menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Big10 proposed ground legislation
Page: 2 of 2
mail
OhioCatFan
2/4/2020 3:33 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
This will not just affect BB non-P6 and FB non-P5 schools. You'll see Kentucky recruiting players from Ohio State and Duke and seeking immediately eligible transfers. In football, you'll see SEC pilfering the B1G with great success. The only schools that will do well here will be the ones at the very top of the heap in their respective sports, and ones who have coaches who develop strong bonds with their players and, therefore, there is a great deal of loyalty among the players. But, in general, it'll be a very destablizing rule, if adopted. I suspect it's not at all a "done deal" yet and will have major opposition within the NCAA fold.
Why is it that only the folks at the top will benefit? Won't the Ohio's of the world benefit, as well? Can't OU go "pilfer" a quarterback from James Madison or a Point Guard from the Patriot League?

And more to the point: if a student athlete wants to attend a different school, what justification does one use to stop them? Competitive balance?
Put it this way, the higher up you are in the pecking order, the more you will be able to benefit from this rule because the more highly sought after players will be available to you in greater numbers. It's not that Ohio can't benefit in some cases, as per your example, but not to the extent of Alabama, Clemson and O$U..

One thing that strikes me as very wrong about this proposed rule is that a school that takes a chance on a prospect that no one else has great interest in, but the coach sees something that others don't and thinks the kid has potential, can get screwed if the kid becomes a star. Specifically, a coach with a keen eye for undeveloped talent, who is good at "coaching up" a prospect, can spend hours and hours of his time teaching and developing the young player, who then before his junior year transfers to some other more glamorous school. In this case, the coach who initially recruited him does not get to take advantage of all the time and energy he invested in making the ungrateful player into a first-rate talent. To me, there is something just a little out of wack with this scenario that I see as something that could happen easily if this rule is ever adopted.
mail
person
CatsUp
2/4/2020 3:48 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
This will not just affect BB non-P6 and FB non-P5 schools. You'll see Kentucky recruiting players from Ohio State and Duke and seeking immediately eligible transfers. In football, you'll see SEC pilfering the B1G with great success. The only schools that will do well here will be the ones at the very top of the heap in their respective sports, and ones who have coaches who develop strong bonds with their players and, therefore, there is a great deal of loyalty among the players. But, in general, it'll be a very destablizing rule, if adopted. I suspect it's not at all a "done deal" yet and will have major opposition within the NCAA fold.
Why is it that only the folks at the top will benefit? Won't the Ohio's of the world benefit, as well? Can't OU go "pilfer" a quarterback from James Madison or a Point Guard from the Patriot League?

And more to the point: if a student athlete wants to attend a different school, what justification does one use to stop them? Competitive balance?
Put it this way, the higher up you are in the pecking order, the more you will be able to benefit from this rule because the more highly sought after players will be available to you in greater numbers. It's not that Ohio can't benefit in some cases, as per your example, but not to the extent of Alabama, Clemson and O$U..

One thing that strikes me as very wrong about this proposed rule is that a school that takes a chance on a prospect that no one else has great interest in, but the coach sees something that others don't and thinks the kid has potential, can get screwed if the kid becomes a star. Specifically, a coach with a keen eye for undeveloped talent, who is good at "coaching up" a prospect, can spend hours and hours of his time teaching and developing the young player, who then before his junior year transfers to some other more glamorous school. In this case, the coach who initially recruited him does not get to take advantage of all the time and energy he invested in making the ungrateful player into a first-rate talent. To me, there is something just a little out of wack with this scenario that I see as something that could happen easily if this rule is ever adopted.
Yes. This too.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
2/4/2020 4:09 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
One thing that strikes me as very wrong about this proposed rule is that a school that takes a chance on a prospect that no one else has great interest in, but the coach sees something that others don't and thinks the kid has potential, can get screwed if the kid becomes a star. Specifically, a coach with a keen eye for undeveloped talent, who is good at "coaching up" a prospect, can spend hours and hours of his time teaching and developing the young player, who then before his junior year transfers to some other more glamorous school. In this case, the coach who initially recruited him does not get to take advantage of all the time and energy he invested in making the ungrateful player into a first-rate talent. To me, there is something just a little out of wack with this scenario that I see as something that could happen easily if this rule is ever adopted.

