menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Unexpected Consequence of New Transfer Era
Page: 2 of 3
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
1/10/2023 9:54 AM
I absolutely hate the new 1 time transfer rule, hate it with a passion.

I think many are forgetting that prior to 2020(somebody check me on that), in order to transfer laterally, you had to sit out an entire year.

That made the decision to transfer very difficult, whereas now, the decision is pretty simple knowing you are granted immediate eligibility.
mail
Andrew Ruck
1/10/2023 12:59 PM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
I would still prefer to favor Freshmen in recruiting and minimize use of the portal and this discussion with various fans saying it makes them lose interest only solidifies that. If we can have more roster stability than others maybe we can keep our fan base more engaged than others.
I respect your preferences on this...but I don't see this working ever again. The portal is the key to winning. D1 is now JUCO on steroids and I suspect it's a permanent condition.
But just by simple math, doesn't you and pretty much everyone else saying the portal is the key to winning mean there are tons of talented freshmen who won't be getting offers that would have previously? Isn't it possible we can find better HS recruits out of this environment? Add to it a culture and expectation that it is different here, that you're given a chance to have a career and transfers won't be brought in over the top of you...it at least makes sense conceptually. I know I'm being naive to an extent.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/10/2023 3:06 PM
spongeBOB CATpants wrote:expand_more
I absolutely hate the new 1 time transfer rule, hate it with a passion.

I think many are forgetting that prior to 2020(somebody check me on that), in order to transfer laterally, you had to sit out an entire year.

That made the decision to transfer very difficult, whereas now, the decision is pretty simple knowing you are granted immediate eligibility.
I don't think there's any question that it's worse for fans and ultimately may impact competitive balance.

But I support it none-the-less. It just seems very hard to justify that level of control over a student athlete.
mail
person
colobobcat66
1/10/2023 3:49 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I absolutely hate the new 1 time transfer rule, hate it with a passion.

I think many are forgetting that prior to 2020(somebody check me on that), in order to transfer laterally, you had to sit out an entire year.

That made the decision to transfer very difficult, whereas now, the decision is pretty simple knowing you are granted immediate eligibility.
I don't think there's any question that it's worse for fans and ultimately may impact competitive balance.

But I support it none-the-less. It just seems very hard to justify that level of control over a student athlete.


I just think there needs to be some sort of middle ground-whatever that looks like- instead of a total free for all frenzy. If the student takes a 1 year scholarship, at last no transfer until after that school year-maybe? Lots of people closer to it than me who should be able to figure something out.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/10/2023 6:06 PM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I absolutely hate the new 1 time transfer rule, hate it with a passion.

I think many are forgetting that prior to 2020(somebody check me on that), in order to transfer laterally, you had to sit out an entire year.

That made the decision to transfer very difficult, whereas now, the decision is pretty simple knowing you are granted immediate eligibility.
I don't think there's any question that it's worse for fans and ultimately may impact competitive balance.

But I support it none-the-less. It just seems very hard to justify that level of control over a student athlete.


I just think there needs to be some sort of middle ground-whatever that looks like- instead of a total free for all frenzy. If the student takes a 1 year scholarship, at last no transfer until after that school year-maybe? Lots of people closer to it than me who should be able to figure something out.
I think this is a bit of a Catch 22. When you restrict player movement, the justifications are solely about the product on the field/court. The justifications are almost exclusively (there may be others, but not that I've seen) about fan experience and competitive balance. And once you start building policy around that, it's very hard to insist these are true student athletes and that their contributions aren't central to the business success of the sport they play.
mail
person
Buckeye to Bobcat
1/10/2023 9:02 PM
Recovering Journalist wrote:expand_more
I feel bad for a school like St. Peters. Going into last year's MAAC Tournament, they were 16-11. Pretty good, but nothing that would unify and excite their student body and alumni. They go on their run, the coach leaves for Seton Hall, and then just about everyone else bolts for the transfer portal. That school barely had any time to revel in what it had accomplished. Any excitement for the 2023 Peacocks is waning as their turned-over roster is now 7-9.
That's what will happen to any mid-major that makes the Sweet 16 for the rest of eternity. Leagues like the MAC and MAAC are the farm system of the Power conferences for both coaches and players.

Ohio's feeling the same pain this season without the joy of a run last season. The whole enterprise gets less appealing every year.
Well, everyone wanted kids paid and the works right? Well, this is what the geniuses get for the unintended consequences. That whole loyalty thing goes out the door in a hurry and looks a lot like people's careers. Hate to say deal with it, but everyone knew what was going to happen and lo and behold, it has. No putting the genie back in the bottle.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/10/2023 9:19 PM
spongeBOB CATpants wrote:expand_more
I absolutely hate the new 1 time transfer rule, hate it with a passion.

