|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Apr 13, 2016 11:48:14 GMT -8
Love this kid's game.
Can 5th-year transfers stay within the conference? Because this guy's all motor and heart - a great glue guy who can bang own low.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 13, 2016 12:02:52 GMT -8
The conference can allow graduate transfers to transfer within the conference. The MWC should allow it to help make the conference stronger.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Apr 13, 2016 13:50:02 GMT -8
The conference can allow graduate transfers to transfer within the conference. The MWC should allow it to help make the conference stronger. Would it represent a breech of 'etiquette,' i.e., is it analogous to hitting on your cousin's ex? Or do you think there is a 'keep it in the family' culture on this hillbilly-infested Mountain of a conference? |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Apr 13, 2016 14:26:09 GMT -8
The conference can allow graduate transfers to transfer within the conference. The MWC should allow it to help make the conference stronger. Agreed, but only a few conferences actually have moved in this direction & the P12 just did so starting this past year I believe (2015-2016 school year). As you said, they did so because they thought it was better to keep talent within the conference than allow them to go to the B12, etc.
On the flipside, some of the lesser schools in the P12 are very opposed to that rule. Several are losing their better players to rivals (e.g. a football player from Cal went to Stanford, etc.), so more often than not it's the rich getting richer & the poor staying poorer.
I get both arguments, and don't think either is wrong or even hillbilly-ish by any means. If I'm SJSU I'd be hesitant to let BSU or SDSU steal some of my 5th years. But from the conference commissioners perspective, you'd think he'd prefer ANYONE in the conference benefit over someone from the P12 or B12.
That said, I'm opposed to the Grad-transfer rule as is, period, and it's most likely to be altered next year anyway. They are likely to change the rule so ALL TRANSFERS, including Grads, must sit a year & progress with their post-grad degree before being eligible. Fewer, or at least fewer GOOD players will do so, and fewer schools will be willing to fork over 2 years scholarship for 1 year of play. This whole rule is moot in a year (maybe 2), so why bother?
Back to OP, I said the same thing. Would LOVE this kid on our roster next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by dunksalot on Apr 13, 2016 14:45:24 GMT -8
The conference can allow graduate transfers to transfer within the conference. The MWC should allow it to help make the conference stronger. Agreed, but only a few conferences actually have moved in this direction & the P12 just did so starting this past year I believe (2015-2016 school year). As you said, they did so because they thought it was better to keep talent within the conference than allow them to go to the B12, etc.
On the flipside, some of the lesser schools in the P12 are very opposed to that rule. Several are losing their better players to rivals (e.g. a football player from Cal went to Stanford, etc.), so more often than not it's the rich getting richer & the poor staying poorer.
I get both arguments, and don't think either is wrong or even hillbilly-ish by any means. If I'm SJSU I'd be hesitant to let BSU or SDSU steal some of my 5th years. But from the conference commissioners perspective, you'd think he'd prefer ANYONE in the conference benefit over someone from the P12 or B12.
That said, I'm opposed to the Grad-transfer rule as is, period, and it's most likely to be altered next year anyway. They are likely to change the rule so ALL TRANSFERS, including Grads, must sit a year & progress with their post-grad degree before being eligible. Fewer, or at least fewer GOOD players will do so, and fewer schools will be willing to fork over 2 years scholarship for 1 year of play. This whole rule is moot in a year (maybe 2), so why bother?
Back to OP, I said the same thing. Would LOVE this kid on our roster next year. How can you be against this rule? We've benefited greatly from it and it never hurt us (yet.) It allows a kid to be rewarded for graduating early - a problem the NCAA has as it stands. You really want to make a kid wait an extra year before he gets on with his overseas few years as a pro if that is even an option? What if the school he is at just recruited a 4/5-star for his position so he will now ride the pine as a graduate? Are you a P5 conference spy or 70+ years old? |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Apr 13, 2016 15:09:24 GMT -8
Agreed, but only a few conferences actually have moved in this direction & the P12 just did so starting this past year I believe (2015-2016 school year). As you said, they did so because they thought it was better to keep talent within the conference than allow them to go to the B12, etc.
On the flipside, some of the lesser schools in the P12 are very opposed to that rule. Several are losing their better players to rivals (e.g. a football player from Cal went to Stanford, etc.), so more often than not it's the rich getting richer & the poor staying poorer.
I get both arguments, and don't think either is wrong or even hillbilly-ish by any means. If I'm SJSU I'd be hesitant to let BSU or SDSU steal some of my 5th years. But from the conference commissioners perspective, you'd think he'd prefer ANYONE in the conference benefit over someone from the P12 or B12.
That said, I'm opposed to the Grad-transfer rule as is, period, and it's most likely to be altered next year anyway. They are likely to change the rule so ALL TRANSFERS, including Grads, must sit a year & progress with their post-grad degree before being eligible. Fewer, or at least fewer GOOD players will do so, and fewer schools will be willing to fork over 2 years scholarship for 1 year of play. This whole rule is moot in a year (maybe 2), so why bother?
Back to OP, I said the same thing. Would LOVE this kid on our roster next year. How can you be against this rule? We've benefited greatly from it and it never hurt us (yet.) It allows a kid to be rewarded for graduating early - a problem the NCAA has as it stands. You really want to make a kid wait an extra year before he gets on with his overseas few years as a pro if that is even an option? What if the school he is at just recruited a 4/5-star for his position so he will now ride the pine as a graduate? Are you a P5 conference spy or 70+ years old? I don't judge whether I like or dislike a rule based on whether 1 school does or doesn't benefit from the rule - that'd be like the typical 'Bama fan wanted the rich to get richer & poor to get poorer. Non-factor for me.
