No More Blocking Transfers





  • @BShark That is a pretty big change.



  • Like it



  • This rule was long overdue.

    The next thing is to eliminate the required sit year for transfers. Its unfair if you go to a school and you’re either recruited over, forced out, or your coach leaves and you still have to sit out a year if you leave.



  • @justanotherfan I wouldn’t fully get rid of the transfer rule. I would change to where kids can transfer without sitting only if the coach of that program left the program. If the kid is transferring for other reasons such as playing time, that kid still has to sit a year unless it’s one of the already established exceptions such as a grad transfer.



  • We all understand that there are no transfer restrictions. None. Players can transfer just like all other students.

    Oh, as an aside, they chose to play basketball and get a free education, thus there are some rules that apply solely to basketball because of that choice — rules that help protect the party to the agreement that is providing the free education.

    It’s so unfair.



  • I agree with @Texas-Hawk-10 , I think a player should only be able to transfer under certain circumstances if they don’t have to sit out. It’s gonna open a bunch of recruiting of players that are already at a school if not. Mario Chalmers wanted to transfer after his freshman year, he very well may have if he didn’t have to set out a year. When you go to a big name like Kansas you better believe you will be recruited over to some extent regardless of how good you are. I’d say the coach has to have left or you didn’t see an X amount of minutes after two seasons or the shoe companies will turn the off season into a free agency.



  • @kjayhawks I thought that was Robinson who thought about leaving.



  • Also, a player can now play in 4 games and not lose the red shirt.



  • mayjay said:

    @kjayhawks I thought that was Robinson who thought about leaving.

    Both.



  • @Texas-Hawk-10

    I say there shouldn’t be restrictions because kids get pushed out at programs all the time. It’s unfair for a kid to be pushed out of a program and then have to sit for a year at a new school. Remember, scholarships are one year commitments from the school. They are not four year guaranteed commitments. So a school can decide to not renew a scholarship at any time, something that happens quite a bit, and face no penalty, while that student athlete has to either become a walk on at their current school, drop down to the D2, D3 or NAIA level, or transfer and sit.

    I would be all for keeping the rule the way it is if scholarships were four years guaranteed. That would mean that a kid might not play, but they were guaranteed to remain on scholarship. If that were the case, then the transfer and sit rule would make more sense because the kid wouldn’t be losing their scholarship at their current school. Otherwise, it makes it easy to simply recruit over a kid, and the program faces no penalty, while the kid either has to sit for a year, or pay out of pocket to stay at that school. Imagine telling your parents that you just finished your freshman year in your sport as a scholarship athlete, and you have just been told in your year end meeting that your scholarship will not be renewed because the coach thought you were a potential rotation player, but your game just didn’t translate - do you stay and pay or transfer and sit?



  • If kids were not forced to sit out a year it would just be open recruiting season all year long. Self has been asked about this and I think his comment was there would be recruiting in the handshake lines after games. It would ridiculous. If there is not a coaching change and or a family issue kids need to sit out a year. If you don’t want to be recruited over go to a school where you know you can compete.



  • @justanotherfan

    How often are scholarships for players that came in with one are actually pulled in basketball? Coaches recruit over current players all the time but the end result is usually lack of playing time and not necessarily a loss of scholarship. The only recent players at KU that, as far as we can tell but don’t really know for a fact, had scholarship pulled are Giddens, Tharpe and maybe Greene and Bragg and all 3 were due to non-team related events.

    I will guess that the majority of transfers are due to players wanting to leave hoping for more playing time and not necessarily having a scholarship pulled.



  • @JayHawkFanToo

    It doesn’t happen a lot at bigger schools, but at lower level D1 schools it is rampant.

    At KU, every kid that you recruit is a legit D1 player. There’s no question about that. But if you go down the line a bit, to some of the low and mid majors, that’s not the case. They recruit guys that are more fringe D1 types - kids that may need a year in the weight room before they are ready to contribute, or that have some projection, but just haven’t hit it yet. That’s why there’s so much player turnover at the low and mid major level.

    Drop down to the D2 level, and it gets even worse. A kid that was all state in high school suddenly is exposed because he can’t even guard his own shadow. The athletic kid you recruited turns out to have no clear basketball ability. That skinny kid you recruited as a WR isn’t strong enough to get away from press coverage at all. The kid that was an all conference selection in soccer suddenly can’t keep up with the pace of the college game. Softball and baseball players that looked great in high school can’t handle the better pitching they are seeing in college.