Over 10K posts means OCF is not lacking for quantity of posts. This post shows that he can, at times, provide quality of posts.

Very well stated.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/4/2020 4:18 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Put it this way, the higher up you are in the pecking order, the more you will be able to benefit from this rule because the more highly sought after players will be available to you in greater numbers. It's not that Ohio can't benefit in some cases, as per your example, but not to the extent of Alabama, Clemson and O$U.. [/QUOTE]Yeah man, that's how markets work. Of course the Alabama and the Clemsons will be able to gain access to better players as a result. Is that bad? In some ways, sure. But it sort of depends on one's perspective. If you're a very good Small Forward at Toledo and NBA scouts are uncertain about how your game will translate against more athletic wings, having the ability to transfer to Kentucky or Duke is good for you. And it's good for your professional aspirations, too. That's kind of the point of college, right? Why place limitations? Because of competitive balance? Is that really a good enough reason?

[QUOTE=OhioCatFan]
One thing that strikes me as very wrong about this proposed rule is that a school that takes a chance on a prospect that no one else has great interest in, but the coach sees something that others don't and thinks the kid has potential, can get screwed if the kid becomes a star. Specifically, a coach with a keen eye for undeveloped talent, who is good at "coaching up" a prospect, can spend hours and hours of his time teaching and developing the young player, who then before his junior year transfers to some other more glamorous school.
This happens in all walks of life. But for some reason, it's only amateur athletics where everybody falls all over themselves to try and legislate away this possibility and assume it reflects some moral failing.

Some Major League Baseball teams are much better at drafting and developing talent than others; that talent leaves in free agency a lot of the time. Some companies are renowned for junior executive development, or for training sales teams, and many professionals who are 'coached up' by one company end up providing the bulk of their value to another.

But for some reason when it comes to amateur athletics, this is always cast as some moral failing. A kid transferring makes him "ungrateful," as you put it. Would we ever say the same thing about a physics student who had a great relationship with a professor at OU who brought out the best in him/her as a freshman, only to transfer to MIT? Of course not.

People should be free to do what they think best for themselves, even if it means we're slightly less entertained by basketball sometimes.
Last Edited: 2/4/2020 4:19:38 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
OhioCatFan
2/4/2020 4:59 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Put it this way, the higher up you are in the pecking order, the more you will be able to benefit from this rule because the more highly sought after players will be available to you in greater numbers. It's not that Ohio can't benefit in some cases, as per your example, but not to the extent of Alabama, Clemson and O$U..
Yeah man, that's how markets work. Of course the Alabama and the Clemsons will be able to gain access to better players as a result. Is that bad? In some ways, sure. But it sort of depends on one's perspective. If you're a very good Small Forward at Toledo and NBA scouts are uncertain about how your game will translate against more athletic wings, having the ability to transfer to Kentucky or Duke is good for you. And it's good for your professional aspirations, too. That's kind of the point of college, right? Why place limitations? Because of competitive balance? Is that really a good enough reason?

One thing that strikes me as very wrong about this proposed rule is that a school that takes a chance on a prospect that no one else has great interest in, but the coach sees something that others don't and thinks the kid has potential, can get screwed if the kid becomes a star. Specifically, a coach with a keen eye for undeveloped talent, who is good at "coaching up" a prospect, can spend hours and hours of his time teaching and developing the young player, who then before his junior year transfers to some other more glamorous school.
This happens in all walks of life. But for some reason, it's only amateur athletics where everybody falls all over themselves to try and legislate away this possibility and assume it reflects some moral failing.

