forums

Buckle up it’s about to get bumpy

Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
No...no we're not (as a voluntary choice). Not on an ongoing and permanent basis.

There is only one way for this long national nightmare to end. Schools have to get as many ICs for Transfers IN as they lose for Transfers OUT.

Any other temporary solution will do significant damage to competitive balance.
Click to expand...

Explain why please
 
JD08 said:
Yup, ain't nobody going anywhere until they got a place to go.

Now if colleges make space for these transfers, think of how that screws over the high school players looking for a scholarship.
Click to expand...
A lot of schools aren't even holding walk on tryouts. Without a season and highlight tape...
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
Yup, ain't nobody going anywhere until they got a place to go.

Now if colleges make space for these transfers, think of how that screws over the high school players looking for a scholarship.
Click to expand...

I will start by saying something needs to happen with IC's to deal with transfers, whether its you get one for every guy you lose or a cap/allotment for just transfer players, something.

In regards to HS players, it might (big assumption) make teams more competitive. Hear me out, all the top 300 HS guys are still going to get scholarships, it is not like they are the ones that are going to be left out.

But maybe some of the big boys fill up with the top 100 recruits and they cant pluck the 200-300 range which will fall to the next tier of school, thus making them more competitive. The ones left out in the cold will be the kids on the fringe of D1 and may have to go FCS route etc.

For example, I just am looking at 2021 team rankings, Bama and OSU finished 1-2 and Bama took 27 commits, OSU took 21. Bama had 16 guys in the top 100, even with transfer rule, those guys are still takes. Bama also took 4 guys ranked 250 or higher, those are the guys that lose their spot for a potential transfer and will undoubtedly find a home else where. OSU had 13 top 150 kids, took 3 kids over 300, those 3 fall to other schools below and the dominoes continue to fall.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
why?
Click to expand...
One of the last barriers to “re-entry” for guys who’ve left south Florida for greener pastures has just been eliminated. Like it or not that is Miami’s current role in the world, this makes it much easier for guys to return. Coupled with NIL provisions (presuming UM will be ahead of the curve here), we could be a prime spot beyond even local guys coming back. Miami has been able to pull guys in without these two advantages, I’d expect this puts us in a much better position to continue that trend.

The downside would be guys leaving UM who are already on the team. We’ve not seen that (basketball aside) to this point, and I don’t see why this would *on balance* reverse once passage is easier. Miami will lose guys it doesn’t want to (and lose players like the Johnson kid from the west coast even faster). But until Miami keeps *most* of the top SFLA talent home there will be a sizable yearly crop of guys who rode the pine for a year OOS and are ready to return.

It could be that this introduces a degree of chaos that somehow harms Miami, but I don’t think this makes the NCAA into the wild wild west. The last 3-4 cycles have been as good of a litmus test as we could’ve had for what’s about to happen next.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
No...no we're not (as a voluntary choice). Not on an ongoing and permanent basis.

There is only one way for this long national nightmare to end. Schools have to get as many ICs for Transfers IN as they lose for Transfers OUT.

Any other temporary solution will do significant damage to competitive balance.
Click to expand...
If they don’t fix the ic rules colleges will get down to nfl roster numbers lol. Something has to be done to counteract the movement that’s starting.
 
IndayArtHauz said:
One of the last barriers to “re-entry” for guys who’ve left south Florida for greener pastures has just been eliminated. Like it or not that is Miami’s current role in the world, this makes it much easier for guys to return. Coupled with NIL provisions (presuming UM will be ahead of the curve here), we could be a prime spot beyond even local guys coming back. Miami has been able to pull guys in without these two advantages, I’d expect this puts us in a much better position to continue that trend.

The downside would be guys leaving UM who are already on the team. We’ve not seen that (basketball aside) to this point, and I don’t see why this would *on balance* reverse once passage is easier. Miami will lose guys it doesn’t want to (and lose players like the Johnson kid from the west coast even faster). But until Miami keeps *most* of the top SFLA talent home there will be a sizable yearly crop of guys who rode the pine for a year OOS and are ready to return.

