Coack K takes a stand regarding transfers...

Discussion in 'Nuttin' but Net' started by ArtVandelay, Sep 16, 2013.

  1. ArtVandelay
    Offline

    ArtVandelay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    3,544
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +415
  2. regurgigator
    Online

    regurgigator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,820
    Likes Received:
    985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle area
    Ratings Received:
    +1,871
    But, I disagree with his stand. I think some exceptions make sense.

    Maybe, the NCAA just needs to clarify what kind of circumstances will allow for a waiver so it's clearer who should get a waiver and not so inconsistent.
  3. REM08
    Online

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +644
    I dont' think its a good idea for anyone to get into the business of denying and approving these things. Its a really odd precedent the NCAA has taken that they feel they're able to weigh levels of grief or hardship. That's tough for anyone. Given how incompetent the NCAA is, they're the last group that should undertake such an endeavor.

    I agree with K, but I'd error on the side of letting them all play instead of making them all sit. Better either though than what's going on now.
  4. Go2gtr
    Offline

    Go2gtr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    14,030
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +174
    When the coach gets fired for cause kids who want out should be released from their contract and allowed to play elsewhere without penalty.
  5. GatorPlanet
    Offline

    GatorPlanet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Maitland, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +626
    I kind of agree with Ratface's position on this, but since it IS Ratface, I might have to rethink it.
  6. GatorLurker
    Offline

    GatorLurker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +400
    I totally disagree.

    Let us say that the coach gets fired for an inappropriate recruitment of player "A". Player "A" is complicit with the infraction and he gets a "Get out of jail free" card.

    If, on the other hand, the coach is fired for not winning enough, then I see no problem with releasing all of his current recruits.

    Kids that get in bed with shady coaches should not get the benefit of the doubt over kids that sign up to play for "straight" coaches that just didn't happen to win enough games.
  7. Singaporegator
    Offline

    Singaporegator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,538
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In the Green Mountains of Vermont
    Ratings Received:
    +160
    Kids should be able to transfer when they wish to wherever they wish. The only restriction should be that they cannot transfer to a school that has recruited them away from their original school.

    Sent from my iPad using GatorCountry
  8. Bradass
    Offline

    Bradass Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    5,954
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +865
    When a player commits to UF, is he committing to The University of Florida or to Billy Donovan? Which is it? Just food for thought.

    If there are no transfer rules in place, and a coach gets fired...you really think it's a good idea to let the entire team transfer freely because the coach was bad? What happens to that school's program for the future if the whole team leaves? Even if only a few players leave, it's disastrous for trying to build a program.

    The transfer rules are fine as is and keep the whole system from being a horrible form of free agency. When a coach is fired like Mike Rice at Rutgers, or for NCAA violations, I like giving those players a waiver, but the absolute freedom to transfer without having to sit out for everyone? That invites insanity at the end of every season and impropriety by coaches recruiting players who aren't getting playing time at other schools. Horrible idea and its kind of dumbfounding that Coach K really thinks this. He'd lose a couple players every year.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. GatorPlanet
    Offline

    GatorPlanet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Maitland, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +626
    Well stated, Brad.

    K is so arrogant, he sees only the guys that don't pan out as projected ever leaving his program. So he sees an opportunity to actively recruit really good players away from other programs.

    The current system isn't perfect, but it keeps things from turning into free agency.
  10. Singaporegator
    Offline

    Singaporegator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,538
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In the Green Mountains of Vermont
    Ratings Received:
    +160
    I'll modify my post by adding that yes, the transferee would have to sit out a year.

    Sent from my iPad using GatorCountry
  11. phideltdj
    Offline

    phideltdj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,841
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +545
    Goes to show you how the so called genuis of basketball can say something really dumb...of course you would turn it into free agency. You would have some kids that would end up playing at a different school each year...it would be like high school. I know KB played for three different high schools.
  12. InstiGATOR1
    Offline

    InstiGATOR1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +48
    I agree this is really a tough issue. Perhaps, it should be this:

    1. Players who the school releases can play immediately. These would be players who are likely transferring down or are bad personality fits with a program. These are kids the programs are pushing out the door and there is no reason for them to sit.

    2. Players who the school does not release must sit a year. If your grandmother is sick or your father died, you need to get family business in order and so sitting is a good thing. This makes free agency type moves costly.

    3. Players who graduate, can transfer and play immediately without a release up until a certain date. That is players must announce their intention to the school they are leaving before a certain date.
  13. REM08
    Online

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +644
    Hard to disagree with 1 and 3.

    Your second point doesn't protect players from vindictive coaches or potentially abusive situations (see any Rutgers transfer before their coach was found out). There have been several good examples of coaches being intentionally spiteful of a player wanting to transfer recently. I think Bo Ryan is one of the most recent examples.

    In general you're right about sitting for family issues, but I still think you're generalizing too much. I'm sure there have been family-type transfers that were simply a matter of logistics or something where it was advantageous for the player to play close to home and did not benefit from a year off or anything.
  14. InstiGATOR1
    Offline

    InstiGATOR1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +48
    Well:

    1. I think one person's vindictive coach is another person's coach wanting a player to be patient until their time to play bigger minutes come. I think the kid Ryan restricted so much was a true frosh who might have developed at Wisconsin.

    2. Any general rule will catch some individuals. The good thing here is there is no penalty. The student can be enrolled. The student can be on scholarship. The student must merely wait a year for extra curricular activities. That seems a small thing avoid the mess a basketball free agency would cause or the arbitrary nature of people evaluating other people's hardships.

    3. As for the example you mentions, the one kid from the Philly school was a graduate so these rules would allow him to go if he wanted. The issue there seemed to be the coach felt the kid bailed at the last minute. A deadline for transfers would help coaches and players alike. As far as the Rutger's type situation, I am not sure transfer rules are the way to handle an abusive coach. That is not what they are designed for and I do not think trying to design them for this would work well.
  15. REM08
    Online

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +644
    1. I agree. Where we disagree is over whether or not the "one" that thinks its not a matter of vindictiveness is always right. I'd error on leaving that decision to the kid. If he thinks the coach doesn't have his best interest at heart or that he's not at the best school for him, I'd be inclined to let him decide to transfer anywhere he wants - with an exception available if tampering was involved. You may not be so inclined.

    Someone mentioned only letting a player transfer once without sitting out. I like that idea.

    2. I agree with you except that, I believe at least, the path is not so smooth for players if their coach blocks a school for them to transfer to. I don't think they're able to be on scholarship for that year in this case. Obviously I think that's too significant of an obstacle in cases like this. If there were no more blocking, then I honestly wouldn't have a big disagreement with you and do see the benefits of making players sit a year.

    3. I agree Rutgers should be a different type of issue, but unfortunately players often don't have another course of action if they want out from underneath an abusive coach. In their cases, the transfer system IS what they have to deal with. I guess you could implement a different system for them, but I don't see an easy way of doing this - not a way that would help players whose coaches are abusive but haven't been found to be yet.
  16. themistocles
    Offline

    themistocles Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    12,616
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +383
    Simple, but reasonable logic.

    Yes, inconsistency is a deadly thing, in all situations.

    Transfer waivers should, as he notes, be the rare exception, and result from extraordinarily unusual "hardship" situations.

Share This Page