|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 27, 2014 11:50:57 GMT -8
I think one of the overlooked markets for both football and basketball for college transfers that don't sit ...
The carousel that would come when experienced players from high profile schools get injured or are unhappy with playing time has been discussed -- but not enough concern with who they are replaced with ... this is where you look at lower level programs with good players being used to plug the holes of major programs.
Think of it like this ... the Back-Up QB for UCLA decides he'd get more playing time at SJSU -- UCLA's other QBs are not ready to step into that role and the starter isn't injured ... it would really be no issue for them to go out and get an experienced starter from another school running a similar offense to be the new back-up. This would not force the expedited development of the the QBs they already have, and they have insurance against injury to the starter. If the QBs that were passed over for the back-up QB decide that they won't see the field, they could transfer and start the carousel all over again.
Now apply this to the 6th man (basketball). The deep pocket programs could very easily keep their bench fully stocked with quality players if the no sit rule is implemented.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jul 27, 2014 12:02:33 GMT -8
More than 40% of all D1 basketball players transfer during their career, I am not sure how many more would transfer with this rule.
Again, I would point to someone like Lee at Kentucky. If it were penalty free, would he move now, I think he would. There would be a lot more guys like him that got recruited over than guys at MW schools that could play up. What would we have done in 2011 if Leonard has transferred to UCLA or North Carolina after the 2010 season? It would take only one super player leaving to seriously hurt the chances of one of the Group of 5 teams (or from lesser conferences such as the WCC or Atlantic-10). That could easily happen if players are allowed to transfer without sitting a year. This possible change is no small deal. AzWm For every one player that would leave SDSU there would be fifty that would want to come here. This rule would be a gamechanger for us but would hurt most non-BCS schools. I'm not surprised you take the negative outlook on this as you do most things related to Aztec Athletics.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jul 27, 2014 12:14:30 GMT -8
Here a post of mine from a similar thread in the past: The main reason players transfer is over playing time. While we obviously aren't a blue blood like USC or Ohio State we play at a high enough level that when a player has great success on the field here they are pretty satisfied as its been proven time and time again that you can get to the NFL from SDSU. For those players that have proven themselves do you think they are likely to gamble what is pretty much a guaranteed starting position at SDSU for the chance to battle with other highly rated recruits at a blue blood school above us and risk finishing their career as a backup?...again, the main reason players transfer is playing time. Lets use SC as an example, 99% of their recruits are going to have better credentials than any player they’d get from us and at a place like that 5 star players often get recruited over so there are no absolutely no guarantees there. Obviously some would jump ship but I think we’d have a great retention rate with the majority of our impact players. I think we are at a high enough level that if a player jumps they are going to go to a blue blood from here as there are plenty of schools above us currently that I just can’t see as high enough above us to justify a transfer to like Oregon State, ASU, Colorado, etc. I just can’t see someone saying “I’m kicking ass at SDSU but I really want to be playing at Oregon State!” Think of it this way, in the last 10 years has SDSU seen any players leave the program to go to a "better" school ? Once people are here they typically don't leave unless they flunk out or are bad apples. Kevin Craft went juco first and his dad just got fired so I'm not sure I'd count that one. Again, I think our retention level would be really high. We have always been a popular destination for both football and basketball transfers and I think this would increase dramatically if players didn’t have to sit out a year. Our trophy location is appealing to a lot of Power 5 players who are no longer enamored with the glamour and want to get on the field ASAP. Every football/basketball program located in a depressing city/town would be at risk of losing talent that is unhappy with playing time or their role on the team. Kids that want to tell their friends they are going to a Pac-12 or Big-12 program out of high school quickly lose their love for the power conferences once they look at the depth chart and settle into the crappy town they are going to call home for the next 5 years of their life. I think this ruling totally favors the Power 5 but we are one of the few outsiders that would benefit greatly. The MWC would be pillaged as teams like Wyoming have a hard enough time retaining talent even with the required year to sit out. IMO it all boils to location. If the school is in a terrible location the odds are that easing the transfer rules are going to hurt them. Read more: aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/38157?page=2#ixzz38hZBTrhS
|
|
|
Post by RockNFish on Jul 27, 2014 12:43:12 GMT -8
We would probably get more transfers in than we lose... however, there would be a much greater risk of losing the once a decade (or so) player like Faulk and Kawhi. And if a player that is stuck behind a 1st round draft pick transfers to state and has one good season, the other P5 will take a serious look.
