There is zero question that the transfer rules are going to be bad for the sport. But you are only looking at the immediate impacts on fan engagement/support. That's the first shoe that drops. Then comes the NIL rights legislation and the second shoe drops - no more middle ground. You either pay to play like the big boys or you retreat to D3. People forget that the basic scholarship was the reason many schools who were football powerhouses in 1940's and 1950's are now D3. I would wager any of you that if the NIL rights legislation goes through - traditional D1 membership will be halved within 10 years. There just isn't the money at most places.

Almost 1400 transfers at this point out of 4550 total d1 players.  Thats 31%

Holy cow

brod wrote:

Almost 1400 transfers at this point out of 4550 total d1 players.  Thats 31%

Holy cow

I know of at least two schools - Minnesota and DePaul - that have had 9 players hit the portal.

chrisw wrote:

GW73...I understand the point that you're making, but in the NBA you have contracted players each season. They can't leave every season for another team. That way you can become a fan, knowing that a favorite player will be there the next year, and perhaps other. With the way this is turning out, you can literally have an entirely different team each year. NCAA is going to rue the day that they have made this so easy to do. And the players are going to miss one of the important lessons in sports...learning teamwork and loyalty to coach, team and school.

I can understand that the movement of coaches should allow for players to move too. And these coaches have shown very little loyalty to players, teams or schools also.

I guess my point is that the only losers in this are the fans and the school. And like Merrick said, it is taking some of the joy of the game away. And for me, it's taking a lot of the joy.

I know I'm largely on an island here (at least I think so, as it relates to this board), but the difference between the NBA and a devoted fan base is that the players get paid actual money while also maintaining the ability to make more money because of their NBA status.  In the college game, we ask 18-22 year old folks to NOT make money, to NOT have the ability to use their status to make money, and to remain "loyal" to people that are making money around them off of the skills that they cannot profit from.  And then we get sad that these unpaid athletes (or at least athletes paid effectively the same anywhere, with an education that they try to get while playing a sport) want to move from one place to another in the name of unity?  If we don't want players moving, give them contracts.  Contracts where they can actually get paid.  Give them union representation, if they choose.  Allow them to profit off of their own skills and marketability.  If they can actually make money by being tied to a program, maybe the stay.  

As GWrising points out, the schools may not have the money for this.  So, basically, the schools can cry poor as to a reason why they can't pay the student athletes they fundraise off of, profit off of, and "adults" make money from.  If that's the system, I'll deal with being sad that the sport won't be the same.

Dan, I wasn't making a comment about that at all. I was just saying that the moving of players hurts the fans, and that the NBA doesn't do that in the way that the NCAA is doing now (hopfully there will be a change post covid).

But since you brought it up, and I don't stand on your island or on the mainland...I guess I'm all wet. I do wonder, where it will end? Remember the jocks in your high school...three sport letters and all? They sell tickets to those events. Shouldn't they get a cut? And what about the bench sitters? Do they get the same amount of money as the 'stars'? What about the money that the little league pulls from their little 7-11's at the field? Shouldn't the money go to the players? Grandma and Grandpa wouldn't be there buying bottled water if Jr. wasn't pitching that day. I know I'm going far, but really, if you do one, it's going to keep going. It always does.

GWRising wrote:

Thomas wrote:

GWRising wrote:

Don't think JC is really all that concerned about this, pushing to file a complaint or hasn't moved on. But you begin to realize in this transfer process which guys in this business are honorable and which guys are snakes.

Is any coach going to file a complaint or try to block a player from transferring at this point? A few years ago, there was a player who wanted to transfer from Wisconsin to Iowa or vice versa and the coach attempted to block it, he reversed his position after ESPN became aware of the situation and made him look bad on their shows. It looks like the days of coaches trying to strong-arm players into staying or honoring their letter of intent are over.  

You don't have to block the transfer. You can just drop a dime to the NCAA ... the rest will happen. And yes, there are many coaches not happy about how some of these transfers went down.  Roy Williams retired over it.
.

