RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Transfers--REALLY good article!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4166
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 11:40 am    ::: Transfers--REALLY good article! Reply Reply with quote

Stumbled across this on Twitter. It's long but very well researched and well worth reading.
http://womenshoopsworld.com/2017/05/25/reasons-behind-increased-college-basketball-transfers-numerous-and-complex/



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8330



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 12:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

First, well-researched article by Sue Favor -- good reporting, well-written story.

>The uptick has women’s hoops coaches, athletes, fans and stakeholders talking – and pointing fingers about who is to blame.

Why is anyone to "blame"? Why are transfers bad? Why shouldn't young people be allowed to change their minds? Why are transfers considered a problem?

The fundamental assumption in this article and many discussions is that transfers are by definition a negative, and I've never understood why. I went to UC Santa Barbara, which is beautiful but isolated. If you didn't have a car, it was Isla Vista or nothing. A lot of people preferred to be closer to a big city, and so they transferred -- I didn't. Was I automatically a better person?

Why is transferring a negative?

>“(Freely allowing transfers) isn’t presenting anything real world to student-athletes,” Landers said. “In real life, that’s not going to work. You’re going to have a lot of days on the job where things don’t go your way, and you can’t transfer out of a job.”

News flash: You can apply for another job and move somewhere to take it without losing a year of activity and/or income -- unless of course you're a college athlete (not a college coach, of course). The real world is about choices and decisions, and how many of us have decided a job isn't working out and gotten another one? Does that make us inferior people? Or is the person who stays in the same job their whole life automatically better?

Yes, the world is different than it was when Andy Landers graduated from college, but are all the changes bad? If more students today decide to transfer than did so 10 years ago, is that necessarily a bad thing? If so, why exactly? Couldn't it be a good thing, showing that young people are more willing to stand up for themselves and what's important to them instead of blindly following some unwritten rules?

Again, a nice article by Sue Favor, covering an interesting topic well. But I'm not sure there's really a problem to be solved here ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 903



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 12:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Very interesting read, thanks for sharing


Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 1179



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 2:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree with Clay, whats good for the goose is good for the gander Laughing


shontay33



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 237



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 2:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
First, well-researched article by Sue Favor -- good reporting, well-written story.

>The uptick has women’s hoops coaches, athletes, fans and stakeholders talking – and pointing fingers about who is to blame.

Why is anyone to "blame"? Why are transfers bad? Why shouldn't young people be allowed to change their minds? Why are transfers considered a problem?

The fundamental assumption in this article and many discussions is that transfers are by definition a negative, and I've never understood why. I went to UC Santa Barbara, which is beautiful but isolated. If you didn't have a car, it was Isla Vista or nothing. A lot of people preferred to be closer to a big city, and so they transferred -- I didn't. Was I automatically a better person?

Why is transferring a negative?

>“(Freely allowing transfers) isn’t presenting anything real world to student-athletes,” Landers said. “In real life, that’s not going to work. You’re going to have a lot of days on the job where things don’t go your way, and you can’t transfer out of a job.”

News flash: You can apply for another job and move somewhere to take it without losing a year of activity and/or income -- unless of course you're a college athlete (not a college coach, of course). The real world is about choices and decisions, and how many of us have decided a job isn't working out and gotten another one? Does that make us inferior people? Or is the person who stays in the same job their whole life automatically better?

Yes, the world is different than it was when Andy Landers graduated from college, but are all the changes bad? If more students today decide to transfer than did so 10 years ago, is that necessarily a bad thing? If so, why exactly? Couldn't it be a good thing, showing that young people are more willing to stand up for themselves and what's important to them instead of blindly following some unwritten rules?

Again, a nice article by Sue Favor, covering an interesting topic well. But I'm not sure there's really a problem to be solved here ...



I agree that the article was very informative. I also agree that the NCAA interferes too much. I don't agree with the contradiction in that its okay for a coach to leave a program for another program and not be penalized but a student athlete has to sit out a year unless they have graduated or have some type of hardship. It like they are being penalized for going to a situation where they feel it will suit them better as a student athlete.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13799
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 2:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In the general student population, transfers often correlate with longer times to degree and lower likelihood of graduation. I admit, though, that I do not know if the evidence suggests these things are causal. There are structural issues that make it more difficult to graduate on time - whether credits transfer, making up introductory courses, less support for social integration, financial aid differences - that make me suspect that they are.

The experience of a college athlete - at least the supports that many athletes get - may make that scenario different for them. I have never seen a rigorous study about that.


