The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

The NCAA is again talking about changing transfer rules for football, basketball and baseball.

The proposal would allow athletes to transfer and be immediately eligible once in their college careers.

This is already true for all sports except football, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball and men’s ice hockey.

It would get rid of grad transfers and "hardship" transfers waivers.

I'm not sure this is a good idea or a bad idea. But transfer rules have been a mess for years.

The big questions:
1. Would mid-majors become farm teams for Power Five schools?
2. Would Power Five bench players be likely to transfer to mid-majors?
3. Would coaches try to poach players? (Certainly some would.Would that be bad? Could it be controlled?

Here's the NCAA release. This is a long way from becoming official.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...k427_iE-SU

Intersection idea. I think the grad transfer rule has caused as much problems for players as the amount of good it's done. How many players have we seen not redshirted as freshman, play nearly no role, then end up being one of our top players as a Sr in recent years? Avery is a great example. Those players careers are definitely hurt by it.

I was very happy to see Hernandez redshirt this year as it's probably unlikely that he would've played much at all.

It will definitely suck that we could lose freshman/sophomores who are playing well. Roberts this year would be someone I'd be very worried about with the purposed changes. But at the same time we could fill holes easier with known entities as well.

I think the most important part of this would be making sure a strong system is in place to police the rules though. What would make this a mess is if coaches are actively recruiting off other team's rosters. Since it's the NCAA I must assume it will be poorly policed and turn into a mess... But hey maybe not?

I’m sure the big schools will benefit from this. That’s why they are all coming out in favor of it. They won’t have to recruit. The players will find them.

Here’s my concern. A player at Kent playing 25-30 minutes a game will be likely to transfer to a Big 10 school even if his/her minutes drop to 10. I’m not sure a player at a smaller school would come to a MAC school under the same circumstances. Only time will tell but I’m not too optimistic.

To me this opens up a big can of worms for players to shuffle off to who knows where and play immediately. As far as our 6 9 star I don't think he is going anywhere. Too much baggage with those knees.

(02-19-2020 04:31 PM)FlashPan Wrote:  To me this opens up a big can of worms for players to shuffle off to who knows where and play immediately. As far as our 6 9 star I don't think he is going anywhere. Too much baggage with those knees.

I gave up long ago predicting who would go and who would stay, especially as seniors.

They all believe they are "the answer" no matter where they are headed, and whatever baggage they carry will be left behind them.

That said, this rule will not hurt players like DP. This new rule targets players like Anthony Roberts, who fits the computer model (ht/wt) of a solid power conference 2guard, but is so far from being a CONSISTENT and reliable producer on a solid mid-major team, much less even an A-10 or C-USA program that reality will likely be a hard smack in the face.

Yet these kids are bullet proof in their own minds. Their great games, even average games, somehow make their other sins fade away.

The other issues, particularly for MAC-type teams that more and more rely on JUCOs, does this rule mean a juco player can prove himself one year in the MAC, then immediately transfer to a P5 program that lures him away?

Overall, even more than the rule already in place, this will make it even more impossible for any mid-major coach to build a "program." Not to mention have any control/discipline over the players he recruits.

Not a good situation at all.

The more I've thought about this the less I like it. I've always thought the logic behind the grad transfer rule was at least in part due to academics. If you graduate you have a degree so you're rewarded with being able to not sit out. If you transfer before you graduate, you might have issues with credits transferring and you might end up needing an extra year to graduate... But that's fine because you have to sit out a year so your college will be paid for for 5 seasons. I could be wrong, I'm no expert on transferring credits or anything. Just what I've always thought makes sense.

So I feel like this policy could be ignoring academics. You could end up with guys needing a 5th year to graduate but being out of eligiblity so the 5th year isn't paid for.

(02-19-2020 07:04 PM)cleveland Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 04:31 PM)FlashPan Wrote:  To me this opens up a big can of worms for players to shuffle off to who knows where and play immediately. As far as our 6 9 star I don't think he is going anywhere. Too much baggage with those knees.

I gave up long ago predicting who would go and who would stay, especially as seniors.

They all believe they are "the answer" no matter where they are headed, and whatever baggage they carry will be left behind them.