Also - it would be really hard to manage your scholarships, how many do you leave open and at what positions? can you afford to not be fully stocked at a particular position...
If the rule doesn't benefit the P5, they won't vote it in.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jul 27, 2014 12:53:00 GMT -8
Faulk might have left. I don't think Kawhi would've at all. I'd take a serious upgrade in talent across the board over losing the occasional star.
|
|
|
Post by uncledougy on Jul 27, 2014 14:39:19 GMT -8
How many Aztec hoopsters left the program vs how many transfers joined the team. The Mesa is a destination and the guys that leave are way down the depth chart and as harsh as it sounds I don't mind if they leave, it frees up a spot. SDSU is on the verge of recruiting nationally instead of within the state (not knocking California high schools as the talent level is very high), but national recruits have a tendency to be just a little bit better.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 27, 2014 14:41:09 GMT -8
How many Aztec hoopsters left the program vs how many transfers joined the team. The Mesa is a destination and the guys that leave are way down the depth chart and as harsh as it sounds I don't mind if they leave, it frees up a spot. SDSU is on the verge of recruiting nationally instead of within the state (not knocking California high schools as the talent level is very high), but national recruits have a tendency to be just a little bit better. I agree that we are on the verge of recruiting nationally ... that just moves us from transfer destination to the place top players transfer from ...
|
|
|
Post by gocoaztec on Jul 27, 2014 18:05:23 GMT -8
Penalty free transfers would be good for all of the G5 schools. We lost Faulk and Leonard to the NFL/NBA -- those type of guys aren't going to transfer, they're going to go pro. Lots of unhappy P5 second and third string players, many of them 4 stars, will look to move to get playing time. In fact, the only bad deal for SDSU would be that other MWC schools would also reap the benefits of the transfers, and schools like Wyoming that don't have much of a chance at highly rated kids coming out of HS will get a look by P5 players looking for a place to start.
It would be fun to see how many of these second string kids blossom into stars when they are given a chance to play. You know that most of them would be motivated to prove their original team wrong. I bet the NFL would be happy to see more of these highly rated kids get playing time as well.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 27, 2014 18:11:12 GMT -8
What would we have done in 2011 if Leonard has transferred to UCLA or North Carolina after the 2010 season? It would take only one super player leaving to seriously hurt the chances of one of the Group of 5 teams (or from lesser conferences such as the WCC or Atlantic-10). That could easily happen if players are allowed to transfer without sitting a year. This possible change is no small deal. AzWm For every one player that would leave SDSU there would be fifty that would want to come here. This rule would be a gamechanger for us but would hurt most non-BCS schools. I'm not surprised you take the negative outlook on this as you do most things related to Aztec Athletics. Sir, I am cut to the quick. If you prick me, do I not bleed? Pretty diluted blood, but still . . . Your interpretation of my attitude toward Aztec athletics is invalid, but let that pass. I stand by my statement that a no sit rule for transfers would be a bad idea. It would simply offer way too many incentives for unscrupulous college officials or boosters to meddle in the lives of student-athletes at other schools. And it would give 19 and 20 year olds an opportunity to pull the rip cord too easily instead of sticking with a decision that was made, both by them and their chosen schools, in good faith. I suspect that in many cases those who transfer (and the schools that welcome them) may later decide it wasn't such a great idea after all. The realization that they will not be able to participate on the field or court for a year no doubt makes athletes hesitate and think a bit before packing their bags. That, I believe, is a good thing. As for SDSU, I think that we have reached the point, in hoops, at which a really outstanding player who is starting and getting lots of attention from the pundits and the fans is unlikely to be tempted by the siren song of a UCLA or other big name schools. In short, we are pretty close to being that kind of big name ourselves. In football, perhaps we would be more vulnerable, but if the program keeps making progress, maybe we will be largely immune from such out-migration in the future. Here's the thing; this whole issue is really important when outstanding players are involved. I imagine that there are a few of Rocky's football players who, if they left (regardless of whether the transfer rule has been changed) suddenly, would not be missed greatly. A second or third string lineman who is a junior is probably not going to become a major asset, so if he leaves, the