5thmantheme



Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 321



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 2:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Non-athletes transfer rates, are quite a bit higher ...
http://transferweb.com/stats/transfer-acceptance-rates/#.WSc0Yq3njoc


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 499



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 4:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
First, well-researched article by Sue Favor -- good reporting, well-written story.

>The uptick has women’s hoops coaches, athletes, fans and stakeholders talking – and pointing fingers about who is to blame.

Why is anyone to "blame"? Why are transfers bad? Why shouldn't young people be allowed to change their minds? Why are transfers considered a problem?

The fundamental assumption in this article and many discussions is that transfers are by definition a negative, and I've never understood why. I went to UC Santa Barbara, which is beautiful but isolated. If you didn't have a car, it was Isla Vista or nothing. A lot of people preferred to be closer to a big city, and so they transferred -- I didn't. Was I automatically a better person?

Why is transferring a negative?

>“(Freely allowing transfers) isn’t presenting anything real world to student-athletes,” Landers said. “In real life, that’s not going to work. You’re going to have a lot of days on the job where things don’t go your way, and you can’t transfer out of a job.”

News flash: You can apply for another job and move somewhere to take it without losing a year of activity and/or income -- unless of course you're a college athlete (not a college coach, of course). The real world is about choices and decisions, and how many of us have decided a job isn't working out and gotten another one? Does that make us inferior people? Or is the person who stays in the same job their whole life automatically better?

Yes, the world is different than it was when Andy Landers graduated from college, but are all the changes bad? If more students today decide to transfer than did so 10 years ago, is that necessarily a bad thing? If so, why exactly? Couldn't it be a good thing, showing that young people are more willing to stand up for themselves and what's important to them instead of blindly following some unwritten rules?

Again, a nice article by Sue Favor, covering an interesting topic well. But I'm not sure there's really a problem to be solved here ...



I took away something entirely different about transfers being bad. Transfers are bad because they mean that something went wrong with the original recruiting process and the student ended up in the wrong place.
--The student and her family didn't do enough or the right research about the program.
--The coach provided misinformation.
--The school wasn't transparent about an impending departure of the coach.
--Academic fit was poor.
--Ranking service evaluations, AAU coaches, teammates and/or other entities pressured the student to make a bad decision.
--Expectations were unrealistic.

Transfers are also bad because they're agonizing for everyone involved...especially the student, but also family, SO, present coach, and present and future team.

If the recruiting process worked better, maybe so many students wouldn't have to deal with the decision and reality of transferring.

That's what's bad about transfers, to me and to the author of that article, IMHO.

One important thing that's missing from that article is the transfer rate for all students, not just student-athletes. I'd bet it's not 10-14%. Any student may transfer due to an illness in the family or, apparently, not having a car, but there's an excess of transfers among athletes that maybe could be avoided.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8330



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 5:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
ClayK wrote:
First, well-researched article by Sue Favor -- good reporting, well-written story.

>The uptick has women’s hoops coaches, athletes, fans and stakeholders talking – and pointing fingers about who is to blame.

Why is anyone to "blame"? Why are transfers bad? Why shouldn't young people be allowed to change their minds? Why are transfers considered a problem?

The fundamental assumption in this article and many discussions is that transfers are by definition a negative, and I've never understood why. I went to UC Santa Barbara, which is beautiful but isolated. If you didn't have a car, it was Isla Vista or nothing. A lot of people preferred to be closer to a big city, and so they transferred -- I didn't. Was I automatically a better person?

Why is transferring a negative?

>“(Freely allowing transfers) isn’t presenting anything real world to student-athletes,” Landers said. “In real life, that’s not going to work. You’re going to have a lot of days on the job where things don’t go your way, and you can’t transfer out of a job.”

News flash: You can apply for another job and move somewhere to take it without losing a year of activity and/or income -- unless of course you're a college athlete (not a college coach, of course). The real world is about choices and decisions, and how many of us have decided a job isn't working out and gotten another one? Does that make us inferior people? Or is the person who stays in the same job their whole life automatically better?

Yes, the world is different than it was when Andy Landers graduated from college, but are all the changes bad? If more students today decide to transfer than did so 10 years ago, is that necessarily a bad thing? If so, why exactly? Couldn't it be a good thing, showing that young people are more willing to stand up for themselves and what's important to them instead of blindly following some unwritten rules?

Again, a nice article by Sue Favor, covering an interesting topic well. But I'm not sure there's really a problem to be solved here ...