I think many are forgetting that prior to 2020(somebody check me on that), in order to transfer laterally, you had to sit out an entire year.

That made the decision to transfer very difficult, whereas now, the decision is pretty simple knowing you are granted immediate eligibility.
That rule changed before Covid basketball. The courts basically mandated it, just like NIL was mandated by legislators. Funny, though for year, many on this board have lobbied for compensation and freedom for athletes. They get it, then it’s like damn, ain’t sure about this!” SBSP, that is not directed at you, but some definitely had that feeling! Including one who stated that players should be compensated but no one should make more than the President.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/10/2023 9:21 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I absolutely hate the new 1 time transfer rule, hate it with a passion.

I think many are forgetting that prior to 2020(somebody check me on that), in order to transfer laterally, you had to sit out an entire year.

That made the decision to transfer very difficult, whereas now, the decision is pretty simple knowing you are granted immediate eligibility.
I don't think there's any question that it's worse for fans and ultimately may impact competitive balance.

But I support it none-the-less. It just seems very hard to justify that level of control over a student athlete.


I just think there needs to be some sort of middle ground-whatever that looks like- instead of a total free for all frenzy. If the student takes a 1 year scholarship, at last no transfer until after that school year-maybe? Lots of people closer to it than me who should be able to figure something out.
I think this is a bit of a Catch 22. When you restrict player movement, the justifications are solely about the product on the field/court. The justifications are almost exclusively (there may be others, but not that I've seen) about fan experience and competitive balance. And once you start building policy around that, it's very hard to insist these are true student athletes and that their contributions aren't central to the business success of the sport they play.
Exactly! That is why the NCAA caved, because once the courts struck it down, the NCAA is done. And you and few will like the successor.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/10/2023 9:24 PM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
I would still prefer to favor Freshmen in recruiting and minimize use of the portal and this discussion with various fans saying it makes them lose interest only solidifies that. If we can have more roster stability than others maybe we can keep our fan base more engaged than others.
I respect your preferences on this...but I don't see this working ever again. The portal is the key to winning. D1 is now JUCO on steroids and I suspect it's a permanent condition.
But just by simple math, doesn't you and pretty much everyone else saying the portal is the key to winning mean there are tons of talented freshmen who won't be getting offers that would have previously? Isn't it possible we can find better HS recruits out of this environment? Add to it a culture and expectation that it is different here, that you're given a chance to have a career and transfers won't be brought in over the top of you...it at least makes sense conceptually. I know I'm being naive to an extent.
This is 110%, in football and basketball, the losers in this are HS kids.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/11/2023 3:47 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I absolutely hate the new 1 time transfer rule, hate it with a passion.

I think many are forgetting that prior to 2020(somebody check me on that), in order to transfer laterally, you had to sit out an entire year.

That made the decision to transfer very difficult, whereas now, the decision is pretty simple knowing you are granted immediate eligibility.
I don't think there's any question that it's worse for fans and ultimately may impact competitive balance.

But I support it none-the-less. It just seems very hard to justify that level of control over a student athlete.


I just think there needs to be some sort of middle ground-whatever that looks like- instead of a total free for all frenzy. If the student takes a 1 year scholarship, at last no transfer until after that school year-maybe? Lots of people closer to it than me who should be able to figure something out.
I think this is a bit of a Catch 22. When you restrict player movement, the justifications are solely about the product on the field/court. The justifications are almost exclusively (there may be others, but not that I've seen) about fan experience and competitive balance. And once you start building policy around that, it's very hard to insist these are true student athletes and that their contributions aren't central to the business success of the sport they play.
Exactly! That is why the NCAA caved, because once the courts struck it down, the NCAA is done. And you and few will like the successor.
Whether I like it just doesn't seem relevant. For me, that's not a consideration that seems relevant. There are college athletes that have worked very hard to be very good at what they do, and I'm opposed to a system that restricts their freedom to pursue that in the manner they think's best for them.

That people are upset Mark Sears transferred is not a reason to legislate away Mark Sears' ability to transfer.
mail
person
JAF
1/11/2023 10:38 AM
Great discussion, guys. To be clear, I'm not begrudging anyone their right to make money or work within the parameters of the 'system'. I'm just pointing out the fact that for OUr team (I would suspect most mid-majors are/will be the same) the rushing river of comings and goings seem to make me less interested as an alumnus and a historically active supporter. The transfer thing seems to be a vicious cycle of 'if you are good enough you transfer to a bigger program, if you aren't as good as advertised you won't be patient enough to get developed and you transfer to another lateral program and there is 0 continuity.' They good ole days of having Leon Williams or DJ Cooper or Brandon Hunter for 3-4 years seem to be past us. Now we will have a good Freshman or Sophomore for 1-2 years and it will be rebuild time over and over. It's like the Cleveland Guardians in a sense, you will only have a short window to succeed and your core will be gone for better money/opportunities.
mail
person
GoCats105
1/11/2023 3:25 PM
I think a big next step that needs to be taken is athlete counseling on whether or not transferring is a good idea. By now there is a boatload of evidence of guys who choose to move on and don't get another shot elsewhere. I'm not sure how you come up with something like that other than coaches being well versed in it, because I assume most smaller athletic departments won't be able to afford to hire consulting work like that or add a new staff member.
mail
person
ohiocatfan1
1/11/2023 4:07 PM
Ohio went to the Sweet 16 in 2012 starting 5 underclassman and John Groce bolted for Illinois. No issue at all to me as long as the players are permitted to do the very same thing.
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
1/11/2023 4:34 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I would still prefer to favor Freshmen in recruiting and minimize use of the portal and this discussion with various fans saying it makes them lose interest only solidifies that. If we can have more roster stability than others maybe we can keep our fan base more engaged than others.
I respect your preferences on this...but I don't see this working ever again. The portal is the key to winning. D1 is now JUCO on steroids and I suspect it's a permanent condition.
But just by simple math, doesn't you and pretty much everyone else saying the portal is the key to winning mean there are tons of talented freshmen who won't be getting offers that would have previously? Isn't it possible we can find better HS recruits out of this environment? Add to it a culture and expectation that it is different here, that you're given a chance to have a career and transfers won't be brought in over the top of you...it at least makes sense conceptually. I know I'm being naive to an extent.
This is 110%, in football and basketball, the losers in this are HS kids.
I'm not saying mid majors like Ohio should stop recruiting HS athletes. I'm saying it has to be a continual blend of HS athletes plus portal players each season. And I think mids have to expect that their top HS recruits will be moving on to a higher level after two years. Are mid major coaches explicitly using the selling point to HS players to come to our program for a couple years then move up if the opportunity presents itself?
mail
person
FJC31
1/11/2023 7:06 PM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
I would still prefer to favor Freshmen in recruiting and minimize use of the portal and this discussion with various fans saying it makes them lose interest only solidifies that. If we can have more roster stability than others maybe we can keep our fan base more engaged than others.
I respect your preferences on this...but I don't see this working ever again. The portal is the key to winning. D1 is now JUCO on steroids and I suspect it's a permanent condition.
But just by simple math, doesn't you and pretty much everyone else saying the portal is the key to winning mean there are tons of talented freshmen who won't be getting offers that would have previously? Isn't it possible we can find better HS recruits out of this environment? Add to it a culture and expectation that it is different here, that you're given a chance to have a career and transfers won't be brought in over the top of you...it at least makes sense conceptually. I know I'm being naive to an extent.
This is 110%, in football and basketball, the losers in this are HS kids.
I'm not saying mid majors like Ohio should stop recruiting HS athletes. I'm saying it has to be a continual blend of HS athletes plus portal players each season. And I think mids have to expect that their top HS recruits will be moving on to a higher level after two years. Are mid major coaches explicitly using the selling point to HS players to come to our program for a couple years then move up if the opportunity presents itself?
+1. I’d also add that for all the players looking to make the jump up, just as many players are looking to carve out more playing time by transferring down. Some have a lot of impact (Walt, Kaminski) and some not so much (Wiz). Point being — even if we lose guys to a P5 each year, there are ways to still field a competitive roster at this level.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/11/2023 8:20 PM
There are a lot of definitive statements here about how every mid major will lose their best players to bigger schools. That may well turn out to be true.

But based on the data, I don't think it's true yet.

Thought this was an interesting analysis: https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2021/coll... /

(Open in an incognito window to get around the subscription)

A few interesting things (assuming I'm interpreting this right):

1) Transfers were already way up before the new transfer rule. They rose 76% between 2012 and 2020.
2) Only 19% of transfers were "upward" -- meaning that a player moved from a mid-major or lower to a P5 school. Of that 19%, only 52 players (3.5% of transfers) moved from a mid-major to a P5 school.
3) More P5 players transferred to mid-majors than vice versa.
4) The largest group of transfers are "downward"
mail
person
FJC31
1/12/2023 7:22 PM
If someone posted this already, apologize for the redundancy. Sounds like it’s not going to be easy for second time transfers beginning this year.

https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/news/ncaa-division-i-... /
mail
person
bobcatsquared
1/12/2023 7:54 PM
"Each portal waiver will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and must meet at least one of the following."

I can see it now. . . transferring from Loyola (Ill) to Kentucky? Good to go. Transferring from Michigan St. to Cleveland St? You'll have to sit out a year.
mail
TWT
1/12/2023 8:49 PM
FJC31 wrote:expand_more
If someone posted this already, apologize for the redundancy. Sounds like it’s not going to be easy for second time transfers beginning this year.

https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/news/ncaa-division-i-... /
If its only possible to transfer once it impacts the calculus for any player considering the graduate transfer route at some point in their career. Having the right to transfer in your back pocket at any given year has value if the staff is fired too.
mail
person
longtiimelurker
1/13/2023 10:56 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I think this is a bit of a Catch 22. When you restrict player movement, the justifications are solely about the product on the field/court. The justifications are almost exclusively (there may be others, but not that I've seen) about fan experience and competitive balance. And once you start building policy around that, it's very hard to insist these are true student athletes and that their contributions aren't central to the business success of the sport they play.
It is somewhat interesting that we have somehow lost the school portion. There is a surprising lack of discussion at this point about the academics with these athletes. No one is talking about APR as if the former attention paid to "Academic Progress" and the folks who were so concerned about the poor athletes getting an education in return for their athletic prowess have been kicked to the curb and forgotten.

Anyone who has transferred schools can probably relate stories about which credits transferred and how it affected their course of study. For decades everyone complained that the NCAA was using players and not ensuring their academic progress. That does not even seem to be part of the conversation at this point.

Somehow the faction that worried about restricting player movement being so unfair and so bad are now so willing to leave out the whole academic side of things in their discussions.
Last Edited: 1/13/2023 10:58:58 PM by longtiimelurker
mail
Pete Chouteau
1/14/2023 9:56 AM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
I think a big next step that needs to be taken is athlete counseling on whether or not transferring is a good idea. By now there is a boatload of evidence of guys who choose to move on and don't get another shot elsewhere. I'm not sure how you come up with something like that other than coaches being well versed in it, because I assume most smaller athletic departments won't be able to afford to hire consulting work like that or add a new staff member.
The conflicts of interest in counseling athletes on the subject of portalling could be listed for days.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/14/2023 10:19 AM
longtiimelurker wrote:expand_more
Somehow the faction that worried about restricting player movement being so unfair and so bad are now so willing to leave out the whole academic side of things in their discussions.
I don't think this is the contradiction you're interpreting it to be.

My view is these are adults who should be able to make their own decisions, and that the NCAA and universities shouldn't be some Draconian bureaucracy that decides what's best for students. Particularly given very obvious conflicts of interest given the finances of college athletics.

These are adults. If they want to take academics seriously, they will. If they don't, they won't. Just like everyone at any university in the country. I'm opposed to legislation that eliminates personal choice, and think that attempts to force an education on student athletes are overbearing. The NCAA is effectively a legislative body that tries to dictate what's best for individuals when doing so is not only very, very difficult, but also not their responsibility.
Last Edited: 1/14/2023 10:22:55 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
bobcatsquared
1/14/2023 12:08 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
and think that attempts to force an education on student athletes are overbearing.
Always thought "education" and "student" went hand in hand. If an aspiring professional athlete is not interested in an education (or perhaps not equipped for one) then maybe there should be alternatives to going to college. MiLB and G League come to mind. If you look up the mission statement of any university, I believe you will find something about providing an education as part of it. Perhaps I'm naive to believe that is still part of what colleges should strive to provide for all students, athlete or not.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/14/2023 4:56 PM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
I would still prefer to favor Freshmen in recruiting and minimize use of the portal and this discussion with various fans saying it makes them lose interest only solidifies that. If we can have more roster stability than others maybe we can keep our fan base more engaged than others.
I respect your preferences on this...but I don't see this working ever again. The portal is the key to winning. D1 is now JUCO on steroids and I suspect it's a permanent condition.
But just by simple math, doesn't you and pretty much everyone else saying the portal is the key to winning mean there are tons of talented freshmen who won't be getting offers that would have previously? Isn't it possible we can find better HS recruits out of this environment? Add to it a culture and expectation that it is different here, that you're given a chance to have a career and transfers won't be brought in over the top of you...it at least makes sense conceptually. I know I'm being naive to an extent.
This is 110%, in football and basketball, the losers in this are HS kids.
I'm not saying mid majors like Ohio should stop recruiting HS athletes. I'm saying it has to be a continual blend of HS athletes plus portal players each season. And I think mids have to expect that their top HS recruits will be moving on to a higher level after two years. Are mid major coaches explicitly using the selling point to HS players to come to our program for a couple years then move up if the opportunity presents itself?
I know you weren’t Jeff, but the fact is, the portal is effecting HS kids.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/14/2023 5:07 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
I think a big next step that needs to be taken is athlete counseling on whether or not transferring is a good idea. By now there is a boatload of evidence of guys who choose to move on and don't get another shot elsewhere. I'm not sure how you come up with something like that other than coaches being well versed in it, because I assume most smaller athletic departments won't be able to afford to hire consulting work like that or add a new staff member.
Only consulting that most will take in the first place will be from their AAU coaches and handlers. But I do agree with you.
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 61
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)