program will not suffer greatly. It's when a 3 or 4-star lineman, one who plays a fair amount as a true freshman and starts as a true sophomore, decides to transfer to a PAC-12 or Big-10 school that the loss becomes major. SDSU may not be terribly vulnerable to transfers if the rule changes, but what about Idaho or Tulane or Western Michigan? With the number of scholarship athletes on a roster dropped from (if my memory serves me) about 104 to the current 85, there are lot of good players who do not end up at Ohio State or USC. Idaho, Tulane, and the like are going to get a few of those kids who 40 or 50 years ago would have ended up sitting on the bench at a name school. If the rule for transfers changes, those good kids who end up in Moscow or Kalamazoo will be fair game when a P5 school decides to augment their roster from the ranks of kids who have proven their worth at the expense of a minor program. That's why I oppose the change being discussed. The P5 schools already have enormous advantages. They don't need more. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by RockNFish on Jul 27, 2014 19:25:14 GMT -8
Penalty free transfers would be good for all of the G5 schools. We lost Faulk and Leonard to the NFL/NBA -- those type of guys aren't going to transfer, they're going to go pro. Lots of unhappy P5 second and third string players, many of them 4 stars, will look to move to get playing time. In fact, the only bad deal for SDSU would be that other MWC schools would also reap the benefits of the transfers, and schools like Wyoming that don't have much of a chance at highly rated kids coming out of HS will get a look by P5 players looking for a place to start. It would be fun to see how many of these second string kids blossom into stars when they are given a chance to play. You know that most of them would be motivated to prove their original team wrong. I bet the NFL would be happy to see more of these highly rated kids get playing time as well. I'm not disagreeing with you, but if this is accurate, the p5 simply will not vote the rule in. The p5 might be greedy, but they ain't stupid.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 27, 2014 22:32:21 GMT -8
Penalty free transfers would be good for all of the G5 schools. We lost Faulk and Leonard to the NFL/NBA -- those type of guys aren't going to transfer, they're going to go pro. Lots of unhappy P5 second and third string players, many of them 4 stars, will look to move to get playing time. In fact, the only bad deal for SDSU would be that other MWC schools would also reap the benefits of the transfers, and schools like Wyoming that don't have much of a chance at highly rated kids coming out of HS will get a look by P5 players looking for a place to start. It would be fun to see how many of these second string kids blossom into stars when they are given a chance to play. You know that most of them would be motivated to prove their original team wrong. I bet the NFL would be happy to see more of these highly rated kids get playing time as well. You make some very solid points. I am against the no-sit rule, but one must recognize that transfers will be able to go both ways. That is, from lesser schools to more elite ones, and vice versa. But, on balance, this will probably end up helping the P5 schools and hurting the also-rans. The basic problem is that the elite schools (Power5 conferences plus Notre Dame) have for many decades had enormous advantages when compared with the non-elite schools. And, like Johnny Rocco in "Key Largo," they just "want more." And, just like Johnny Rocco, they guess they won't ever have enough. AzWm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 0:21:56 GMT -8
I wish Rocky Long wasn't so freaking candid. I'm not saying he's wrong in his quotes, or that we necessarily go toe-to-toe with USC in recruiting anyway, but I feel like if there ever was an instance where we had an opportunity with a big time recruit, what is he going to think when a coach at an opposing school shows him these quotes?:
“I think that’s the worst of it all,” Aztecs coach Rocky Long said. “They already feed their guys better than we feed our guys. … Their locker room is already nicer than our locker room. Their weight room is already nicer than our weight room. You can’t change that.
“But if they start using us as their minor-league system, that’s wrong.”
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 28, 2014 0:31:42 GMT -8
What's to stop P5 schools from raiding other P5 schools? If anyone thinks they're honorable enough to limit it to only raiding G5 schools is clueless. There's no honor among thieves. That's the real reason this ruling won't be voted in.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 28, 2014 7:30:57 GMT -8
I would agree with penalty free transfers but only for a subset of players. Use some method to determine key players that can not transfer penalty free. Allow teams to "protect" a percentage of players. Those protected players could transfer under the old rules. That would kill any objections about lesser conferences becoming development leagues.