    Every year, there are kids at end of year meetings that are told that their scholarship is not being renewed. Remember, the NCAA rule isn’t just for the Power conferences. It is for all NCAA, including D2 and D3.

    Those things almost never make the news - nobody will remember that the third string freshman tight end for a D2 school did not return the following year. But if you know any low major or D2 athletes or prospects, they can probably tell you about teammates that did not have their scholarships renewed, or about kids that transferred into or out of the program they were at as a result of losing their scholarship somewhere else.



  • JayHawkFanToo said:

    Also, a player can now play in 4 games and not lose the red shirt.

    Are there stipulations on when those 4 games are played? Surely you can’t stash a guy for the entire year and then let him play 4 games in conference tourney or big tourney or stash him on the bench for future foul trouble issues or anything like that.



  • @justanotherfan D2 schools don’t offer full athletic scholarships to begin with, and D3 schools don’t offer them at all. Athletes who go to D2 and D3 schools aren’t going to those schools for athletics in the first place, they’re at those schools for academics because they have no professional athletic hopes except in very rare cases.

    What usually happens at those levels is a kid realizes that athletics takes up too much time and they start suffering in the classroom so they quit their sport to focus solely on academics.

    Kids who go to those schools are usually doing so because they are within about 4 hours from their homes and it’s a chance to keep playing a sport they love while getting a college education.



  • @Texas-Hawk-10 You said, “D2 schools don’t offer full athletic scholarships to begin with, and D3 schools don’t offer them at all. Athletes who go to D2 and D3 schools aren’t going to those schools for athletics in the first place, they’re at those schools for academics because they have no professional athletic hopes except in very rare cases. What usually happens at those levels is a kid realizes that athletics takes up too much time and they start suffering in the classroom so they quit their sport to focus solely on academics. Kids who go to those schools are usually doing so because they are within about 4 hours from their homes and it’s a chance to keep playing a sport they love while getting a college education.”

    The second sentence is absolutely incorrect. In fact, a large group of kids (and a large majority) that play D2, D3, and I’ll add in NAIA, do so because of sports. They pick those schools because of the opportunity to play. I have three kids, two kids that took scholarships, multiple kids that I have coached being involved with all three of my kids, and also then knowing kids that are friends, teammates, etc. – this just flat untrue. It’s not saying that academics isn’t a large consideration. It is, of course. But the sport component and the scholarship leads these kids to the school. And without the athletic component, and the partial scholarships (D2 and NAIA) a number of smaller schools are not affordable. For example, a kid may get a scholarship from Northwest Missouri, but he’d go to KU and skip sports if he didn’t get that offer; insert smaller schools around KC, like Benedictine or Baker (NAIA), or UCM, Emporia St., Washburn, Pittsburg St. (D2). A large chunk of those athletes would have never gone to those schools but for the athletic opportunity. This holds true for JUCO athletics, as well.

    The third sentence is just untrue as well, because of your use of the word “usually.” It would be better to say “sometimes.”

    Your fourth sentence is exactly on point (It conflicts with your first sentence, but is, again, absolutely correct). I know kids that go distances, too, just to play ball, but in the small school setting, it’s the exception.



  • @Texas-Hawk-10

    D2 schools can offer full scholarships. However, because the scholarship limits are lower than D1, very few players actually get full rides.

    Instead, lots of players get partial rides. For example, D2 basketball can offer 10 scholarships, but they still have 15 players on the team. What typically happens is the stars usually get full rides (so two stars each get one scholarship), then the other 9 or 10 scholarship players split the remaining 8 scholarships. That means you can put 13 players on scholarship with three fulls and 8 three quarters and two half scholarships. You can get pretty creative with the math. Lots of kids at the D2 level make their decision because School A offered them a half scholarship, but School B offered them three quarters, or School A offered 60% while School B offered half, but they qualified for academic scholarships at School B that pushed the full package closer to 80%.