I took away something entirely different about transfers being bad. Transfers are bad because they mean that something went wrong with the original recruiting process and the student ended up in the wrong place.
--The student and her family didn't do enough or the right research about the program.
--The coach provided misinformation.
--The school wasn't transparent about an impending departure of the coach.
--Academic fit was poor.
--Ranking service evaluations, AAU coaches, teammates and/or other entities pressured the student to make a bad decision.
--Expectations were unrealistic.

Transfers are also bad because they're agonizing for everyone involved...especially the student, but also family, SO, present coach, and present and future team.

If the recruiting process worked better, maybe so many students wouldn't have to deal with the decision and reality of transferring.

That's what's bad about transfers, to me and to the author of that article, IMHO.

One important thing that's missing from that article is the transfer rate for all students, not just student-athletes. I'd bet it's not 10-14%. Any student may transfer due to an illness in the family or, apparently, not having a car, but there's an excess of transfers among athletes that maybe could be avoided.


That's an excellent point. If the system is broken, and transfers are part of the fallout from the broken system, then that evidence should be brought up as part of a push to reform the system.

But I don't see any push to reform the system, and to me the attitude from the entrenched powers-that-be -- for whom Andy Landers would count as a spokesman -- that if only the parents and players did a better job, the problems would go away.

My point, though, has always been that the system has been designed and supported by the universities and their employees for the benefit of the universities and their employees (which at one level you can't blame them for), and so the parents and players have the deck stacked against them from day one.

I would like to see parents and players have input into how the system works, rather than have it imposed by those who presently benefit the most from it. If the increase in transfers increases the chances of the parents and players getting to the table to help reform the system, then that's good news; if it is the only way parents and players can maneuver in a broken system, then it's also good news because at least they're fighting back.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5306



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 7:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
About seven years ago, South Carolina associate head coach Lisa Boyer gave head coach Dawn Staley some advice: tone it down. Boyer said Staley’s intensity was too much for her team.


7 years ago, March 2010, is when Kelsey Bone transferred out of South Carolina.

I found this article that specifically mentions the Bone transfer as causing Staley to change her style:

Loss of star player opened door for Staley to lighten up


Durantula



Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 4505



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 8:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why do we assume just because kids transfer that they are happy at their new school, or they picked a better school the second time? Most kids won't transfer a second time because they don't want to lose a year of eligibility. At the same time they have pride and don't want to look dumb by saying their new school is horrible. If these kids keep complaining about Coach A, School B, at some point its the kid who is the problem, so they just keep quiet and make themselves happy. 20 years ago the same kids just fought through homesickness or whatever and made themselves adjust.

I think if you surveyed players 20 years ago and today, where today kids transfer much more, I still don't think you would find the level of happiness or joy with the college experience is any better than it was 20 years ago where I'm sure players got home sick or didn't like their coaches but they pushed through, persevered, things got better. If anything coaches these days are softer. I have never seen players say the coach has gotten more intense as years go along, on the contrary you see articles where alums of some school come back to watch practice or a game and they remark how the coach is more mellowed out and soft.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5306



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 8:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Durantula wrote:
Why do we assume just because kids transfer that they are happy at their new school, or they picked a better school the second time? Most kids won't transfer a second time because they don't want to lose a year of eligibility. At the same time they have pride and don't want to look dumb by saying their new school is horrible. If these kids keep complaining about Coach A, School B, at some point its the kid who is the problem, so they just keep quiet and make themselves happy. 20 years ago the same kids just fought through homesickness or whatever and made themselves adjust.

I think if you surveyed players 20 years ago and today, where today kids transfer much more, I still don't think you would find the level of happiness or joy with the college experience is any better than it was 20 years ago where I'm sure players got home sick or didn't like their coaches but they pushed through, persevered, things got better. If anything coaches these days are softer. I have never seen players say the coach has gotten more intense as years go along, on the contrary you see articles where alums of some school come back to watch practice or a game and they remark how the coach is more mellowed out and soft.


If they aren't happy, I don't see a reason to "push through it" or persevere. They aren't trying to keep the German army out of Russia.


Durantula



Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 4505



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 8:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Durantula wrote:
Why do we assume just because kids transfer that they are happy at their new school, or they picked a better school the second time? Most kids won't transfer a second time because they don't want to lose a year of eligibility. At the same time they have pride and don't want to look dumb by saying their new school is horrible. If these kids keep complaining about Coach A, School B, at some point its the kid who is the problem, so they just keep quiet and make themselves happy. 20 years ago the same kids just fought through homesickness or whatever and made themselves adjust.

