(04-28-2023 10:11 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 09:38 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 03:53 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 02:31 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  But WHY did we have 10 seniors?

Being too heavily reliant on the portal created a senior-heavy team.



The portal is a failed experiment that needs to end.

42% of those who enter the portal do not find a new school.

4% pullout of the portal.

of the 56% that do final a new school, 13% end up at a lower division.


In 2021 600 players ended up with no place to play. Even more importantly 600 students which didn't return to school.

Good question. Maybe Penny wanted to go after as much experience as possible this past season? Seems like he's experimenting with com

But it's way too soon to say the transfer portal has failed. One of the biggest problems is that the NCAA gave players that extra COVID year the year before they changed the transfer rule. So now the portal is staying full with players that also likely have that extra year potentially causing the glut we see now. It's going to be a few more years before they are all out of the system.

Also the NCAA finalized changes to transfer waivers to cut down on multiple transfers. I wish they would have allowed a waiver for coaching changes, but even that's going to be blocked for now.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_cent..._UG4YW.pdf

Agree, I don't see the transfer portal as failed, at least for schools (maybe it exposes some poor thinking by some players looking for a quick fix to PT or playing on a winning team). And I don't see any downside to a "senior heavy" team. Experience is a hard to find asset.

Your argument is what it has done for the schools, but what about the players?

55% of those who enter the portal either do not find a new school (42%) or end up at a lower division(13%).

When 42% of the players in the portal no longer have a school to attend then the portal has failed.

These players lose an opportunity to gain marketable skills that allow them to provide for themselves and their families for the remainder of their lives.

There are over 1 million high school athletes and almost every one of them at one time dreams of playing pro ball.

But only around 250 of that million make it.

You have around half a million who play sports in college.

Only 0.050% will ever play pro sports.

But they focus more on playing the game believing they will be one of the 0.050%.

So much so that if things aren't as they think they should be they just up and transfer because they think a change of schools will make them pro-worthy.

When they can't catch on with another school they lose out on getting an education and developing marketable skills.

Instead of making it easier for athletes to move from school to school and play ball.

We should focus on what happens to them after their playing days are over.

That last sentence … nobody cares about that anymore, not even the athletes themselves. We are a now society and the hell with the consequences.

Why? If the kid is using the school for a check. If kids see zero value in education. If basketball is what is important to both the school & the player, then the original premise of student athlete is dated & the relationship between the school & player is simply a transactional one. This new model was what players wanted & schools owe them nothing more than a check & a roster spot… until someone better comes along.

(04-24-2023 10:01 AM)gusrob Wrote:  We're seeing the outcome of NCAA sports going 100% about money. It's sad. I like J.Law and hate that he might leave, but it is what it is.

It's always been about the money - what you're seeing now is that schools other than the "Royal Ones" are able to play a bit in the shenanigans and I think it's hilarious. BTW, I agree completely with you about the demise of College ball. I'm about to give it up. I mean, if I'm gonna watch "Pro" sports, I'd rather watch it at the highest level.

(04-29-2023 07:04 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 10:11 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 09:38 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 03:53 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Good question. Maybe Penny wanted to go after as much experience as possible this past season? Seems like he's experimenting with com

But it's way too soon to say the transfer portal has failed. One of the biggest problems is that the NCAA gave players that extra COVID year the year before they changed the transfer rule. So now the portal is staying full with players that also likely have that extra year potentially causing the glut we see now. It's going to be a few more years before they are all out of the system.

Also the NCAA finalized changes to transfer waivers to cut down on multiple transfers. I wish they would have allowed a waiver for coaching changes, but even that's going to be blocked for now.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_cent..._UG4YW.pdf

Agree, I don't see the transfer portal as failed, at least for schools (maybe it exposes some poor thinking by some players looking for a quick fix to PT or playing on a winning team). And I don't see any downside to a "senior heavy" team. Experience is a hard to find asset.

Your argument is what it has done for the schools, but what about the players?

55% of those who enter the portal either do not find a new school (42%) or end up at a lower division(13%).

When 42% of the players in the portal no longer have a school to attend then the portal has failed.

These players lose an opportunity to gain marketable skills that allow them to provide for themselves and their families for the remainder of their lives.

There are over 1 million high school athletes and almost every one of them at one time dreams of playing pro ball.

But only around 250 of that million make it.

You have around half a million who play sports in college.

Only 0.050% will ever play pro sports.

But they focus more on playing the game believing they will be one of the 0.050%.

So much so that if things aren't as they think they should be they just up and transfer because they think a change of schools will make them pro-worthy.

When they can't catch on with another school they lose out on getting an education and developing marketable skills.

Instead of making it easier for athletes to move from school to school and play ball.

We should focus on what happens to them after their playing days are over.

That last sentence … nobody cares about that anymore, not even the athletes themselves. We are a now society and the hell with the consequences.

Why? If the kid is using the school for a check. If kids see zero value in education. If basketball is what is important to both the school & the player, then the original premise of student athlete is dated & the relationship between the school & player is simply a transactional one. This new model was what players wanted & schools owe them nothing more than a check & a roster spot… until someone better comes along.

You just made my point. Don’t know why you are arguing.

(04-30-2023 05:44 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(04-29-2023 07:04 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 10:11 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 09:38 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(04-26-2023 05:12 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Agree, I don't see the transfer portal as failed, at least for schools (maybe it exposes some poor thinking by some players looking for a quick fix to PT or playing on a winning team). And I don't see any downside to a "senior heavy" team. Experience is a hard to find asset.

Your argument is what it has done for the schools, but what about the players?

55% of those who enter the portal either do not find a new school (42%) or end up at a lower division(13%).

When 42% of the players in the portal no longer have a school to attend then the portal has failed.

These players lose an opportunity to gain marketable skills that allow them to provide for themselves and their families for the remainder of their lives.

There are over 1 million high school athletes and almost every one of them at one time dreams of playing pro ball.

But only around 250 of that million make it.

You have around half a million who play sports in college.

Only 0.050% will ever play pro sports.

But they focus more on playing the game believing they will be one of the 0.050%.

So much so that if things aren't as they think they should be they just up and transfer because they think a change of schools will make them pro-worthy.

When they can't catch on with another school they lose out on getting an education and developing marketable skills.

Instead of making it easier for athletes to move from school to school and play ball.

We should focus on what happens to them after their playing days are over.

That last sentence … nobody cares about that anymore, not even the athletes themselves. We are a now society and the hell with the consequences.

Why? If the kid is using the school for a check. If kids see zero value in education. If basketball is what is important to both the school & the player, then the original premise of student athlete is dated & the relationship between the school & player is simply a transactional one. This new model was what players wanted & schools owe them nothing more than a check & a roster spot… until someone better comes along.

You just made my point. Don’t know why you are arguing.

Apologies… I quoted the wrong post. I was responding to the idea of trying to focus on players after their playing days. The portal & the NIL let the schools off the hook.

Signed with Creighton.

(05-03-2023 12:53 PM)Toll Booth Willie Wrote:  Signed with Creighton.

Good. Now maybe we can quit talking about him.