Some Major League Baseball teams are much better at drafting and developing talent than others; that talent leaves in free agency a lot of the time. Some companies are renowned for junior executive development, or for training sales teams, and many professionals who are 'coached up' by one company end up providing the bulk of their value to another.

But for some reason when it comes to amateur athletics, this is always cast as some moral failing. A kid transferring makes him "ungrateful," as you put it. Would we ever say the same thing about a physics student who had a great relationship with a professor at OU who brought out the best in him/her as a freshman, only to transfer to MIT? Of course not.

People should be free to do what they think best for themselves, even if it means we're slightly less entertained by basketball sometimes.
We are never going to agree on this subject. You see college athletics totally as a "business" and part of the laissez-faire economy. I don't and never have.
mail
OhioCatFan
2/4/2020 5:03 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
One thing that strikes me as very wrong about this proposed rule is that a school that takes a chance on a prospect that no one else has great interest in, but the coach sees something that others don't and thinks the kid has potential, can get screwed if the kid becomes a star. Specifically, a coach with a keen eye for undeveloped talent, who is good at "coaching up" a prospect, can spend hours and hours of his time teaching and developing the young player, who then before his junior year transfers to some other more glamorous school. In this case, the coach who initially recruited him does not get to take advantage of all the time and energy he invested in making the ungrateful player into a first-rate talent. To me, there is something just a little out of wack with this scenario that I see as something that could happen easily if this rule is ever adopted.

Over 10K posts means OCF is not lacking for quantity of posts. This post shows that he can, at times, provide quality of posts.

Very well stated.
Thank you. As you can see at least one other poster thinks this argument is full of holes, and equates athletic transfers to an Ohio engineering student transferring to MIT.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
2/4/2020 5:12 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Thank you. As you can see at least one other poster thinks this argument is full of holes, and equates athletic transfers to an Ohio engineering student transferring to MIT.
Old school v. new school?
mail
person
Alan Swank
2/4/2020 5:55 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Thank you. As you can see at least one other poster thinks this argument is full of holes, and equates athletic transfers to an Ohio engineering student transferring to MIT.
Old school v. new school?
Or team vs. me.
mail
JSF
2/4/2020 11:19 PM
So far, the only arguments against are, "This might hurt Ohio" and "I like it better how it is now." I don't see why either of these should restrict the ability of players to go where they please and play right away.
mail
person
cc-cat
2/4/2020 11:47 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
We are never going to agree on this subject. You see college athletics totally as a "business" and part of the laissez-faire economy. I don't and never have.
If it’s not a business why are the football and basketball coaches the highest paid employees on the campus and often the state? Why do they jump at opportunities when they take a surprise team to the sweet sixteen or beat oklahoma in the dance?
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/5/2020 7:51 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
We are never going to agree on this subject. You see college athletics totally as a "business" and part of the laissez-faire economy. I don't and never have.
Just to be super clear about this, you are currently arguing to maintain a transfer rule that is in place to protect the business interests of universities as they relate to college sports.

The difference between us on this subject isn't about markets and whether or not college sports is a business. The difference is in our willingness to restrict personal freedoms. You're willing to do so and I'm not.

I get all the reasons for doing so, competitive balance and sentimentality, for instance. I just don't find those convincing enough. And I'm honestly pretty surprised how willing people are to put those things ahead of personal liberty.

I guess that makes me an idealist, as Robert Fox said. So be it.
Last Edited: 2/5/2020 8:09:10 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/5/2020 8:06 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Thank you. As you can see at least one other poster thinks this argument is full of holes, and equates athletic transfers to an Ohio engineering student transferring to MIT.
Old school v. new school?
Or team vs. me.

It's pretty hilarious to be referred to as an idealist only to watch the folks arguing against me try so hard to cast transferring as a moral issue.

OCF called a kid transferring ungrateful. You cast it as self-centered (as opposed to the ideal of teamwork). Putting yourself ahead of the good of the team.