Baseball uses something like this in their 40 man roster. Players who are not on the 40 man roster are subject to different rules and can be grabbed by other teams under certain situations.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 28, 2014 7:46:53 GMT -8
I wish Rocky Long wasn't so freaking candid. I'm not saying he's wrong in his quotes, or that we necessarily go toe-to-toe with USC in recruiting anyway, but I feel like if there ever was an instance where we had an opportunity with a big time recruit, what is he going to think when a coach at an opposing school shows him these quotes?: “I think that’s the worst of it all,” Aztecs coach Rocky Long said. “ They already feed their guys better than we feed our guys. … Their locker room is already nicer than our locker room. Their weight room is already nicer than our weight room. You can’t change that.“But if they start using us as their minor-league system, that’s wrong.” Any recruit that has been recruited by both SDSU and either UCLA or USC will tell you this ^^^ Not acknowledging it to a recruit would be a mistake. I'm pretty sure Rocky recruits by admitting what we're not, then proceeding to tell them what we are and what you will get at SDSU that you won't at UCLA / USC. I'm pretty sure the number one thing on that list is Playing Time. Change the transfer rules and SDSU would be where players get trained, and the PAC-12 is where they play ... AZ runs the 3-3-5 too, everybody is on the look out for good TEs, RBs & WRs
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Jul 28, 2014 7:57:25 GMT -8
Haven't yet seen a persuasive argument for doing away with the must-sit rule. It is a powerful force for stabilization in college sports. Get rid of it and you're putting programs like ours at unknowable additional risk. Rocky understands a hell of a lot more about this business than I ever will, and he hates the idea. That alone is enough for me.
Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 28, 2014 9:16:22 GMT -8
What would we have done in 2011 if Leonard has transferred to UCLA or North Carolina after the 2010 season? It would take only one super player leaving to seriously hurt the chances of one of the Group of 5 teams (or from lesser conferences such as the WCC or Atlantic-10). That could easily happen if players are allowed to transfer without sitting a year. This possible change is no small deal. AzWm I agree whole heartedly, why recruit? it will just be a player auction with the highest bid paying the most for the best players. Might as well just create an on-line auction based model like eBay. Who needs coaches and alumni, who needs tradition and loyalty? The whole system sucks and the Power 5 aren't making it any better! That is silly, we are not talking about commodities and ubiquitous companies. These are people and universities with inherent biases, etc. I work for one of the top retailers in the country, do you know how hard it is to get someone to switch stores? Donnell Pumphrey, for example, would have to be sure that he could learn the new offense and get the playing time he need and that he will like his new teammates, the new college, etc. It would be the exception. Instead, the vast majority would be transfers looking for playing time which helps SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by vision on Jul 28, 2014 9:34:02 GMT -8
Rocky couldn't be more wrong but Davie has good reason to be terrified. Lets hope this happens. A promising high school athlete that needs work on fundamentals from a great coach (like Rocky Long), should go to SDSU for a year or two. Then after he takes playing time from other players and soaks up the knowledge from good coaching. That player can move on to a program with a bad coach like USC when they had Kiffen for example. Pretty soon the big programs will not have to coach AT ALL, just use the feeder programs to get their high school athletes better and then plug them into a new power conference school. The idea of different rules for the rich and for the poor is bogus....but i guess it's the American way. LAME
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jul 28, 2014 9:43:22 GMT -8
The P5 would prefer that players do Not form unions . Like it or not they are trying to make themselves out as student friendly . I do not have to believe it but if the players do then that's all that counts and looks good to the public. Proposals that have been tossed out there to make them look good . Stipends , full scholarships , insurance , less practice time and days , more study time for the student athlete , allowing students who maintain a 2.6 GPA the opportunity to transfer and not sit ( the 2.6 GPA shows their concern for academics ) Also believe it can not be to member school in the same conference without sitting. Remember College football is a business and major companies flex their power . If there is the full scholarships then the P5 schools may not want the guys who are not really going to make a contribution and ties up the full transfer, so if they leave it opens scholarships for them to go out and get others . Agree it will hurt the schools that do not get to bowl games in the Power Not Schools even more then the SDSU's . Has the MW changed its rules so the top 6 teams go to Bowls not just who the Bowl may want ? Believe it has been tossed out there by the PAC so instead of complaining about it be prepared for it . In business , someone is working for a smaller company and doing good work they may get offered to go to a bigger company , the employee has to choose what company is better to work for . Sorry to say it but football is a business, so you better be ready to compete .
|
|
|
Post by vision on Jul 28, 2014 10:17:32 GMT -8
the whole idea of scholarship limits at 85 is ruined with a new no sit rule.
Alabama (football) and UCLA (Basketball) for example used to stock pile tons of players...sometimes even just to keep other schools from getting them. The 85 scholarship max really leveled the playing field. Now this transfer rule could tilt the playing field dramatically.
|
|