I think if you surveyed players 20 years ago and today, where today kids transfer much more, I still don't think you would find the level of happiness or joy with the college experience is any better than it was 20 years ago where I'm sure players got home sick or didn't like their coaches but they pushed through, persevered, things got better. If anything coaches these days are softer. I have never seen players say the coach has gotten more intense as years go along, on the contrary you see articles where alums of some school come back to watch practice or a game and they remark how the coach is more mellowed out and soft.


If they aren't happy, I don't see a reason to "push through it" or persevere. They aren't trying to keep the German army out of Russia.


Sure, why not? A lot of the reason why these kids are unhappy are things that are temporary, like playing time which tends to increase as you get older and work hard, or making friends at college, or the feeling of homesickness. Again, the reasons the kids are transferring in 2017 is no different than what kids have gone through in college basketball forever but even 10 years ago they didn't transfer at such high rates.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5306



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 8:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Durantula wrote:
tfan wrote:
Durantula wrote:
Why do we assume just because kids transfer that they are happy at their new school, or they picked a better school the second time? Most kids won't transfer a second time because they don't want to lose a year of eligibility. At the same time they have pride and don't want to look dumb by saying their new school is horrible. If these kids keep complaining about Coach A, School B, at some point its the kid who is the problem, so they just keep quiet and make themselves happy. 20 years ago the same kids just fought through homesickness or whatever and made themselves adjust.

I think if you surveyed players 20 years ago and today, where today kids transfer much more, I still don't think you would find the level of happiness or joy with the college experience is any better than it was 20 years ago where I'm sure players got home sick or didn't like their coaches but they pushed through, persevered, things got better. If anything coaches these days are softer. I have never seen players say the coach has gotten more intense as years go along, on the contrary you see articles where alums of some school come back to watch practice or a game and they remark how the coach is more mellowed out and soft.


If they aren't happy, I don't see a reason to "push through it" or persevere. They aren't trying to keep the German army out of Russia.


Sure, why not? A lot of the reason why these kids are unhappy are things that are temporary, like playing time which tends to increase as you get older and work hard, or making friends at college, or the feeling of homesickness. Again, the reasons the kids are transferring in 2017 is no different than what kids have gone through in college basketball forever but even 10 years ago they didn't transfer at such high rates.


"things may get better here" can be countered with "things may be better somewhere else". Playing time increasing from age will also be the case at their new school - and they can lower their sights if they have overshot their ability with their first college choice. Homesickness has a better chance of being less at a school closer to home. And they may have high school friends at a school closer to home. Seems that the case has to be made that "things will probably be worse if you transfer" in order to make a case - to players - that players shouldn't transfer.




Last edited by tfan on 05/25/17 8:56 pm; edited 2 times in total
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20354



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 8:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:

My point, though, has always been that the system has been designed and supported by the universities and their employees for the benefit of the universities and their employees (which at one level you can't blame them for), and so the parents and players have the deck stacked against them from day one.

I would like to see parents and players have input into how the system works, rather than have it imposed by those who presently benefit the most from it. If the increase in transfers increases the chances of the parents and players getting to the table to help reform the system, then that's good news; if it is the only way parents and players can maneuver in a broken system, then it's also good news because at least they're fighting back.


I really have a hard time seeing how getting a fully paid four year education at an institution of your choosing is having the deck stacked against you from day one. Sorry, no! Does not compute.

According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2016–2017 school year was $33,480 at private colleges, $9,650 for state residents at public colleges, and $24,930 for out-of-state residents attending public universities... So you could be getting $134,000 education in exchange for playing a sport that presumably you enjoy playing.

If transferring is as simple as sticking your hand up every time the coach yells at you/makes you run suicides/tells you what to do when you don't want to do it, etc... then it becomes absurd theatre. The current system may need tweaking. I certainly think that an athlete who does decide to go thru the process of sitting out a year in order to play somewhere else should be allowed to do so but I think sitting out a year is not too much to ask. Most of them get an extra year paid for that way and many complete at least one year of grad school along the way, so their payout could be even bigger than the $134,000.

BTW: Non athletes who get academic scholarships are usually non-transferable as well.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
Durantula



Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 4505



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 8:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Durantula wrote:
tfan wrote:
Durantula wrote:
Why do we assume just because kids transfer that they are happy at their new school, or they picked a better school the second time? Most kids won't transfer a second time because they don't want to lose a year of eligibility. At the same time they have pride and don't want to look dumb by saying their new school is horrible. If these kids keep complaining about Coach A, School B, at some point its the kid who is the problem, so they just keep quiet and make themselves happy. 20 years ago the same kids just fought through homesickness or whatever and made themselves adjust.

