CSNbbs

Full Version: Transfer rule change could hurt MAC badly
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Dead link.
Here you go. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...lege-hoops

It basically says that if a student-athlete has a 2.6+ GPA, s/he will be able to play immediately without sitting out a year. They think this will somehow decrease the number of transfers. But I feel 2.6 is too low. It should have been 2.75 or 3.0. They explain the 2.6 reasoning in the article.
2.6 is a joke... 3.0 should be the cutoff at which you are rewarded.
How will it hurt the MAC? I would think it would help the lower tier conferences if anything, rite?
(01-05-2013 02:55 PM)Campbell4President Wrote: [ -> ]How will it hurt the MAC? I would think it would help the lower tier conferences if anything, rite?

I look at it as, if a mid0major player is has had a great year or 2 and have above a 2.6 GPA, they might try and transfer to a 'major' school. The mid-majors would turn into the minor leagues.
I think the more likely scenario is a kid recruited at major programs and then realizes he will not get playing time any time soon. Today, the penalty to xfer is a loss of a year. Now they can xfer to somewhere more suitable and possibly play.

However, if the 'pay to play' rule also exists and the MAC chooses not to pay while the B1G does pay, that might encourage the flow in the other direction.

But lets be real, how many players do we have that the B1G covets vs. how many B1G benchwarmers could help MAC programs?

Most HS kids do not know where they fit in the 'talent' hierarchy (they typically think they are much higher than they are) until they commit to a school and find out. Recruiters promise a lot because they need depth as well as starters but they rarely admit you are there for depth.

I think this is positive for the kids. I think it might also be positive for the MAC. I does not mean we will catch the B1G any time soon but it might provide some good players (especially football) that we would not have gotten otherwise.

I think it will be a rarity for a MAC player to xfer to the B1G.
I think there could be a flow in both directions.

Wasn't it reportedly true that in the 90s that at least one B1G school coveted Gary Trent.

Maybe:

By quantity more big school players will transfer down, esp. those who have burned a redshirt year.

By quality there could be some young MAC players for example a Zeke Marshall who would have been coveted by bigger conference schools.
This would essentially turn the MAC into the Cleveland Indians. Lets say OU gets a stud pg. OSU needs a pg. OSU can then cherry pick the best players in the MAC...they don't need to swing and miss anymore...they can just pick the best players in the MAC and add them to their team. Players they are certain will be good.

We are kidding ourselves if we think the MAC would benefit from this. Our best players would leave, we would get bad players from above. Add in the discussed pay for play that might be optional in leagues and you essentially have the Yankees vs the Cleveland Indians. What kid wouldn't leave Kent for a bigger stage and more money.

How this somehow helps to limit the number of transfers is beyond me.
You have to have some kind of no tampering rule. Presently, once a kid has signed a LOI, you are not allowed to contact them. (Whether or not it is enforced and how, I don't know). NCAA rules are strange already.

If a kid is not looking actively to transfer, hands off. If OSU, for example, calls a guard at Ohio out of the blue and asks if he wants to play at OSU, that must be a violation - HAS TO BE. Otherwise, why would any school in the "have not" category support this rule? It would amount to suicide.
(01-05-2013 09:58 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]You have to have some kind of no tampering rule. Presently, once a kid has signed a LOI, you are not allowed to contact them. (Whether or not it is enforced and how, I don't know). NCAA rules are strange already.

If a kid is not looking actively to transfer, hands off. If OSU, for example, calls a guard at Ohio out of the blue and asks if he wants to play at OSU, that must be a violation - HAS TO BE. Otherwise, why would any school in the "have not" category support this rule? It would amount to suicide.

The article mentions that tampering could become a Level 1 violation (which is the worst, I guess?). It sounds like the problem is getting schools to report it.
(01-05-2013 10:28 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-05-2013 09:58 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]You have to have some kind of no tampering rule. Presently, once a kid has signed a LOI, you are not allowed to contact them. (Whether or not it is enforced and how, I don't know). NCAA rules are strange already.

If a kid is not looking actively to transfer, hands off. If OSU, for example, calls a guard at Ohio out of the blue and asks if he wants to play at OSU, that must be a violation - HAS TO BE. Otherwise, why would any school in the "have not" category support this rule? It would amount to suicide.

The article mentions that tampering could become a Level 1 violation (which is the worst, I guess?). It sounds like the problem is getting schools to report it.

Or prove it.

IF a Gary Trent had transferred from say Ohio to say OSU after being tampered with would he turn in OSU?

Most likely not.
So you have someone not really connected with the school on paper bump into Gary Trent and say...hey have you ever thought about transferring....OSU looks like they need a PF.
Yes, I fear this might make us a one-bid league. :domokun:
Reference URL's