It could be that this introduces a degree of chaos that somehow harms Miami, but I don’t think this makes the NCAA into the wild wild west. The last 3-4 cycles have been as good of a litmus test as we could’ve had for what’s about to happen next.
Click to expand...
This and the likeness deal will help Miami more than most think. Miami is very wxcited about the NiL deal.
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Explain why please
Click to expand...


OK, I believe that it has been reported that upwards of 2,000 kids have put their names into the portal this year. Some have found homes. Good for them.

But 2,000 kids and 120 Division I-A programs is ALMOST AN ENTIRE YEAR'S SIGNING CLASS.

Meaning, if all those kids are to find homes, then it will be like having DOUBLE the number of IC signees, as you will be (or making an attempt at) signing over 2,000 transfer and over 2,000 high school grads.

UNTIL NOW, the 1-year sit-out had the impact of "slowing-down" that immediate urge to transfer. Thus, if 120 schools have 25 ICs per year, that is 3,000 ICs per year. And if only, say, 300 kids transferred, you could (MACRO) devote 90% of the ICs to high school kids and 10% of the ICs to transfers. Obviously, those ratios can be higher or lower for any individual school.

BUT NOW, if you have almost as many Portal kids as HS recruits (and this is more pronounced at the P5 level), then you have a situation where it cannot be rectified by a "one-time" fix of "give us extra ICs for this year". Because if you THEN go back to 25 ICs, this ****e is just going to happen again the next year and the next year and the next year.

And you'll have some schools, like Wake or Northwestern or Vandy, which will likely always be "net-exporters" of talent, while there will be some "wealthy" schools that almost never lose a talented kid, and only take in "upgrading" transfers.

There are not 2,000 transfers in the Portal solely because of Covid. There are a ton of kids who (mistakenly) think the grass is always greener.

This ****e is going to be a mess. The best, and most stable, long-term fix is to take "transfers" out of the IC equation, and then let ANY school take IN as many transfers as they LOSE. In that way, you keep the numbers stable, and you do not create a CONSTANT domino effect.

EDIT: This does not even take into account the "weighted-average" impact, i.e., if you have to use an IC on a 1-year player as opposed to a 4 or 5 year player. If you keep mixing the HS and Portal kids together FOR IC PURPOSES, it puts more and more pressure on to either "nail an eval" with a 5-year kid or Portal-dive for a 1-year kid. Oh, and the 5-year kid IS NOT GUARANTEED TO STAY. This whole thing is just a hot mess of unanticipated consequences. By far, THE EASIEST FIX is to decouple HS and Portal ICs, and to let a school have as many "new transfer" ICs as you LOSE from kids transferring out.
 
Last edited:
Cookie917 said:
I will start by saying something needs to happen with IC's to deal with transfers, whether its you get one for every guy you lose or a cap/allotment for just transfer players, something.

In regards to HS players, it might (big assumption) make teams more competitive. Hear me out, all the top 300 HS guys are still going to get scholarships, it is not like they are the ones that are going to be left out.

But maybe some of the big boys fill up with the top 100 recruits and they cant pluck the 200-300 range which will fall to the next tier of school, thus making them more competitive. The ones left out in the cold will be the kids on the fringe of D1 and may have to go FCS route etc.

For example, I just am looking at 2021 team rankings, Bama and OSU finished 1-2 and Bama took 27 commits, OSU took 21. Bama had 16 guys in the top 100, even with transfer rule, those guys are still takes. Bama also took 4 guys ranked 250 or higher, those are the guys that lose their spot for a potential transfer and will undoubtedly find a home else where. OSU had 13 top 150 kids, took 3 kids over 300, those 3 fall to other schools below and the dominoes continue to fall.
Click to expand...
Without increasing IC's, it's all supply and demand. If the pool of available scholarships shrinks, then demand for the remaining will get more intense. Imagine only having 15 IC's instead of 25. All of a sudden you want to make sure you've got a hit with each one. That incentivizes bags and the like.