In actuality, this is a very clear case where a group of people are putting their own very narrow self interest ahead of the personal freedoms of people they don't know. They care more about maintaining a sense of competitive balance in college sports and their own allegiance to Ohio University than they do about an individual's right to choose where he or she plays basketball. It's super simple: there are a whole bunch of people who are opposed to this because it might be bad for OU sports, and they like OU sports as entertainment.

And somehow, those are the people insisting others are selfish. Their argument is basically that it's selfish for a world-class basketball player to want to play against the highest level of competition possible, and somehow not selfish to restrict him from doing so because they like watching basketball exactly how it is now.

Did the meaning of selfish change completely in the last few days and I didn't get the memo or something?
Last Edited: 2/5/2020 8:09:36 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Robert Fox
2/5/2020 8:26 AM
I'll chalk you down as a staunch defender of "personal liberty" from this point forward.
mail
person
GoCats105
2/5/2020 9:11 AM
JSF wrote:expand_more
So far, the only arguments against are, "This might hurt Ohio" and "I like it better how it is now." I don't see why either of these should restrict the ability of players to go where they please and play right away.
How often does Ohio...or any MAC school for that matter, really have a player that's so far and ahead of everyone else on the floor that bigger conferences would be interested? I think the number is far fewer than people think.

Ohio has always lost kids to transfer, and will always lose kids to transfer. This rule wouldn't change that. The frequency and severity may go up a tad, but in the long run I really don't see this as a problem. The biggest issue for Ohio will continue to be not "if" a kid transfers, but "when."

If we cultivate a pretty good point guard for three years then he decides to jump ship is going to be the same problem we face now with the grad transfer rule.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/5/2020 9:12 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
I'll chalk you down as a staunch defender of "personal liberty" from this point forward.
Works for me. I think if you looked back, you'll find I'm pretty consistent on this issue. I know the Right's tried to basically co-opt the idea for themselves, but neither side's particularly consistent when push comes to shove. As this conversation demonstrates well.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
2/5/2020 10:38 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I'll chalk you down as a staunch defender of "personal liberty" from this point forward.
Works for me. I think if you looked back, you'll find I'm pretty consistent on this issue. I know the Right's tried to basically co-opt the idea for themselves, but neither side's particularly consistent when push comes to shove. As this conversation demonstrates well.
The best part of this legislation is the fairness of the legislation. The current system is broke, the waiver system has tons of exceptions and often favors the player who can afford the legal representation. Like it or not, students often think they know what is best for them, they try it, and then they need to make a change. That's life, it's part of growing up. The other good aspect of this is that the waiver system is done for the 2nd transfer, 1st free, 2nd comes with a price.
mail
OUVan
2/6/2020 10:42 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Might as well drop the term student athlete then and quit pretending in some of the sports. If you get one free do over it's quite obvious that you went to school A and then to school B simply to play.
So the athletes who participate in sports that don't have the one year rule are not student-athletes in your view?
I'm just not a big fan of the term student-athlete.
Why, because of the less than 1% of students who participate in college athletics that aren't in it for the education?
mail
person
Alan Swank
2/6/2020 2:15 PM
OUVan wrote:expand_more
Might as well drop the term student athlete then and quit pretending in some of the sports. If you get one free do over it's quite obvious that you went to school A and then to school B simply to play.
So the athletes who participate in sports that don't have the one year rule are not student-athletes in your view?
I'm just not a big fan of the term student-athlete.
Why, because of the less than 1% of students who participate in college athletics that aren't in it for the education?
No, I just think it's one of those feel good terms and that by adding the word student somehow legitimizes something or makes them special. As it turns out though, "the term student-athlete was coined in 1964 by Walter Byers, the first-ever executive director of the NCAA, to counter attempts to require universities to pay workers' compensation." The following is an interesting read but you need to sort through the undocumented stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_athlete
Showing Messages: 26 - 43 of 43
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



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