[teejers1]

I recognize that scholarship athletes get major benefits, and I don't advocate paying college athletes.   I object to Geno complaining about student athletes wanting to transfer, because he worked so hard to recruit them.

In one of the post-Stanford-game NCAA pressers in women's hoops, an opposing coach (maybe Louisville's?) referenced the transfer portal as "essentially free agency" and noted that their staff would look that over for established players who could come in and help Louisville right away.  I don't know why, but that statement gave me great pause - maybe it was the starkness of the statement.  It was like the guy was going to order an entree off a dinner menu - it was impersonal, matter-of-fact, and . . . so . . . professional.

I'm all for player mobility and am in favor of pro athletes getting as much as they can for their labor. 
But I also harbor a distinction between pro and college competitive landscapes.  And that Q&A with the opponent's coach seemed to really blur the line . . . but perhaps that's my problem.

[teejers1]

I recognize that scholarship athletes get major benefits, and I don't advocate paying college athletes.   I object to Geno complaining about student athletes wanting to transfer, because he worked so hard to recruit them.

In one of the post-Stanford-game NCAA pressers in women's hoops, an opposing coach (maybe Louisville's?) referenced the transfer portal as "essentially free agency" and noted that their staff would look that over for established players who could come in and help Louisville right away.  I don't know why, but that statement gave me great pause - maybe it was the starkness of the statement.  It was like the guy was going to order an entree off a dinner menu - it was impersonal, matter-of-fact, and . . . so . . . professional.

I'm all for player mobility and am in favor of pro athletes getting as much as they can for their labor. 
But I also harbor a distinction between pro and college competitive landscapes.  And that Q&A with the opponent's coach seemed to really blur the line . . . but perhaps that's my problem.

[BostonCard]

In one of the post-Stanford-game NCAA pressers in women's hoops, an opposing coach (maybe Louisville's?) who referenced the transfer portal as "essentially free agency" and noted that their staff would look that over for established players who could come in and help Louisville right away.  I don't know why, but that statement gave me great pause - maybe it was the starkness of the statement.  It was like the guy was going to order an entree off a dinner menu - it was impersonal, matter-of-fact, and . . . so . . . professional.


I'm all for player mobility and am in favor of pro athletes getting as much as they can for their labor. 

But I also harbor a distinction between pro and college competitive landscapes.  And that Q&A with the opponent's coach seemed to really blur the line . . . but perhaps that's my problem.

I share your apprehension.  This could be one of those things that is great on an individual level (a player who is leaving a program or school where they are just not a right fit), but a disaster on a systemic level.  I'm not sure what can be done to fix it, though.

BC

[BostonCard]

In one of the post-Stanford-game NCAA pressers in women's hoops, an opposing coach (maybe Louisville's?) who referenced the transfer portal as "essentially free agency" and noted that their staff would look that over for established players who could come in and help Louisville right away.  I don't know why, but that statement gave me great pause - maybe it was the starkness of the statement.  It was like the guy was going to order an entree off a dinner menu - it was impersonal, matter-of-fact, and . . . so . . . professional.


I'm all for player mobility and am in favor of pro athletes getting as much as they can for their labor. 

But I also harbor a distinction between pro and college competitive landscapes.  And that Q&A with the opponent's coach seemed to really blur the line . . . but perhaps that's my problem.

I share your apprehension.  This could be one of those things that is great on an individual level (a player who is leaving a program or school where they are just not a right fit), but a disaster on a systemic level.  I'm not sure what can be done to fix it, though.

BC

[76lsjumb]

I recognize that scholarship athletes get major benefits, and I don't advocate paying college athletes.   I object to Geno complaining about student athletes wanting to transfer, because he worked so hard to recruit them.

Fair enough. I object to Geno saying just about anything because, well, ... Geno.

[76lsjumb]

I recognize that scholarship athletes get major benefits, and I don't advocate paying college athletes.   I object to Geno complaining about student athletes wanting to transfer, because he worked so hard to recruit them.

Fair enough. I object to Geno saying just about anything because, well, ... Geno.

[Farm93]

I recognize that scholarship athletes get major benefits, and I don't advocate paying college athletes.   I object to Geno complaining about student athletes wanting to transfer, because he worked so hard to recruit them.

Fair enough. I object to Geno saying just about anything because, well, ... Geno.

Geno likely was able to convince most young women that they will start, win multiple titles and then get a decent pro contract if they go to UConn.   Once on campus, they were more or less stuck given how hard it would be to transfer to any other top tier program. 

The transfer portal will force coaches to be much more honest about a prospect's first year or two on campus because any dissatisfied player might just opt to shop for different options in the portal.   Stanford can't play that game, but the fact that the option exists could improve HS recruiting integrity and college player treatment.   And I am all in for that change.

Geno complains a bit, so that is a sign to me that this really will be a good thing for student-athletes.   Likely not great for transfer-free Stanford, but great for the D1 level student-athletes.

[Farm93]

I recognize that scholarship athletes get major benefits, and I don't advocate paying college athletes.   I object to Geno complaining about student athletes wanting to transfer, because he worked so hard to recruit them.