I think if you surveyed players 20 years ago and today, where today kids transfer much more, I still don't think you would find the level of happiness or joy with the college experience is any better than it was 20 years ago where I'm sure players got home sick or didn't like their coaches but they pushed through, persevered, things got better. If anything coaches these days are softer. I have never seen players say the coach has gotten more intense as years go along, on the contrary you see articles where alums of some school come back to watch practice or a game and they remark how the coach is more mellowed out and soft.


If they aren't happy, I don't see a reason to "push through it" or persevere. They aren't trying to keep the German army out of Russia.


Sure, why not? A lot of the reason why these kids are unhappy are things that are temporary, like playing time which tends to increase as you get older and work hard, or making friends at college, or the feeling of homesickness. Again, the reasons the kids are transferring in 2017 is no different than what kids have gone through in college basketball forever but even 10 years ago they didn't transfer at such high rates.


"things may get better here" can be countered with "things may be better somewhere else". Playing time increasing from age will also be the case at their new school - and they can lower their sights if they have overshot their ability with their first college choice. Homesickness has a better chance of being less at a school closer to home. And they may have high school friends at a school closer to home. Seems that the case has to be made that "things will probably be worse if you transfer" in order to make a case that players shouldn't transfer.


Transfer if they want, and I'm not trying to say things will be worse, I just don't understand why the general assumption is transferring is always good. No one seems to bring up the idea that sometimes the original school might be the best fit, after all they decided to go there after a lot of deliberation, often much more deliberation than they do when they decide which school to transfer to.


Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 1179



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/26/17 11:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Good point, but IMO it is different from having the right to go where you want as opposed to whether when you get there it is/was the right place.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11462



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/26/17 1:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Durantula wrote:
tfan wrote:

If they aren't happy, I don't see a reason to "push through it" or persevere. They aren't trying to keep the German army out of Russia.


Sure, why not? A lot of the reason why these kids are unhappy are things that are temporary, like playing time which tends to increase as you get older and work hard, or making friends at college, or the feeling of homesickness. Again, the reasons the kids are transferring in 2017 is no different than what kids have gone through in college basketball forever but even 10 years ago they didn't transfer at such high rates.


Bingo. And it's not unique to athletes.

Hillary Clinton was the commencement speaker at her alma mater, Wellesley, today. Among other things she said that a month after arrival, she was unhappy, and thought she couldn't make it there. "My father said okay, come home. My mother said you have to stick it out. That's what happened to me."

It was all temporary. Her mother was right. College is supposed to be a learning experience, and part of that might be learning that life isn't all about instant gratification.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11462



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/26/17 1:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:


I really have a hard time seeing how getting a fully paid four year education at an institution of your choosing is having the deck stacked against you from day one. Sorry, no! Does not compute.


Often as important as the cost is the preferred admission.

At some of these schools you can have all "A"s, be Valedictorian, have near perfect SAT/ACT scores, and have a five page list of activities and community service, and you still have less than a 50/50 chance of being admitted to the school you want to attend. The fact you're "good enough" to be admitted isn't close to being an assurance that you will be admitted. But if you're being recruited, you can have a much less impressive record and still get admitted because you're assessed separately and by different standards. If you're "good enough", and the coach wants you, you can get an offer and be admitted. That is a VERY big deal and an enormous benefit.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4166
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/26/17 8:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Durantula wrote:
tfan wrote:

If they aren't happy, I don't see a reason to "push through it" or persevere. They aren't trying to keep the German army out of Russia.


Sure, why not? A lot of the reason why these kids are unhappy are things that are temporary, like playing time which tends to increase as you get older and work hard, or making friends at college, or the feeling of homesickness. Again, the reasons the kids are transferring in 2017 is no different than what kids have gone through in college basketball forever but even 10 years ago they didn't transfer at such high rates.


Bingo. And it's not unique to athletes.

Hillary Clinton was the commencement speaker at her alma mater, Wellesley, today. Among other things she said that a month after arrival, she was unhappy, and thought she couldn't make it there. "My father said okay, come home. My mother said you have to stick it out. That's what happened to me."

It was all temporary. Her mother was right. College is supposed to be a learning experience, and part of that might be learning that life isn't all about instant gratification.