Also, if the pool of HS players shrinks, then how can the NCAA hide behind the illusion that they're advocates for the student athlete? There are plenty of kids who would never get to college absent an athletic scholarship.

I see your point that it could help parity, and I agree. Especially in a place like Miami where you can transfer back near home because the grass isn't always greener.

They need to resolve the IC issue if there's any hope of it not ending up a mess.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
Without increasing IC's, it's all supply and demand. If the pool of available scholarships shrinks, then demand for the remaining will get more intense. Imagine only having 15 IC's instead of 25. All of a sudden you want to make sure you've got a hit with each one. That incentivizes bags and the like.

Also, if the pool of HS players shrinks, then how can the NCAA hide behind the illusion that they're advocates for the student athlete? There are plenty of kids who would never get to college absent an athletic scholarship.

I see your point that it could help parity, and I agree. Especially in a place like Miami where you can transfer back near home because the grass isn't always greener.

They need to resolve the IC issue if there's any hope of it not ending up a mess.
Click to expand...


Incredibly relevant.
 
Go Canes!! said:
The tsunami the ncaa has been running from has finally caught up to them.

The counter rule is a dinosaur that will be gone sooner than later. How we manage our 85 when that happens is all that will matter.
Click to expand...


This may be a valid point. However, I would argue that it is highly likely that a new dinosaur will emerge to take the place of the "old dinosaur" IC rules.
 
Advertisement
As we continue to see, it is much easier to "legalize" and "regulate" an industry, rather than to just keep denying the inevitable.

Here's how the NCAA should do it, very simple, very easy:

1. One-free "immediate eligibility" transfer if you are in good academic standing.
2. "Transfer windows". The soccer fans know what I'm talking about, and the NCAA apparently does too.
3. One-for-one IC "refresh". If you lose 5 transfers OUT, you get ICs for 5 transfers IN. You don't get 5 extra ICs for high school kids. You don't get 10 extra ICs for transfers in. If you want to take 10 transfers in, then you have to use 5 of your "high school" ICs, as everyone does now.
 
The first thing they will do is find a way that it will not affect or harm the blue blood bag schools.
After that they’re not gonna care either way about the student athlete BS they’ve been hiding behind for 100 years
Let the chips and chaos fall where they may. They’ll put some clause that says if a player did 3 years at a school he can’t transfer for his senior year. That way some 5 star that is a great second stringer can’t bounce cause Saban doesn’t feel like he’s should start. And all the jags aka bad evils can go kick rocks
 
About time. They have tooled around with those portal kids stuck without a home for way too long. TOCs 1-for-1 makes sense, though I would cap it at some reasonable number so a new coach doesn't come in and gut the existing roster. 5 sounds right to me. But whatever is rationale and data driven.
 
JD08 said:
Without increasing IC's, it's all supply and demand. If the pool of available scholarships shrinks, then demand for the remaining will get more intense. Imagine only having 15 IC's instead of 25. All of a sudden you want to make sure you've got a hit with each one. That incentivizes bags and the like.

Also, if the pool of HS players shrinks, then how can the NCAA hide behind the illusion that they're advocates for the student athlete? There are plenty of kids who would never get to college absent an athletic scholarship.

I see your point that it could help parity, and I agree. Especially in a place like Miami where you can transfer back near home because the grass isn't always greener.

They need to resolve the IC issue if there's any hope of it not ending up a mess.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. The project and take a shot on this kid picks are likely gone now. Also puts the bag schools in a predicament. Do we up our bag for the top guys on our list with more money upfront as a signing bonus if you will to cement the commitment, or do we have to temper expectations realizing they might bounce in a year and nothing we can do so our ROI sucks.

The NCAA has never been about the student athlete hence why so many kids are still in the portal with no decision on ICs and Spring ball is about over.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top