    Many times, schools get creative with this, using academic scholarships for strong students to help bridge the gap. As you say, many of these kids are more local, but that doesn’t change the fact that a lot of them are told that their scholarship, which, while not a full ride, still represents half of their tuition and board, won’t be renewed for the next year. That’s potentially thousands of dollars that is just gone. Why should that kid be stuck at a school that they picked that is close to home with no scholarship when they can transfer to another school and get a scholarship?

    I personally know several people that had their scholarships pulled at an MIAA school (the major D2 conference in this part of the country) after their freshman year and were faced with this very decision. Some quit their sport and transferred to a bigger school like KU or K-State to finish their academics. Some stuck with their sport and transferred further away from home to keep their scholarship opportunity. Some quit their sport and stayed at their current school because their academic scholarships were enough to make it worthwhile.

    Changing the rule would open the door for those types of kids to transfer and play, which would help them keep their scholarships as opposed to transferring and sitting (hard to eat up that precious partial scholarship at the D2 level when a kid can’t play for a whole year).

    Just my thoughts on the matter. This happens more than a lot of people realize. I would bet some of those kids that quit because it is taking up too much time may have also been told that their scholarship was in jeopardy of not being renewed, either directly or indirectly.



  • Really the big problem is the concept of a student athlete. Maybe there was a time that this antiquated thought worked, but in today’s world what does it really serve? There are many arguments pro and con. Thing is most if not all are valid points. Yet at the end of the day what is the use of a student athlete? If we are truly a capitalist society? Then why begrudge a person from cashing in on their God giving abilities and hard work?

    The issue of allowing or not allowing a so called student athlete, is merely one of perception. One view is grasping and hanging unto how things have always been done, or viewed. Regardless of how things and the times have changed. The other view wants to let go of the past thinking and how things were down.

    Truthfully as with most things in life, the best answer most likely is so where in between.

    More to the point Men’s basketball and Football players make the universities some serious money, and give the school a lot of publicity. So to say letting these young men transfer at will because of the scholarships they receive is unfair to other low profile students? Is in mind like trying to compare apples to oranges. Are these young men no different than a student that wants to be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist? Do not these students pick schools that will have them achieve their goals? Well the difference for a student athlete, is a lot can change from the time they picked a school to grow their skill to the time they actually make to the said school and began to chase their dreams. A Preferred style of play can change. The preferred Coach or Coach’s may have moved on for what every reason, Thereby changing the very dynamic’s of why that student athlete chose that school in the first place. This very rarely happens to a normal student.

    I say let them transfer at will.



  • @DoubleDD I don’t think anyone begrudges the athlete for wanting to make money. They can make money. If they are marketable, there is a big world out there. Go get em.

    But no, they want to come into someone else’s business, change the rules, use that business’ property and assets. They don’t want to create their own.

    This is about entering into a contract by one’s own free will. Agreeing to play under a set of rules, and then whining, complaining, calling names, making outrageous claims, all because a player (or family) might be different than 99.5% of the other intercollegiate athletes.

    This is about the OWNERS of a business being able to establish the rules that govern their property.

    DON’T SIGN THE DEAL. DON’T PLAY. DON’T ACCEPT THE OFFER OF A SCHOLARSHIP.

    But as we see in the rest of our society … uh, one side kind of to the left, as we know … that can’t succeed so they want to take.

    All while 99.5% of athletes are having the time of their lives, and enjoying incredible perks, all because they play a game.

    It’s not fair. Nothing is every fair. But it’s not fair that I have to work and Lebron James is born with physical gifts that allow him to earn millions upon millions playing a game. How do we rectify that?



  • Hard to argue about a case where a kid was basically told to move on (like Vick, Bragg, Anrio Adams, etc.). I never understood why those guys should have to sit out a year. I guess coaches probably don’t want to fess up that they push kids out, and there’s no way to prove whose choice it was.



  • Many points are missed or misinterpreted.

    First, we have to differentiate between the capable student athlete that wants to go to college, get a degree while getting a free ride and then move on with his life and the elite athlete that wants to bide his time until he can move on to make money playing the sport and has no desire to graduate and college is a necessary nuisance in the way of a pro career.

    I would say that with occasional exception, players that go to Division 2 or 3 schools have really no intention or a realistic shot at making it to the pros so we can safely say these student athletes just want to get a degree with as little debt as possible and really have little in common with the OAD.