That's an underhanded yet CLEVER(lol) way for a coach to get back at really good players who transfer unexpectedly!! I'm assuming coaches now take this approach instead of making thing difficult like Bo Ryan did with Uthoff and Seth Greenberg did with Nigel Munson-GW several years ago. I don't think coaches will be able to pull that garbage off nowadays. I'm sure Patrick Ewing would have blocked Wahab from transferring to Maryland, and Penny Hardaway would have blocked some of his key players from transferring to certain schools in a previous era. 

 

GW0509 wrote:

The Hatchet published an interview with Brelsford who discussed his reason for transferring:

“I was looking for a better opportunity to play my natural position at the point guard spot,” Brelsford said. “I just figured at GW, I don’t think I was going to be able to get that opportunity to play my natural position and to maximize at my natural position.”

Makes sense given we have Bishop, Freeman, and Harris all higher up on the depth chart at PG.

Brelsford also provided the mindset of the current crop of college athletes.  Goes to GWRising's longstanding point that kids today will not tolerate coming off the bench if another school offers more PT:

 “It’s all about opportunity. Basketball is all about opportunity because if you’re not in the right opportunity to showcase your talents or what you can do, then it’s pointless. It’s all about just getting the best opportunity for yourself to maximize your potential.”

Not the first guy who left because he wanted to be a PG, even if he’s really more of a lead guard or combo guard than a PG.   Not even the first this season.

Last edited by Free Quebec (4/20/2021 3:14 pm)

Gwmayhem wrote:

While there is no denying a trend is apparent, brought about largely due to the easing up of transfer rules, there just has to be some players out there who would rather be the 7th or 8th man at GW then a starter at Bryant.  For Tyler, I'd say his decision was far more about the future than the past.  Last year, he joins the team as the third guard after James and JNJ (I would have put Tyler ahead of Lincoln despite Lincoln having started some games.  He's likely told that the team is not convinced that either James or JNJ will be able to eat up minutes playing the point.  Today, James, Brayon and Amir can all play the point as GW0509 points out.  Plus, two newcomers via transfer make for an extremely crowded backcourt.  It's very easy to understand why Tyler felt he needed to move on.

If you know of any players who would rather be the 7th or 8th man at GW than a starter at Bryant, please let JC know who they are.
 

What interested me and it’s why I bolded it was Brelsford saying it was “pointless” to play college basketball if your not showcasing your talents, presumably as a starter. Considering all the success we’ve had with 6th men throughout our history, it would really a stink if that is the mindset going forward. It also completely dispels the notion that the scholarship to our school means anything outside of playing time on the team.

As stated earlier I do think Brelsford had a case given the depth chart at PG that his odds of playing there were low, but it’s unfortunate that it seems like kids today would rather “showcase their talents” than potentially be a role player on a winning team.

FWIW in a recent interview Bamisile expressed the same sentiments as his reason for leaving VA Tech so this isn’t a GW is cursed thing.

GW0509 wrote:

What interested me and it’s why I bolded it was Brelsford saying it was “pointless” to play college basketball if your not showcasing your talents, presumably as a starter. Considering all the success we’ve had with 6th men throughout our history, it would really a stink if that is the mindset going forward. It also completely dispels the notion that the scholarship to our school means anything outside of playing time on the team.

As stated earlier I do think Brelsford had a case given the depth chart at PG that his odds of playing there were low, but it’s unfortunate that it seems like kids today would rather “showcase their talents” than potentially be a role player on a winning team.

FWIW in a recent interview Bamisile expressed the same sentiments as his reason for leaving VA Tech so this isn’t a GW is cursed thing.

We are moving to a place where kids would rather be the star of a bad team than a role player on a good one. Gone is the team first mentality for most. The me first mentality has replaced it. There are exceptions in college basketball but that is generally what we are looking at these days.

Also everyone has pro aspirations except only about 3% will actually be pros to any meaningful extent (livelihood) whether here or abroad.