shouldn't be) such a thing as guaranteed playing time.

 

[Pirate6711]

Please define "recruited over". If a PG signs to a school, does that mean that the school is not supposed to recruit any more point guards for 4 years - or only lesser players? But what about those players? This is why there isn't (or shouldn't be) such a thing as guaranteed playing time.

Well, a coach can revoke a scholarship for any reason, even (especially?) to land a better recruit. I think the athlete should have a little bit more security if they commit to a school.

 

[ArtieLange9]

It's a very slippery slope. That's why it is buyer beware.

Playing at Duke, Arizona, Kansas sounds great but there is greater pressure to succeed right away or you get over recruited. That's why some of these kids have to go where they are loved and the best fit.

 

[dcPirate]

You have to keep the sit out rule imo or as other posters said, the amount of transfers would explode. In this new age "snow flake" society where the second something doesn't go 100% a kids way, many kids would (and some do) just bolt for another school where they think the grass is greener. Life ain't always roses, many kids don't know how to (as they have never had to) fight through adversity or deal with failures before becoming successful.

Can you imagine how much more cut-throat recruiting would become? Coaches at many schools would have to "recruit" their own players every year to stay in their program. Especially when a kid outside of an elite program "blows up", the big boys would come calling and you would have all sorts of funny business on the recruiting front (more than now) which is saying something.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

I'm just curious does this transfer problem happen in other college sports where you you basically have something like 15-20% of the entire sport transferring. I know the numbers are not that high in football. I can't imagine they are that high in soccer, hockey, wrestling, or baseball either.

What I find funny is most college players want to get paid for bringing in money, which I can understand, but they want the freedom to change schools like other college kids. If a player signs a contract in the NBA that player can't get out of the contract because they changed the coach, they are unhappy with your minutes, or they want to be closer to home. I wish there was something where players can sign for 1-4 years and you can move on without sitting out when the term they sign on for is over. Something where if a player signs on for all 4 years that player gets a bigger stipend than the 1-3 year players. Again I'm not for players being paid, but transferring in basketball is out of control and it can't be handled in the same manner as other sports because they don't have the same problems.