    The great majority of players that go to Division I schools are pretty much the same as above, they want to get a degree and move on with their lives and sometime they try to move up to a better program, not necessarily because it gives them a shot to pro sports, but because it is the highest level they will ever play and after that they are done.

    At the other end we have the elite players that have a set goal, sometimes unrealistic, to move to pro sports as soon as possible. The NBA drafts 60 players every year and a few more get contracts and when you consider the influx of foreign players, maybe 10-20 have a good shot at a career in the NBA and 30-50 will get a shot to the top league. Add another 50 that will play overseas and you have maybe 100 players every year. When you consider there are 351 Division I programs and over 5,000 players, less than 2% of the players are really trying to dictate terms, change the system and ruin it for the other 98% that just want to attend college and play ball while getting a degree.

    I am all in favor of doing away with the NBA one year wait…and OADs…and adopting the baseball model of staying in college of waiting at least 3 years if they decide to go to college in the first place; this benefits both athletes and the schools. Yes, we would miss the one year phenoms but I believe the overall product would be equal or actually better.

    I am with @HighEliteMajor 100% on this. Presumed OADs and elite athletes have options other than college and if they don’t like the rules in place, they do not have to go to college.



  • @DanR

    Vick is a good example. He’s not eligible to be a grad transfer because he hasn’t completed his undergraduate degree. It’s tough for him to transfer because he’s a sit one to play one guy. It’s unlikely that he is in a position to simply pay for his own education.

    But KU doesn’t have to renew his scholarship. They can simply offer it to someone else and Vick has no way of forcing KU to honor their commitment to him, because the commitment is year to year, not four years.

    What Vick could do is contact strong D2 programs as a transfer candidate. Vick immediately becomes a D2 AA candidate and his team immediately becomes a national title threat. Because its dropping down a level, he can play immediately. And of course, he can use the year to prepare himself for pro ball next year.

    Of course, if that happens, if/when he does make it to the pros, it will list that school, not KU, as his college. But that seems fair to me given that KU opted not to renew his scholarship.

    @JayHawkFanToo

    OADs and potential OADs aren’t going to be affected by this transfer rule. They will be pros long before that. This rule overwhelmingly affects student athletes that are not looking to turn pro. This isn’t an OAD focused rule. This is a rule change that would benefit student athletes that are specifically using college athletics to allow them to get an education.

    I picked a random low D1 school, Wofford, and looked at their rosters from 2016-17 and 2017-18. It took me two minutes to find a kid that left the team after their freshman year - Justin Tucker. Rather than transfer and sit, he went to a juco for a year and is now looking at other 4 year offers. That happens literally every year at lower D1 programs. Typically, the kid announces that they are transferring closer to home, or to a juco, but the truth is their scholarship wasn’t being renewed, and they were told at their post season meeting to find a place to go, because their scholarship would not be there in the fall.

    Follow a smaller D1 school sometime and you will see that churn at the bottom of the roster almost every year. Follow a non revenue sport and you will see it. I looked up the KU women’s soccer team. A quick glance at the roster shows that Amari Hopkins is transferring to Louisville and will sit out this year. I don’t know the circumstances, but that’s certainly another possible scholarship cut. Another player that was a juco transfer is not listed on the 2018 roster. Again, this happens every year.



  • @DanR No, actually it is easy to argue about a kid who is told to move on. When Vick came to Kansas, what was the deal? Did he sign a four year guaranteed deal, or did he sign a deal that either party could terminate at will, with the only real condition if terminated that the player had to sit a year? It business, that’s a non-compete.

    Why is it that if Vick just decided to walk away, no one worries about the position that Vick puts Kansas in? He can leave at any time, and go anywhere he wants. Heck, he can leave midseason and leave the team hanging. Self can’t cut his scholarship midseason. The only thing he can’t do, in the entire world, is play D-1 basketball for a season.



  • @DanR I think if coach fessed up about those players, they wouldn’t have a chance playing anywhere.



  • Maybe they aren’t in good academic standing either.



  • @Crimsonorblue22

    Coaches talk about kids that are behavior problems amongst each other all the time off the record.

    When kids are pushed out for non-discipline/non-academic reasons, coaches won’t say anything because it breaks the whole notion of “student athlete”



  • Respectfully, this more of the same. There are two parts to “student athlete” … and one is athlete. It’s easy to just focus on “student” when convenient. The only reason most all of the CBB players have scholarship is the athlete part. Definitely not the student part. Thus, the scholarship being based on the athlete part, if you don’t perform, a coach doesn’t like you, you aren’t a fit, then the “athlete” part is invoked and you are gone. But again, the kids know this coming in. So none of this is a surprise.

    And this has nothing to do with whether they are in fact student athletes. They have the privilege of the free education and having an opportunity to earn any degree they are capable of achieving. It’s up to them.



  • @Crimsonorblue22

    If a player leaves in bad academic standing, that is reflected in the APR.



  • @justanotherfan some rumors about Vick and grades, just saying.



  • @Crimsonorblue22

    I understand KU has very strict controls in place top monitor academic performance; players have been suspended for games before when they did not perform academically.

    In Vick’s case, I believe he just got a big head and an inflated idea of his own talent and got a dose of reality after burning bridges.



  • @JayHawkFanToo I don’t think Vick had an inflated ego. To many red flags around.



  • The NCAA appears to be retreating in increments on all fronts under the cloud of this investigation somewhat as Churchill retreated in all directions in the face of overwhelming opposition to messes GB had created by being too clever by half since Versailles. Churchill was retreating to bait “Jerry and the Jap” into over reaching and creating allies for GB that had behaved so duplicity it had none. It worked effectively, if brutally.

    Similarly, the NCAA, which many have not viewed as a symbol of principle, appears to be hoping Big Oil and Big Shoe overreach and create allies for the NCAA, where there appear none.

    Doubt it will work though.

    The NCAA’s future seems increasingly to be a front for BIG PETROWEAR/BIG OIL, or maybe for their opponents.

    The late Murray Sperber has to be shaking his head in heaven and saying, “See? Ya shoulda listened to me!”



  • HighEliteMajor said:

    @DanR No, actually it is easy to argue about a kid who is told to move on. When Vick came to Kansas, what was the deal? Did he sign a four year guaranteed deal, or did he sign a deal that either party could terminate at will, with the only real condition if terminated that the player had to sit a year? It business, that’s a non-compete.

    Why is it that if Vick just decided to walk away, no one worries about the position that Vick puts Kansas in? He can leave at any time, and go anywhere he wants. Heck, he can leave midseason and leave the team hanging. Self can’t cut his scholarship midseason. The only thing he can’t do, in the entire world, is play D-1 basketball for a season.

    Yes, those are the current rules, and that’s what we’re talking about here – re-writing the rules. I agree that if a kid bails by choice (your second paragraph), he should have to sit a year. I think that’s a good and fair rule.

    But if a coach decides to force out a player, and the kid wants to stay, I would argue that it doesn’t hurt the coach or school one bit if the kid plays for a different D1 school the next year. Discipline problems aside (breach of contract), if the kid is so talented he’ll help the competition too much instead of sitting on your bench, maybe he shouldn’t have been cut. Frankamp, for example. Did he leave us short handed? No. Obviously that situation wasn’t working out. A clean break would be better for the coach and the kid, IMO.

    Every kid “cut” by Self… I can’t think of one he let go that ever came back to bite us in the ass. Don’t want them, just let 'em play somewhere else. I think there should be an option where a coach can say, I’ve released him from the “non-compete.” (That happens in the business world too.)



  • @DanR I like it. Seems fair.



  • @DanR

    Frankamp left KU for reasons unrelated to basketball; you could safely say he broke the contract.



  • @Crimsonorblue22

    I did not say he had a big ego but like many other players he had his circle of “advisors” filling his head with ideas and telling him he should move to play pro ball when he was not quite ready. Not the first player to do this and he will not be the last.



  • @JayHawkFanToo big head?



  • @HighEliteMajor

    What is more unfair? Being really smart or being really athletic?



  • DanR said:

    HighEliteMajor said:

    @DanR No, actually it is easy to argue about a kid who is told to move on. When Vick came to Kansas, what was the deal? Did he sign a four year guaranteed deal, or did he sign a deal that either party could terminate at will, with the only real condition if terminated that the player had to sit a year? It business, that’s a non-compete.

    Why is it that if Vick just decided to walk away, no one worries about the position that Vick puts Kansas in? He can leave at any time, and go anywhere he wants. Heck, he can leave midseason and leave the team hanging. Self can’t cut his scholarship midseason. The only thing he can’t do, in the entire world, is play D-1 basketball for a season.

    Yes, those are the current rules, and that’s what we’re talking about here – re-writing the rules. I agree that if a kid bails by choice (your second paragraph), he should have to sit a year. I think that’s a good and fair rule.

    But if a coach decides to force out a player, and the kid wants to stay, I would argue that it doesn’t hurt the coach or school one bit if the kid plays for a different D1 school the next year. Discipline problems aside (breach of contract), if the kid is so talented he’ll help the competition too much instead of sitting on your bench, maybe he shouldn’t have been cut. Frankamp, for example. Did he leave us short handed? No. Obviously that situation wasn’t working out. A clean break would be better for the coach and the kid, IMO.

    Every kid “cut” by Self… I can’t think of one he let go that ever came back to bite us in the ass. Don’t want them, just let 'em play somewhere else. I think there should be an option where a coach can say, I’ve released him from the “non-compete.” (That happens in the business world too.)

    All I can do is clap you nailed it.



  • @DanR You and I could make a deal. Excellent rationale. One consideration is that players can easily inspire their own termination with poor effort, odd injuries, etc. I could live with that risk, if we were negotiating a deal.

    That all aside, my rigidity on the NCAA rules is because I know … you know … we all know … it never ends. Ever chink in the armor, every compromise, every deal, every concessions, demands more from the “destroy CBB” crowd. They won’t stop. The best negotiating posture for the NCAA is to refuse to compromise and tell them to stick it.



  • @DoubleDD The actual most important question - What’s more unfair, having a father in your life, or having an absentee father?



  • DanR said:

    HighEliteMajor said:

    @DanR No, actually it is easy to argue about a kid who is told to move on. When Vick came to Kansas, what was the deal? Did he sign a four year guaranteed deal, or did he sign a deal that either party could terminate at will, with the only real condition if terminated that the player had to sit a year? It business, that’s a non-compete.

    Why is it that if Vick just decided to walk away, no one worries about the position that Vick puts Kansas in? He can leave at any time, and go anywhere he wants. Heck, he can leave midseason and leave the team hanging. Self can’t cut his scholarship midseason. The only thing he can’t do, in the entire world, is play D-1 basketball for a season.

    Yes, those are the current rules, and that’s what we’re talking about here – re-writing the rules. I agree that if a kid bails by choice (your second paragraph), he should have to sit a year. I think that’s a good and fair rule.

    But if a coach decides to force out a player, and the kid wants to stay, I would argue that it doesn’t hurt the coach or school one bit if the kid plays for a different D1 school the next year. Discipline problems aside (breach of contract), if the kid is so talented he’ll help the competition too much instead of sitting on your bench, maybe he shouldn’t have been cut. Frankamp, for example. Did he leave us short handed? No. Obviously that situation wasn’t working out. A clean break would be better for the coach and the kid, IMO.

    Every kid “cut” by Self… I can’t think of one he let go that ever came back to bite us in the ass. Don’t want them, just let 'em play somewhere else. I think there should be an option where a coach can say, I’ve released him from the “non-compete.” (That happens in the business world too.)

    ————

    Incredibly cogent.

    This is reason at its best.

    You have created a face saving rationale and path for change here the TPTB could pick up and live with.



  • I think that’s a pretty good idea. The only problem is that they would have to distinguish a kid being forced out or not, which is awkward for the kid if that is public information.



  • @jaybate-1-0 Your thread on fouling Doke got locked … do you know why?

    @BShark? @approxinfinity?



  • HighEliteMajor said:

    @jaybate-1-0 Your thread on fouling Doke got locked … do you know why?

    @BShark? @approxinfinity?


    Thanks for asking. No, I don’t. Guessed it was some kind of a software glitch, or operator error, or prank. But who knows? Didn’t notice other threads of mine locked. FWIW, I don’t know how to lock, or unlock a thread.



  • @jaybate-1-0 Interesting topic … when it gets unlocked, I have some numbers to consider.



  • @HighEliteMajor

    Looking forward to seeing them.

    Rock Chalk!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to KU Buckets was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.