Fair enough. I object to Geno saying just about anything because, well, ... Geno.

Geno likely was able to convince most young women that they will start, win multiple titles and then get a decent pro contract if they go to UConn.   Once on campus, they were more or less stuck given how hard it would be to transfer to any other top tier program. 

The transfer portal will force coaches to be much more honest about a prospect's first year or two on campus because any dissatisfied player might just opt to shop for different options in the portal.   Stanford can't play that game, but the fact that the option exists could improve HS recruiting integrity and college player treatment.   And I am all in for that change.

Geno complains a bit, so that is a sign to me that this really will be a good thing for student-athletes.   Likely not great for transfer-free Stanford, but great for the D1 level student-athletes.

[Goose]

The transfer portal will force coaches to be much more honest about a prospect's first year or two on campus because any dissatisfied player might just opt to shop for different options in the portal.

Actually, I think the opposite is true. The coach can lie like hell, get a bunch of good players on campus, play the best ones and let the ones who don't play leave. In the previous system he would be stuck with players who weren't going to play and couldn't leave. They would eat up a bunch of scholarships. Now, they will leave, freeing up scholarships to suck in the next set of recruits or transfers. Geno is crying crocodile tears. The high profile programs will benefit, because they can effectively "cut" players and replace them with better transfers or new recruits. Rinse and repeat. Previously, they were stuck with them.

[Goose]

The transfer portal will force coaches to be much more honest about a prospect's first year or two on campus because any dissatisfied player might just opt to shop for different options in the portal.

Actually, I think the opposite is true. The coach can lie like hell, get a bunch of good players on campus, play the best ones and let the ones who don't play leave. In the previous system he would be stuck with players who weren't going to play and couldn't leave. They would eat up a bunch of scholarships. Now, they will leave, freeing up scholarships to suck in the next set of recruits or transfers. Geno is crying crocodile tears. The high profile programs will benefit, because they can effectively "cut" players and replace them with better transfers or new recruits. Rinse and repeat. Previously, they were stuck with them.

[teejers1]

The transfer portal will force coaches to be much more honest about a prospect's first year or two on campus because any dissatisfied player might just opt to shop for different options in the portal.

Actually, I think the opposite is true. The coach can lie like hell, get a bunch of good players on campus, play the best ones and let the ones who don't play leave. In the previous system he would be stuck with players who weren't going to play and couldn't leave. They would eat up a bunch of scholarships. Now, they will leave, freeing up scholarships to suck in the next set of recruits or transfers. Geno is crying crocodile tears. The high profile programs will benefit, because they can effectively "cut" players and replace them with better transfers or new recruits. Rinse and repeat. Previously, they were stuck with them.

Isn't there still a limit on scholies/team?  If so, I'm not sure how you can more effectively "cut" players and replace them in transfer portal world, if that player wants to stay at the university.  You always had coaches who ran off "steak eaters" from the roster, even at Stanford (though admittedly, much less common).  I do agree that the teams on top are much more likely to stay there in free-agency, transfer portal world.

The ones I feel most sorry for are the coaches of lower level (or even division) schools, who find the diamond in the rough, give that kid a platform to shine, only to have that player bolt for Bigger Programs.  Don't blame the kids; but man, that would suck as a coach.  (Seems to me the transfer portal world will only make coaches bailing on their schools for greener pastures MORE likely than it is today).

[teejers1]

The transfer portal will force coaches to be much more honest about a prospect's first year or two on campus because any dissatisfied player might just opt to shop for different options in the portal.

Actually, I think the opposite is true. The coach can lie like hell, get a bunch of good players on campus, play the best ones and let the ones who don't play leave. In the previous system he would be stuck with players who weren't going to play and couldn't leave. They would eat up a bunch of scholarships. Now, they will leave, freeing up scholarships to suck in the next set of recruits or transfers. Geno is crying crocodile tears. The high profile programs will benefit, because they can effectively "cut" players and replace them with better transfers or new recruits. Rinse and repeat. Previously, they were stuck with them.

Isn't there still a limit on scholies/team?  If so, I'm not sure how you can more effectively "cut" players and replace them in transfer portal world, if that player wants to stay at the university.  You always had coaches who ran off "steak eaters" from the roster, even at Stanford (though admittedly, much less common).  I do agree that the teams on top are much more likely to stay there in free-agency, transfer portal world.

The ones I feel most sorry for are the coaches of lower level (or even division) schools, who find the diamond in the rough, give that kid a platform to shine, only to have that player bolt for Bigger Programs.  Don't blame the kids; but man, that would suck as a coach.  (Seems to me the transfer portal world will only make coaches bailing on their schools for greener pastures MORE likely than it is today).

[Mudhead]

Anyone willing to speculate on what Jordan Hamilton transfer to Stanford means for WBB?  In short run, her addition would seem to significantly enhance chances of a repeat Natty. In the long run, this will be our first opportunity to see if transfers in generate chemistry issues.

