I predict this rule will have a huge upside for midmajors. Right now P5 schools get the cream of the crop across the board, but especialy talented big men. They are also the hardest to predict at the P5 level and can get stuck behind more talented big men. And once they get stuck, they are forced to sit one year and tie up a scholarship, so other P5 schools don't want to take the risk. And, the highly touted big men don't want to sit a year to play at a mid major school.

Think about the number of grad transfer big men that show up at mid-majors. Why? Because P5's aren't going to take a one year grad transfer and play and start them in front of other bigs already on the roster. But a mid major will gladly take them and let them play and start immediately. I predict this is what will happen with the transfer rules and no wait. More quality big men at Mid Majors who got stuck behind better players at P5's.

The downside to midmajors will be small. Guards are our biggest loss potentially, and even that won't be significant since the difference in P5 schools and mid major guards is size. Big guards with skills go P5. Smaller guards with skills go midmajor. Unless those smaller guards turn out to be phenomenal scorers, they won't be of much interest to P5 schools since they will be a huge liability defending equally talented but much bigger guards at the P5 level.

I predict we will see a lot more big men transfer from P5's on to CAA teams and not many more transfer out than already do. And that's a win for the CAA.

I tend to agree with you 82. I also think a lot of kids have trouble deciding on one school or another to begin with, and if they don't have a good freshman experience, it would be easy to use a mulligan and transfer back to one that made you feel like a sweetheart, but maybe wasn't the prettiest girl at the party a year ago. I think you will see a lot of one year and transfer out.

The points are valid about bigs caught in a log jam, but I also think you will see the CAA all-freshman team gutted yearly. Not necessarily P5, but lower high majors looking to supplement short comings in their recruiting classes.

We're going to need kids committed to W&M, who will ignore the dangled carrot. Marcus and Nathan are great examples.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

The counter would be you might also get the Van Vliets transferring to schools like us more. Keep in mind schools all have the same scholarship limits, so even if a P5 wants a player from a mid major they either have to give someone the boot to get them or not recruit a freshman.

Better to add a tested Chase Audige than a maybe/maybe not "Bob Smith". That is where it will hurt CAA teams.

(04-01-2020 09:51 AM)billymac Wrote:  Better to add a tested Chase Audige than a maybe/maybe not "Bob Smith". That is where it will hurt CAA teams.

Guards are the quickest to adapt to the P5 level and many play and start as freshmen. The ability to shoot the three and handle the ball are already evident when they are recruited out of HS and they usually only get better.

Big men, for the most part, are men against boys in HS. They are rarely tested defensively by others their size and their success isn't based on shooting the ball and ball handling skills. They are successful in HS because they dominate the paint on offense and defense. It's hard to gauge if they can do the same at a P5. But, that size is still of value at mid majors where they don't face as many big defenders or other big men that can rebound and box out.

I'll gladly take the size coming into the CAA and the loss of some talent Fact is, talented players in the CAA have had no issue with sitting a year to play at a P5 anyhow. Removing the 1 year wait won't have a huge impact. We are never going to compete with P5's as a conference if we don't have P5 size in the post. Plus, some of those bigs coming in are going to flourish if they can just get some PT and adjust to college level talent. Can't do that on the bench or playing 5 minutes a game.

(04-01-2020 09:51 AM)billymac Wrote:  Better to add a tested Chase Audige than a maybe/maybe not "Bob Smith". That is where it will hurt CAA teams.

Exactly. Why gamble on borderline high school kids, when you can just bring in productive guys that are proven on the D1 level? ACC teams will sign all the 4* and 5* kids they can and supplement with proven lower D1 transfers. Sure, some overlooked quality guys may transfer in here, but having a stud freshman stick around all 4 years may be a thing of the past. Marcus and Nate are the pinnacle of W&M student athletes. They both love W&M and are/will be proud alumni. I can't confidently say that I think they would have stuck around with the new rule.

(04-01-2020 10:16 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 09:51 AM)billymac Wrote:  Better to add a tested Chase Audige than a maybe/maybe not "Bob Smith". That is where it will hurt CAA teams.

Exactly. Why gamble on borderline high school kids, when you can just bring in productive guys that are proven on the D1 level? ACC teams will sign all the 4* and 5* kids they can and supplement with proven lower D1 transfers. Sure, some overlooked quality guys may transfer in here, but having a stud freshman stick around all 4 years may be a thing of the past. Marcus and Nate are the pinnacle of W&M student athletes. They both love W&M and are/will be proud alumni. I can't confidently say that I think they would have stuck around with the new rule.

I sort of look at it differently. My guess is that the real big boys will continue to reload with 4/5* freshmen every year, probably five or six each class knowing they will have players leave early. I also think you will see a lot of poaching across ACC, SEC, Big 10 and not so much from lower level D1 programs. The chance that a kid in a lower level school is either that much better than in HS or was under the radar seems pretty uncommon. Marcus Thornton types are the exception. I don't think teams would have been drooling over Nathan after his freshman season, but probably after his Sophomore year.

(04-01-2020 11:42 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 10:16 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 09:51 AM)billymac Wrote:  Better to add a tested Chase Audige than a maybe/maybe not "Bob Smith". That is where it will hurt CAA teams.

Exactly. Why gamble on borderline high school kids, when you can just bring in productive guys that are proven on the D1 level? ACC teams will sign all the 4* and 5* kids they can and supplement with proven lower D1 transfers. Sure, some overlooked quality guys may transfer in here, but having a stud freshman stick around all 4 years may be a thing of the past. Marcus and Nate are the pinnacle of W&M student athletes. They both love W&M and are/will be proud alumni. I can't confidently say that I think they would have stuck around with the new rule.

I sort of look at it differently. My guess is that the real big boys will continue to reload with 4/5* freshmen every year, probably five or six each class knowing they will have players leave early. I also think you will see a lot of poaching across ACC, SEC, Big 10 and not so much from lower level D1 programs. The chance that a kid in a lower level school is either that much better than in HS or was under the radar seems pretty uncommon. Marcus Thornton types are the exception. I don't think teams would have been drooling over Nathan after his freshman season, but probably after his Sophomore year.

Which basically says he would have been poached then, instead of after year 1.

He would have been a target for sure. What about players like Omar, Tarpey, Dixon....not so sure about them, and they were real good players for us.

We are focusing on the stud freshmen transferring. What about the 1st team all conference rising senior? With only 1 season of risk, which P5 school isn't pursuing them?
I know the powers that be could care less about the mid majors, but how as a fan do you build excitement worrying about your best players leaving each off season without impediment? IMO, it puts mids in a tough spot to build yearly on talent and provides a mulligan for recruiting mistakes by the high majors.

(04-01-2020 01:01 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  We are focusing on the stud freshmen transferring. What about the 1st team all conference rising senior? With only 1 season of risk, which P5 school isn't pursuing them?
I know the powers that be could care less about the mid majors, but how as a fan do you build excitement worrying about your best players leaving each off season without impediment? IMO, it puts mids in a tough spot to build yearly on talent and provides a mulligan for recruiting mistakes by the high majors.

I think this is right to a degree, but I wonder how many of our players will actually be in that much demand. I mean this just happened with Justin Pierce as a grad transfer, and he went to the worst UNC team in years (decades?) in a really mediocre ACC and managed five points a game while getting on the court less than 20 minutes a game. So while I think there's no question we lose the Nathan Knights and Marcus Thorntons (although hell if we ever get another player on the level of either of them, I'm happy to only have them for a year or two as part of the bargain), I think even our very best seniors are mostly bench players at the P5 level. And that's before adding in a zillion other players for those high majors to pick from that they're competing with. Some will find that attractive, others won't.

I think the key will be to build around the Luke Loewe-type players while supplementing with the Andy Van Vliet level P5 washouts.

It will be different. It will definitely be frustrating. And it's not good for mid-majors. But I'm actually not certain how much our quality of play will suffer from this.

And thank goodness we have academics as a reason for players to stay. Would hate to be an ODU or Radford who will get even more gutted.

Overall though, while it's bad for mid-majors, this is a good thing for players which makes it good for the sport overall.

On the aggregate, this probably does hurt mid majors, though I don't think it will be as big of a hit as some are making it out to be. But, I do feel like it's better for the players, and that kinda matters more. Other than the fact that it's always been that way, is there really a good argument for making kids sit out? We don't do the same for coaches, players in non football/basketball sports, or regular students. If I transferred from Northeastern West Virginia State to Harvard I wouldn't have to wait a year to use Harvard's lab equipment or to submit a research paper.

(04-01-2020 01:01 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  We are focusing on the stud freshmen transferring. What about the 1st team all conference rising senior? With only 1 season of risk, which P5 school isn't pursuing them?
I know the powers that be could care less about the mid majors, but how as a fan do you build excitement worrying about your best players leaving each off season without impediment? IMO, it puts mids in a tough spot to build yearly on talent and provides a mulligan for recruiting mistakes by the high majors.

Let's focus on the student athlete (assuming these exist in the P5 conferences). At the point of time in their academic life these kids are juniors, have picked a major, are graduating or expect to graduate during their senior year. How feasible is it to transfer your courses, credits, etc. and have a seamless process? I'm not sure of the answer, but I hope it still lets the kids graduate. My be a difficult transition academically.

(04-01-2020 01:57 PM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 01:01 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  We are focusing on the stud freshmen transferring. What about the 1st team all conference rising senior? With only 1 season of risk, which P5 school isn't pursuing them?
I know the powers that be could care less about the mid majors, but how as a fan do you build excitement worrying about your best players leaving each off season without impediment? IMO, it puts mids in a tough spot to build yearly on talent and provides a mulligan for recruiting mistakes by the high majors.

I think this is right to a degree, but I wonder how many of our players will actually be in that much demand. I mean this just happened with Justin Pierce as a grad transfer, and he went to the worst UNC team in years (decades?) in a really mediocre ACC and managed five points a game while getting on the court less than 20 minutes a game.

For W&M, Pierce is a great cautionary tale. At W&M we'll feature you and your strengths will be on display every night. At UNC their scheme is independent of you.

IMO, this would be a major blow to mid major basketball and football.
https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/13/nc...ligibility

If players are getting paid and we essentially have free agency with no delayed eligibility, wouldnt the structure change completely? They are now employed. Couldnt the schools start having more binding contracts like the pro's?

(10-13-2020 09:10 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  IMO, this would be a major blow to mid major basketball and football.
https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/13/nc...ligibility

This is one reason why W&M needs to challenge the current structure of the NCAA as it doesn’t work for us, and for W&M to be cutting seven sports to stay in an arms race that we have no chance of “keeping up” is just short-sighted.

Everything is coming to a head. Keep the Tribe 7 for a couple of years. The whole landscape is changing, and having the Tribe 7 will be a strength, not a detriment, in the years ahead.

Am I wrong thinking the possibility of another Nate Knight or Marcus Thornton is probably done with an instant transfer rule? It may lead to an uptick of getting better freshman talent at mid-major schools. Why recruit anything but sure thing 3*, 4* or 5* kids out of high school if you are a high major? You can supplement your roster with proven D1 talent each off season from the midmajor farm system. No reason to take a chance on projects.