OK, but if a kid has been there for a couple of years and tried her heart out and it still isn't working, I'd say it's okay to look in a different direction and think about transferring. Two years is definitely long enough to know it's not working.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8330



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/26/17 10:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sometimes it makes sense to transfer, and works out well; sometimes it doesn't.

But the main factor in that decision should be the player and the family, and it should not be the threat of losing a year of playing time or worst case, having to pay your own way.

And to the point about a scholarship being a privilege, so is a job, say being a college coach. But the college coach doesn't have to sit out a year if she decides to move on, but the player does. What's the difference? Each is an employee (as pointed out), so why does one have freedoms that the other doesn't?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
elsie



Joined: 08 Apr 2016
Posts: 68



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/26/17 11:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

if anyone can think of another way to prevent the transfer mania other than making athletes wait one year, please present it....

otherwise, with out a transfer rule we'd have wide scale transfers.

I don't like it but what can be done.....

college sports costs time and money....from tuition to travel to room and board and monthly living expenses....

college season ticket holders expect and deserve some consistency....they have a financial stake as well in seeing players hang around...

true, non athletic college students transfer at greater rates, but they are paying their way to make that choice...

.


Durantula



Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 4505



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/27/17 5:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I could be wrong but I think non athlete transfers are skewed by the high number, and increasing amount of students who attend a community college. But that is deceiving because community college is only two years so these students must transfer in order to get a bachelors degree, they have no choice. As college gets more expensive you see more students going to community college just to save money because the first year or two in college you are basically taking a lot of gen ed courses and it makes some sense to just take them at a community college and save money.

And if they didn't go to community college sometimes transfers can be skewed by tuition costs. Student may go out of state for college, then realize maybe the fnancial commitment is too high so they transfer, but this isn't an apples to apples comparison because basketball players get full scholarships so the tuition cost is irrelevant. Take those factors out and I think the regular student body transfers would be a lot lower.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8330



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/27/17 7:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

elsie wrote:
if anyone can think of another way to prevent the transfer mania other than making athletes wait one year, please present it....

otherwise, with out a transfer rule we'd have wide scale transfers.

I don't like it but what can be done.....

.


What I don't get is the problem with transfers. Why don't you (or others) like them? Usually, they're players who don't play much who are unhappy for one reason or another. What's wrong with them trying to find a better place for their college experience?

And what would be wrong if 20% (twice the current number) of players transferred during their collegiate career? Aren't young people supposed to be the focus of the educational system, not adults who've already graduated?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15100
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/27/17 4:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm sentimental. I miss players who leave and I'm sorry to lose them.



_________________
We do not provide emotional or parking validation.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8330



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/27/17 6:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
I'm sentimental. I miss players who leave and I'm sorry to lose them.


A fair point, but if you miss them, presumably you have good feelings for them -- and if they feel they would be happier somewhere else, wouldn't you want that for them?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20354



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/27/17 8:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Using your logic, carried further, why couldn't a player play 2 weeks one place, then go someplace else for a month, then move on to a third school all in the same year because she might be happier that way?



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11462



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/27/17 8:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

They should probably have all the rights of pro players.

Oh, you mean they should have no say in what college they can attend/play for. Whatever school "picks" them owns them?

You mean that no matter how much they like it where they are, they can be traded and have to go to another school a thousand miles from home that they don't like?

Can get hit with a franchise tag/core designation and be prohibited from moving?

Restricted free agency, long term contracts, non-negotiable rookie contracts, etc., etc., etc.

Yeah, college players have it so unfair. Laughing Laughing Laughing Rolling Eyes


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5306



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/27/17 11:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
Using your logic, carried further, why couldn't a player play 2 weeks one place, then go someplace else for a month, then move on to a third school all in the same year because she might be happier that way?


Invalid hypothetical as schools don't allow it. You have to transfer at the beginning of a semester. You could say why not allow someone to transfer mid-season with no penalty, though. But the receiving schools would probably not be as open to getting transfers (who were going to be able to play right away) mid-season.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20354



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 2:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Using your logic, carried further, why couldn't a player play 2 weeks one place, then go someplace else for a month, then move on to a third school all in the same year because she might be happier that way?


Invalid hypothetical as schools don't allow it. You have to transfer at the beginning of a semester. You could say why not allow someone to transfer mid-season with no penalty, though. But the receiving schools would probably not be as open to getting transfers (who were going to be able to play right away) mid-season.


and the ncaa doesn't allow transfers without the sitting out a year so that is also an invalid hypothetical...



