menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Unexpected Consequence of New Transfer Era
Page: 2 of 3
spongeBOB CATpants
General User
Member Since: 8/16/2016
Post Count: 1,348
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
mail
Posted: 1/10/2023 9:54 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Andrew Ruck
General User
Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 5,638
mail
Andrew Ruck
mail
Posted: 1/10/2023 12:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,646
person
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/10/2023 3:06 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 1/10/2023 3:49 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,646
person
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/10/2023 6:06 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Buckeye to Bobcat
General User
BB
Member Since: 9/10/2013
Post Count: 1,873
person
mail
Buckeye to Bobcat
mail
Posted: 1/10/2023 9:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,793
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 1/10/2023 9:19 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,793
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 1/10/2023 9:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,793
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 1/10/2023 9:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,646
person
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/11/2023 3:47 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
JAF
General User
JAF
Member Since: 4/22/2011
Post Count: 37
person
mail
JAF
mail
Posted: 1/11/2023 10:38 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,814
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 1/11/2023 3:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
ohiocatfan1
General User
O1
Member Since: 9/6/2016
Post Count: 396
person
mail
ohiocatfan1
mail
Posted: 1/11/2023 4:07 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 1/11/2023 4:34 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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?
FJC31
General User
FJC31
Member Since: 3/31/2022
Post Count: 2,279
person
mail
FJC31
mail
Posted: 1/11/2023 7:06 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,646
person
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/11/2023 8:20 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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"
FJC31
General User
FJC31
Member Since: 3/31/2022
Post Count: 2,279
person
mail
FJC31
mail
Posted: 1/12/2023 7:22 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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-... /
bobcatsquared
General User
B
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 5,844
person
mail
bobcatsquared
mail
Posted: 1/12/2023 7:54 PM
settings_applications edit_note
"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.
TWT
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,453
mail
TWT
mail
Posted: 1/12/2023 8:49 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
longtiimelurker
General User
L
Member Since: 2/3/2017
Post Count: 600
person
mail
longtiimelurker
mail
Posted: 1/13/2023 10:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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
Pete Chouteau
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: You Can't See Me
Post Count: 1,696
mail
Pete Chouteau
mail
Posted: 1/14/2023 9:56 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,646
person
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 1/14/2023 10:19 AM
settings_applications edit_note
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
bobcatsquared
General User
B
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 5,844
person
mail
bobcatsquared
mail
Posted: 1/14/2023 12:08 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,793
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 1/14/2023 4:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,793
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 1/14/2023 5:07 PM
settings_applications edit_note
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)