I saw her play on TV in NCAA tournament last year and was mightily impressed.  Her addition “de risks” the team for next year; we don’t have to bet on talented but unproven PGs coming through. In long run?

[Mudhead]

Anyone willing to speculate on what Jordan Hamilton transfer to Stanford means for WBB?  In short run, her addition would seem to significantly enhance chances of a repeat Natty. In the long run, this will be our first opportunity to see if transfers in generate chemistry issues.

I saw her play on TV in NCAA tournament last year and was mightily impressed.  Her addition “de risks” the team for next year; we don’t have to bet on talented but unproven PGs coming through. In long run?

[Goose]

Isn't there still a limit on scholies/team?  If so, I'm not sure how you can more effectively "cut" players and replace them in transfer portal world, if that player wants to stay at the university.  You always had coaches who ran off "steak eaters" from the roster, even at Stanford (though admittedly, much less common).  I do agree that the teams on top are much more likely to stay there in free-agency, transfer portal world.

In the past the "steak eaters" had to sit a year if they left the university and went elsewhere. That was a big downside to the player that encouraged them to stay where they were. It made "running a player off" harder because they effectively had no place to go. If they kept showing up despite it being made clear they weren't wanted they kept the scholarship and the "slot". Now, they have every reason to go elsewhere. It also lowers/removes the bar to suggesting to an athlete they move on. Before, that would end their career for at least a year if they could find a place that would take them and forever if they couldn't. I am not sure how the scholarships worked when a player transferred, but I think the "new" school couldn't put them on scholarship while they sat. Now, it is much easier to "justify" telling a steak eater they should move on because they actually can. In many cases it will benefit both parties, because the coach can use the slot to fill a need and the player can go someplace where they can play (or think they can). No year in the penalty box. That makes programs who can recruit lots of talent even stronger because they can much more easily get rid of players (and their associated scholies) who they don't need and replace them with players that the may/do need.

.

The ones I feel most sorry for are the coaches of lower level (or even division) schools, who find the diamond in the rough, give that kid a platform to shine, only to have that player bolt for Bigger Programs.  Don't blame the kids; but man, that would suck as a coach.  (Seems to me the transfer portal world will only make coaches bailing on their schools for greener pastures MORE likely than it is today).

This will for sure happen. Hopefully some of the players will have enough loyalty to remain, but it is hard to argue against moving from a small stage to a larger one. I would argue that in many cases this also involves moving from a small school to a larger school, which often increases the academic opportunities available as well. From that point of view it is hard to say moving is a "bad idea", even if it doesn't work out athletics wise. It does make coaching more difficult at the "lower division" schools, but I suspect most coaches in that situation will also take a "bigger stage" if offered independent of the player transfer effects. There will also be flow in the other direction of players who may have talent but for whatever reason didn't "fit" the program they chose initially. That will help compensate for the transfers out.

[Goose]

Isn't there still a limit on scholies/team?  If so, I'm not sure how you can more effectively "cut" players and replace them in transfer portal world, if that player wants to stay at the university.  You always had coaches who ran off "steak eaters" from the roster, even at Stanford (though admittedly, much less common).  I do agree that the teams on top are much more likely to stay there in free-agency, transfer portal world.

In the past the "steak eaters" had to sit a year if they left the university and went elsewhere. That was a big downside to the player that encouraged them to stay where they were. It made "running a player off" harder because they effectively had no place to go. If they kept showing up despite it being made clear they weren't wanted they kept the scholarship and the "slot". Now, they have every reason to go elsewhere. It also lowers/removes the bar to suggesting to an athlete they move on. Before, that would end their career for at least a year if they could find a place that would take them and forever if they couldn't. I am not sure how the scholarships worked when a player transferred, but I think the "new" school couldn't put them on scholarship while they sat. Now, it is much easier to "justify" telling a steak eater they should move on because they actually can. In many cases it will benefit both parties, because the coach can use the slot to fill a need and the player can go someplace where they can play (or think they can). No year in the penalty box. That makes programs who can recruit lots of talent even stronger because they can much more easily get rid of players (and their associated scholies) who they don't need and replace them with players that the may/do need.

.

The ones I feel most sorry for are the coaches of lower level (or even division) schools, who find the diamond in the rough, give that kid a platform to shine, only to have that player bolt for Bigger Programs.  Don't blame the kids; but man, that would suck as a coach.  (Seems to me the transfer portal world will only make coaches bailing on their schools for greener pastures MORE likely than it is today).

This will for sure happen. Hopefully some of the players will have enough loyalty to remain, but it is hard to argue against moving from a small stage to a larger one. I would argue that in many cases this also involves moving from a small school to a larger school, which often increases the academic opportunities available as well. From that point of view it is hard to say moving is a "bad idea", even if it doesn't work out athletics wise. It does make coaching more difficult at the "lower division" schools, but I suspect most coaches in that situation will also take a "bigger stage" if offered independent of the player transfer effects. There will also be flow in the other direction of players who may have talent but for whatever reason didn't "fit" the program they chose initially. That will help compensate for the transfers out.