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8330



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 8:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

A major point is that professional athletes have a union that negotiates the contract the players sign.

College athletes must sign an agreement they have had no say in. A college coach, on the other hand, can negotiate a contract that, say, doesn't have a buy-out if she takes less money up front, or vice versa. She does not have the contract imposed on her without any recourse.

For college athletes, it's similar to pro sports prior to free agency, when the team that first signed a baseball player had his rights in perpetuity and the player had to accept whatever contract the team offered. (And the howls that free agency would doom sports were a trifle overblown ...)

To put it another way: If the interested parties sat around a table and negotiated a contract for incoming college players to sign, then it would be a different situation. As it is, the most important part of the industry -- the players -- have no input into their compensation in an industry that generates billions of dollars a year.

It is hard for me to see that as an equitable situation.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11462



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 9:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
A major point is that professional athletes have a union that negotiates the contract the players sign.

College athletes must sign an agreement they have had no say in. A college coach, on the other hand, can negotiate a contract that, say, doesn't have a buy-out if she takes less money up front, or vice versa. She does not have the contract imposed on her without any recourse.

For college athletes, it's similar to pro sports prior to free agency, when the team that first signed a baseball player had his rights in perpetuity and the player had to accept whatever contract the team offered. (And the howls that free agency would doom sports were a trifle overblown ...)

To put it another way: If the interested parties sat around a table and negotiated a contract for incoming college players to sign, then it would be a different situation. As it is, the most important part of the industry -- the players -- have no input into their compensation in an industry that generates billions of dollars a year.

It is hard for me to see that as an equitable situation.


Not a single person who has ever been drafted or handed a non-negotiable take it or leave it rookie contract in any sport has ever had any say in "negotiating" those things. What a completely phony argument.

Do you seriously believe current union members are negotiating hard for the best interests of people who aren't in the union? Giving up things that benefit themselves in return for benefits for non-members? It's just like when unions negotiate reduced pay and benefits applicable only to new hires. "Hey, it doesn't hurt us!". I'm sure it makes those new hires feel so much better that the screw job they're about to receive was negotiated for them by their soon-to-be co-workers.

Besides, the drafts existed long long before there were any player unions.




Last edited by ArtBest23 on 05/28/17 10:02 am; edited 3 times in total
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20354



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 9:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:


As it is, the most important part of the industry -- the players -- have no input into their compensation in an industry that generates billions of dollars a year.



You may have a point for football in particular and perhaps men's bball in power five, but not for women's sports, most of which lose money... quite a lot of money.

On the other hand, how many workers at Intel sit down and negotiate their compensation? They're in an industry that generates billions of dollars a year. And if they are in the top x% who can negotiate, they probably also have a non-compete clause that lasts a lot longer than one year.

And student athletes do have that same choice. They can choose to accept the money and the education in exchange for playing a sport and abiding by the rules, or not do that and pay their own way through school or just go out and get a job at the grocery store where they may or may not join a union.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11462



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 10:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote



Most people in America don't get to negotiate the terms of their employment, individually or collectively.


Matt5762



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 447



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 10:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:

On the other hand, how many workers at Intel sit down and negotiate their compensation?


90%? At least of men...women, surely less, one of the primary causes of all the equal work, equal pay issues.

I do find it odd that among non-revenue sports, women's basketball is singled out. Ostensibly it's not much different than volleyball, soccer, etc. in terms of revenue, fan support, odds of going pro, etc. These other sports also have transfers but there is certainly no epidemic because athletes don't have to sit out.

I also find it odd that the "penalty" for transferring is an extra year of free education. It seems few think like this, but basically to maximize your scholarship benefit, it's necessary to transfer (and/or get injured).

So, it's only sensible to go to the best basketball school you can for 2 or 3 years then transfer and get 2 degrees from a school whose paper is more valuable. Sadly, it seems so many do the exact opposite.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11462



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 10:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

BTW, the WNBA has the most restrictive rules on turning pro of any pro sports league.

You think the WNBA players union was really looking out for the best interest of college kids when they negotiated those restrictions?

Or were they looking out for themselves by restricting the competition for
Iimited roster spots from young superstars?

I bet if you're Diamond DeShields you're thinking to yourself "Wow that was nice of the players union to make sure I can't turn pro for four years. I didn't have any say in it, but I'm sure glad someone​ else is looking out for my interests.". Rolling Eyes


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11462



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 10:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Matt5762 wrote:
These other sports also have transfers but there is certainly no epidemic because athletes don't have to sit out.