The rule was put in place for ONE REASON - to allow kids who do graduate with eligibility to pursue their post-grad degree at another institution IF their own institution doesn't offer that post-grad major. For instance, allowing a kid in pre-law to go to a program with a law school, etc.
It's not being used for that purpose. Less than 30% actually get a post-graduate degree, and most of those are players who transfer down to lower division schools. Many attend for 1 semester, and then drop in March. It has NOTHING to do with empowering them to continue their education.
Not "old" or a "spy"; I just have the same opinion that many coaches now have about the rule, and why they are leaning in that direction overall. If a kid truly wants to pursue their graduate degree, with the new rule he would have a BETTER chance of doing so, as he'd have a full year to focus on his classes while working on his game, & then a year to actually finish is post-grad degree.
Your argument about "what if a school he is at just recruited a 4/5 star..." is moot. That's impacts kids ALL FOUR YEARS, and they have the same option - transfer & sit a year at a place that's better for them. The same would apply to these guys. They'd get the 6 year if necessary. Plus, most know by year 2 or 3 if they are going to have a spot/role in their program. If you're in your 4th year, have graduated, and are riding the pine, you're probably not someone who's got a shot at the next level anyway.
Bottom line - if you want to transfer to a better situation you should be allowed to do so. You should be able to transfer at ANY point in your college career. But it can't be musical chairs, where any kid upset he didn't get PT as a FR can hop from school to school for 4 years, to whatever coach is willing to play him more. You must sit. Same in year 2, 3, or even 5. If you sit, you get to play and, more importantly, you are forced to actually focus on CLASSES for 1 year while still be allowed to practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by dunksalot on Apr 13, 2016 15:18:57 GMT -8
Hmmm...good points and I was not aware of ONE REASON.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Apr 13, 2016 18:15:56 GMT -8
I don't have an opinion on the rule, but I really like Carter. If he comes back from his injury healthy we should be interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 13, 2016 19:02:15 GMT -8
If these guys are Student athletes - shouldn't a guy who actually Graduates be rewarded , with the opportunity to play his final year on a team of his choosing .? But maybe Not in the same conference. Guys are allowed to be one and done - some do not attend classes , get by with it . Should Matt Shrigley be allowed to go where he chooses for his senior year ? . Josh Davis ? G. Green ?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Apr 13, 2016 22:38:16 GMT -8
The conference can allow graduate transfers to transfer within the conference. The MWC should allow it to help make the conference stronger. Agreed, but only a few conferences actually have moved in this direction & the P12 just did so starting this past year I believe (2015-2016 school year). As you said, they did so because they thought it was better to keep talent within the conference than allow them to go to the B12, etc.
On the flipside, some of the lesser schools in the P12 are very opposed to that rule. Several are losing their better players to rivals (e.g. a football player from Cal went to Stanford, etc.), so more often than not it's the rich getting richer & the poor staying poorer.
I get both arguments, and don't think either is wrong or even hillbilly-ish by any means. If I'm SJSU I'd be hesitant to let BSU or SDSU steal some of my 5th years. But from the conference commissioners perspective, you'd think he'd prefer ANYONE in the conference benefit over someone from the P12 or B12.
That said, I'm opposed to the Grad-transfer rule as is, period, and it's most likely to be altered next year anyway. They are likely to change the rule so ALL TRANSFERS, including Grads, must sit a year & progress with their post-grad degree before being eligible. Fewer, or at least fewer GOOD players will do so, and fewer schools will be willing to fork over 2 years scholarship for 1 year of play. This whole rule is moot in a year (maybe 2), so why bother?
Back to OP, I said the same thing. Would LOVE this kid on our roster next year.
I would hope that maybe after he had to endure what was arguably one of the worst and weirdest singular seasons in MWC history he would be granted the opportunity to have the best MWC experience he could hope for. It would bring balance to the Force. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 14, 2016 16:59:44 GMT -8
I am in favor of the graduate transfer rule because it is good for the players. Far too many of the rules are there for the benefit of the teams/conferences. Power to the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by jibron on Apr 18, 2016 8:11:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 18, 2016 11:14:01 GMT -8
so he wants P5 schools
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Apr 18, 2016 11:27:57 GMT -8
Maybe, or maybe he returns to UNLV? He can't transfer to other MW schools, so his options are the Big West & WCC if he wants to stay out west at a non-P6 school, or look at some of the best programs in the country if they're offering him free airfare & willing to spoil him for a weekend?
He left the P12 to come to the MW, and would probably still be there if all his teammates hadn't bailed before him. Then again, he could end up staying right where he's at, as Morgan & others may be staying after all.
If his goal is to advance in the dance, you can't pick 3 better places for that than MSU, Miami & Arizona. All are potential final 4 teams, and all are places he probably wouldn't get much PT & would just be a role player. Maybe that's good coming off major surgery. If he wants PT, then ASU & UNLV are probably his best bets. He'd be rolling the dice at NCST - they return everyone off a bad team.
|
|
|
|
Post by fisherville on Apr 18, 2016 13:10:55 GMT -8
Calling Miami a potential final 4 team is a stretch at best
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Apr 18, 2016 14:24:59 GMT -8
Calling Miami a potential final 4 team is a stretch at best Maybe, but they're going to be very good in a very good conference, and we saw what happened with Syracuse. They were a 3-seed this year, lose 2 very key players, but return several very good players from last year & add 2 elite recruits, plus Muhammad (Shabazz's bro who transferred from SJSU). They'll be dangerous & back in the dance, and very possibly could make noise.
Ultimately, the point was those 3 programs are all about winning, whereas the others appear to be less about winning & more about potential PT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Apr 20, 2016 17:30:51 GMT -8
Hard to follow UNLV Pros and Transfers with out a score card
|
|