That said, this rule will not hurt players like DP. This new rule targets players like Anthony Roberts, who fits the computer model (ht/wt) of a solid power conference 2guard, but is so far from being a CONSISTENT and reliable producer on a solid mid-major team, much less even an A-10 or C-USA program that reality will likely be a hard smack in the face.

Yet these kids are bullet proof in their own minds. Their great games, even average games, somehow make their other sins fade away.

The other issues, particularly for MAC-type teams that more and more rely on JUCOs, does this rule mean a juco player can prove himself one year in the MAC, then immediately transfer to a P5 program that lures him away?

Overall, even more than the rule already in place, this will make it even more impossible for any mid-major coach to build a "program." Not to mention have any control/discipline over the players he recruits.

Not a good situation at all.

This covers my sentiments also. Well said, and true.

(02-19-2020 07:44 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  The more I've thought about this the less I like it. I've always thought the logic behind the grad transfer rule was at least in part due to academics. If you graduate you have a degree so you're rewarded with being able to not sit out. If you transfer before you graduate, you might have issues with credits transferring and you might end up needing an extra year to graduate... But that's fine because you have to sit out a year so your college will be paid for for 5 seasons. I could be wrong, I'm no expert on transferring credits or anything. Just what I've always thought makes sense.

So I feel like this policy could be ignoring academics. You could end up with guys needing a 5th year to graduate but being out of eligiblity so the 5th year isn't paid for.

Very good points. The original grad transfer was a reward for a person that graduated iI time and still had eligibility remains AND transferred to a school to participate in a major not offered at their original school. That has been manipulated so bad it has now evolved to the ridiculous free agency we have now. Sucks when kids you’ve nurtured and developed skips off his last season for a power school that never gave them the time of day in recruiting but have an urgent need to fill.

I transferred and changed majors so I lost quite a bit of credit hours that didn’t transfer over properly. I can envision these kids left hanging short of a degree, no eligibility left and the school saying sorry but you’re on your own now.

I hate this idea but if the NCAA doesn’t allow this a lawsuit is headed their way. Too many football, basketball and baseball players are majoring in their sport (or at least think they are per Cleveland’s post). I’m pretty sure it’s only a matter of time before multiple transfers are allowed.

Agree, Burden. That is where we are heading.

Another thing I think this will do is increase the amount of guys not responding to coaching or being considered "uncoachable". The more coaches someone plays for the less they'll buy into any given coach's opinions. I think this is something the Cavs have always been absolutely horrible at understanding. One of the most obvious examples to me in recent years was Dion Waiters. His coach got fired after each of his first 3 NBA seasons and he was traded once in there. So by the start of his 4th NBA season he was already on his 5th head coach. And we should be surprised that he became someone who has a reputation of being stubborn and difficult to coach? I remember his whole rookie year Byron Scott was stressing he needed to distribute more when he drives. Towards the end of his rookie season he seemed to start to get it. Then Scott got fired and during camp the next year Mike Brown said he needs Waiters to not be so passive when he drives. Literally the exact opposite of what Scott had drilled into him the previous season.

And of course the Cavs being the continual dumpster fire that they are, they're now doing the same thing to Collin Sexton. He's barely 1.5 seasons into his career and he'll be suiting up for his 4th HC tonight. By the start of his 3rd season he'll likely be on HC #5.

Don't mean to derail this with NBA talk, but the principal is the same. The more coaches you have, the more messages you'll get, and the more likely you are to start thinking what they're telling you is BS and you should just do you. So bottom line, I think this will just continue to hurt the quality of basketball we see around the country.

I couldn't agree more, anti-zip. Before transferring became common and before players were able to leave early for the NBA. you definitely had more college teams that were a direct reflection of the coach. Players were more willing to sacrifice their own statistics and be part of a cohesive whole. Of course, the three-point shot took over and that reduced lots of coaching strategies. Then the shot clock coming about and its reduction to 30 seconds hurried things up, reducing various options. None of that matters to the casual fan as long as their team is winning, But when a team is bad or just mediocre the changes over the years have made it more frustrating.

It’s funny how a team can go to 4 consecutive finals and still be considered a dumpster fire. I don’t disagree but it shows how good a player LeBron James was and still is. Four consecutive finals and the coach and GM get absolutely no credit. Heck Irving and Love barely got any credit.

(02-19-2020 08:11 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 07:44 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  The more I've thought about this the less I like it. I've always thought the logic behind the grad transfer rule was at least in part due to academics. If you graduate you have a degree so you're rewarded with being able to not sit out. If you transfer before you graduate, you might have issues with credits transferring and you might end up needing an extra year to graduate... But that's fine because you have to sit out a year so your college will be paid for for 5 seasons. I could be wrong, I'm no expert on transferring credits or anything. Just what I've always thought makes sense.

So I feel like this policy could be ignoring academics. You could end up with guys needing a 5th year to graduate but being out of eligiblity so the 5th year isn't paid for.

Very good points. The original grad transfer was a reward for a person that graduated iI time and still had eligibility remains AND transferred to a school to participate in a major not offered at their original school. That has been manipulated so bad it has now evolved to the ridiculous free agency we have now. Sucks when kids you’ve nurtured and developed skips off his last season for a power school that never gave them the time of day in recruiting but have an urgent need to fill.

I transferred and changed majors so I lost quite a bit of credit hours that didn’t transfer over properly. I can envision these kids left hanging short of a degree, no eligibility left and the school saying sorry but you’re on your own now.

My thoughts as well.......the de-emphasis of education will only worsen.

And because mine is mostly a football perspective, I can only see this being upwardly beneficial. For the most part, a "downward" transferring player without the lapse in playing will likely not be as motivated and disciplined as someone who had to sit out a year, go to school, and want to get back on the field.

And as I've stated before, it's essentially free agency without roster rules, salary caps (coaches/facilities spending), tampering rules, nor contract terms.

This will be the death of mid-majors in college hoops.

(02-21-2020 12:46 PM)luckyflash Wrote:  This will be the death of mid-majors in college hoops.

Yes, I am afraid so. The best mid-major players will move up, and their roster spots will be filled by players who transfer down. Rosters will be even more fluid than they are now. Fan interest will suffer.

(02-20-2020 08:03 PM)burden Wrote:  It’s funny how a team can go to 4 consecutive finals and still be considered a dumpster fire. I don’t disagree but it shows how good a player LeBron James was and still is. Four consecutive finals and the coach and GM get absolutely no credit. Heck Irving and Love barely got any credit.

Yeah for sure. The comparison I like to make is the Cavs are the Browns if Peyton Manning was from Cleveland and we had the first pick that year.

Transfer changes won't be the death of mid-major basketball, but as was said rosters will be even more fluid. What fan interest there is in mid-major basketball, which isn't all that much, will really decline.

(02-21-2020 04:42 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 08:03 PM)burden Wrote:  It’s funny how a team can go to 4 consecutive finals and still be considered a dumpster fire. I don’t disagree but it shows how good a player LeBron James was and still is. Four consecutive finals and the coach and GM get absolutely no credit. Heck Irving and Love barely got any credit.

Yeah for sure. The comparison I like to make is the Cavs are the Browns if Peyton Manning was from Cleveland and we had the first pick that year.

You mean Eli Manning? He forced the trade from San Diego to the Giants.

(02-21-2020 11:12 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(02-21-2020 04:42 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 08:03 PM)burden Wrote:  It’s funny how a team can go to 4 consecutive finals and still be considered a dumpster fire. I don’t disagree but it shows how good a player LeBron James was and still is. Four consecutive finals and the coach and GM get absolutely no credit. Heck Irving and Love barely got any credit.

Yeah for sure. The comparison I like to make is the Cavs are the Browns if Peyton Manning was from Cleveland and we had the first pick that year.

You mean Eli Manning? He forced the trade from San Diego to the Giants.

No I mean the Cavs are every bit as poorly run as the Browns. They just had LeBron. I'm saying it would be like the Browns having Peyton Manning in his prime. Crap organization made good by lucking into having one of the best ever.

Sorry, not trying to distract from the point of this. Don't change the transfer rule!!