Huh? Please explain the cause and effect here.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20354



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 11:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Matt5762 wrote:
myrtle wrote:

On the other hand, how many workers at Intel sit down and negotiate their compensation?


90%? At least of men...women, surely less, one of the primary causes of all the equal work, equal pay issues.



No. You're thinking of management. And those are the ones with non-competes as part of their contracts. I used Intel as an example randomly but I worked parttime as a regular 'worker' for intel while going to school. Those folks (including me) definitely had no choice in anything other than choosing to work for whatever pay was offered or to quit. I went to work at midnight because in those days, you got time and 1/2 to work the night shift. (and who needs sleep at that age anyway Wink )



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5306



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 1:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
tfan wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Using your logic, carried further, why couldn't a player play 2 weeks one place, then go someplace else for a month, then move on to a third school all in the same year because she might be happier that way?


Invalid hypothetical as schools don't allow it. You have to transfer at the beginning of a semester. You could say why not allow someone to transfer mid-season with no penalty, though. But the receiving schools would probably not be as open to getting transfers (who were going to be able to play right away) mid-season.


and the ncaa doesn't allow transfers without the sitting out a year so that is also an invalid hypothetical...


The difference is the NCAA could allow it, there is no issue as far as practicality. It is entirely possible, they just choose not to as "punishment". Whereas transferring mid-semester is not done and not practical because there is all the classes and assignments that were missed. I don't think there are any colleges that let you enroll mid-semester and it is highly unlikely that there ever will be.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5306



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 1:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:


Bingo. And it's not unique to athletes.

Hillary Clinton was the commencement speaker at her alma mater, Wellesley, today. Among other things she said that a month after arrival, she was unhappy, and thought she couldn't make it there. "My father said okay, come home. My mother said you have to stick it out. That's what happened to me."

It was all temporary. Her mother was right. College is supposed to be a learning experience, and part of that might be learning that life isn't all about instant gratification.


The vast majority of college sports transfer requests don't occur during the first month of school. You also learn a lot by transferring.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11462



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 2:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:


Bingo. And it's not unique to athletes.

Hillary Clinton was the commencement speaker at her alma mater, Wellesley, today. Among other things she said that a month after arrival, she was unhappy, and thought she couldn't make it there. "My father said okay, come home. My mother said you have to stick it out. That's what happened to me."

It was all temporary. Her mother was right. College is supposed to be a learning experience, and part of that might be learning that life isn't all about instant gratification.


The vast majority of college sports transfer requests don't occur during the first month of school.

No, they happen after the first semester or year.

tfan wrote:
You also learn a lot by transferring.


I love totally unexplained, unsupported, made-up-out-of-thin-air assertions.


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 499



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/28/17 5:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
You also learn a lot by transferring.


Just curious if you've ever transferred as an undergrad?


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5306



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/29/17 6:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
tfan wrote:
You also learn a lot by transferring.


Just curious if you've ever transferred as an undergrad?


Yes.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5306



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/29/17 6:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:


Bingo. And it's not unique to athletes.

Hillary Clinton was the commencement speaker at her alma mater, Wellesley, today. Among other things she said that a month after arrival, she was unhappy, and thought she couldn't make it there. "My father said okay, come home. My mother said you have to stick it out. That's what happened to me."

It was all temporary. Her mother was right. College is supposed to be a learning experience, and part of that might be learning that life isn't all about instant gratification.


The vast majority of college sports transfer requests don't occur during the first month of school.

No, they happen after the first semester or year.


Normally after the first or second year. And if Hillary Rodham had told her mother she wanted to transfer at either the end of the first or second year, I don't think Momma Rodham would have told her she couldn't do it. And I doubt that she would have refused to let her transfer at the end of the first semester. Homesickness or doubts in the first month of school is not the same as realizing you can't stand your coach, or that they can't stand you, or that your chances of ever starting or being in the rotation are slim - in addition to the reasons that non-athletes also have for transferring.

Quote:

tfan wrote:
You also learn a lot by transferring.


I love totally unexplained, unsupported, made-up-out-of-thin-air assertions.


You said,"College is supposed to be a learning experience, and part of that might be learning that life isn't all about instant gratification." This was right after mentioning, Hillary Clinton said she was glad she didn't transfer after an unhappy first month. Allisha Gray and Kaela Davis just said they were glad they did transfer. Therefore, however, you want to say your statement was intentioned, it works with Gray and Davis and transferring as much as it does for Clinton and not transferring.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin