|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Aug 22, 2019 5:26:06 GMT -5
Offering this thread as a Grandison-free zone for those who want to talk about the transfer portal. Please consider using it for such discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Aug 22, 2019 8:12:09 GMT -5
Should the PL look into how to best protect the conference as well as the students in this environment?
I think the NCAA lets conferences to regulate transfers with in the conference... presumably such rules could be more restrictive or more liberal [e.g. don't have to sit a year]
|
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Aug 22, 2019 10:53:57 GMT -5
Should the PL look into how to best protect the conference as well as the students in this environment? I think the NCAA lets conferences to regulate transfers with in the conference... presumably such rules could be more restrictive or more liberal [e.g. don't have to sit a year] The PL doesn't need to do anything to protect the conference or the students in the "Transfer Portal" environment. The Transfer Portal did not introduce some sort of wild west where schools can contact anyone they want who is on scholarship elsewhere and have no repercussions, and actually made it a more severe violation to tamper with players who do not put themselves in the portal. Unless a kid chooses to enter the portal (which is essentially the same exact action as asking a school for a release), everything is status quo. The only difference is that the portal is a transparent database for schools to look at whereas the previous system did not inform schools when a kid got a release, but if the PL had a kid who was good enough to transfer up, schools would know about him either way. See: Maurice Watson, who had no trouble transferring from BU to Creighton without the big bad transfer portal. |
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Aug 22, 2019 11:14:09 GMT -5
Should the PL look into how to best protect the conference as well as the students in this environment? I think the NCAA lets conferences to regulate transfers with in the conference... presumably such rules could be more restrictive or more liberal [e.g. don't have to sit a year] In general, the PL could not override the NCAA to make transfer rules more liberal. And they only let conferences regulate transfers within the conference to make them more punitive. For example, in basketball a transfer from one PL team to another cannot receive a scholarship. But the PL could not do anything to allow players not to have to sit a year. It's EXTREMELY unlikely the PL would look to change transfer rules or anything about the portal - which hasn't been the problem some seem to think it is. All it really has done is introduced a lot more transparency. And schools already have the right to non-renew a player's scholarship once they enter the portal. The biggest change in transfers has likely been the growth in grad transfers. Players now recognize early in the process that they may be able to graduate early and go get a free Masters degree somewhere. For example, in the PL this year we saw Nate Sestina, Tyler Scanlan, and Pat Andree - all candidates for All-PL - leave for grad programs. Only Sestina had completed four years, but Bucknell in general does not allow players to return for a 5th season. Scanlan and Andree managed to graduate in three years, presumably due to summer classes and AP credits. |
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Aug 22, 2019 11:17:27 GMT -5
I would agree with bbc. It seems to be more of an issue of the overall culture of transferring, rather than the portal procedure. And it all seems to be driven by basketball as priority #1 (as in present and future planned endeavors), with the schools just acting as living quarters more or less. That's D1, and everyone is affected now more than ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Aug 22, 2019 11:20:06 GMT -5
I probably shouldn't paint with a broad brush, since there are some kids (RJ being a prime example) that utilize the grad transfer route with academics in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Aug 22, 2019 11:27:29 GMT -5
I probably shouldn't paint with a broad brush, since there are some kids (RJ being a prime example) that utilize the grad transfer route with academics in mind. Playing for his home state power may have had something to do with the transfer |
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Aug 22, 2019 11:35:51 GMT -5
I have no problem with players transferring, but the percentage of the annual or total scholarships a school has to offer should be concerning. Players need to understand how their skills fit in a system and pick a school that make sense for their academic, personal and athletic needs. When you look at the percentages I don’t see how that is happening.
Commitments need to go both ways from institution to players, and player back to the institution. Being told you might not play much, directly or indirectly, during your 4, 3, or 2 years in the program happens but not sure leaving is a great model to establish for decision making in life
Perhaps these kids are committing too early in the process, receive bad advice from high school/AAU coaches, need constant praise, lack maturity, or just fall in love with the school on the visit? Perhaps pressure to verbally commit early in the process is the real problem.
Holy Cross is a great place, but it is not for everybody or is it for every recruit we attempt to sign.
|
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Aug 22, 2019 12:39:35 GMT -5
I'm not against transferring either, but one of my favorite things about following non-major basketball has been that, historically speaking, you'd get to root for teams loaded with upperclassmen. That seems to be in danger now.
|
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Aug 22, 2019 13:02:49 GMT -5
Perhaps these kids are committing too early in the process, receive bad advice from high school/AAU coaches, need constant praise, lack maturity, or just fall in love with the school on the visit? Perhaps pressure to verbally commit early in the process is the real problem. Or perhaps coaches, in some cases, are not recruiting the whole person nor selling the whole college. Appreciating the immersive academic and community experience of a place like Holy Cross (the importance of "men and women for others," e.g.) is as essential for a recruit to understand as his experience on the basketball court. Knowing the staff is there for them as both students and athletes for four years is the glue that will keep the group together.
Whatever his shortcomings, Milan Brown got it when it came to this. Hopefully, Nelson will as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Aug 22, 2019 13:32:43 GMT -5
Commitments need to go both ways from institution to players, and player back to the institution. Being told you might not play much, directly or indirectly, during your 4, 3, or 2 years in the program happens but not sure leaving is a great model to establish for decision making in life Perhaps these kids are committing too early in the process, receive bad advice from high school/AAU coaches, need constant praise, lack maturity, or just fall in love with the school on the visit? Perhaps pressure to verbally commit early in the process is the real problem. On a number of occasions players are told that they will NEVER play and will be given no chance to earn minutes - statements designed to force them to leave. And if they stay, they may face hostility from the coaching staff. Why would a player decide to stay under those conditions? And this doesn't count the hundreds of times each year when a player's scholarship is not renewed, leaving him no choice. Yes, some players may commit too early. But the problem is that if the player does not commit early, there may be no scholarships available later. The other problem is that it is VERY hard to evaluate how good a HS junior will be three years down the road. Look at CJ McCollum and Mike Muscala, who both had very few offers - and none from schools stronger than Lehigh and Bucknell - in the summer after their junior year. And then look at how many three and four star players turn out to be total busts. Should a player who is not nearly good enough for a given level stay there on the bench for four years, or should he transfer to a more appropriate level at some point? |
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Aug 22, 2019 13:34:47 GMT -5
Perhaps these kids are committing too early in the process, receive bad advice from high school/AAU coaches, need constant praise, lack maturity, or just fall in love with the school on the visit? Perhaps pressure to verbally commit early in the process is the real problem. Or perhaps coaches, in some cases, are not recruiting the whole person nor selling the whole college. Appreciating the immersive academic and community experience of a place like Holy Cross (the importance of "men and women for others," e.g.) is as essential for a recruit to understand as his experience on the basketball court. Knowing the staff is there for them as both students and athletes for four years is the glue that will keep the group together.
Whatever his shortcomings, Milan Brown got it when it came to understanding this. Hopefully, Nelson will as well.
All could be true for Holy Cross and why it might not be for everybody my comments were directed to the larger pool of players looking to transfer and the system |
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Aug 22, 2019 13:40:04 GMT -5
Commitments need to go both ways from institution to players, and player back to the institution. Being told you might not play much, directly or indirectly, during your 4, 3, or 2 years in the program happens but not sure leaving is a great model to establish for decision making in life Perhaps these kids are committing too early in the process, receive bad advice from high school/AAU coaches, need constant praise, lack maturity, or just fall in love with the school on the visit? Perhaps pressure to verbally commit early in the process is the real problem. On a number of occasions players are told that they will NEVER play and will be given no chance to earn minutes - statements designed to force them to leave. And if they stay, they may face hostility from the coaching staff. Why would a player decide to stay under those conditions? And this doesn't count the hundreds of times each year when a player's scholarship is not renewed, leaving him no choice. Yes, some players may commit too early. But the problem is that if the player does not commit early, there may be no scholarships available later. The other problem is that it is VERY hard to evaluate how good a HS junior will be in two or three years. Look at CJ McCollum and Mike Muscala, who both had very few offers - and none from schools stronger than Lehigh and Bucknell - in the summer after their junior year. And then look at how many three and four star players turn out to be total busts. Should a player who is not nearly good enough for a given level stay there on the bench for four years, or should he transfer to a more appropriate level at some point? When that happens a player can choose to stay or go. However as the umbers continue to grow soon we will have 1 of 4 or 1 of 3 players looking to transfer each year and I think it is unhealthy for the college game. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 22, 2019 13:57:52 GMT -5
I suppose that would depend on why he's going to college or chose a given school. Sadly, what the answer to that is and what it should be are frequently two different things |
|
