[Goose]

At this point, 28%(!) of Div. 1 basketball players are in the transfer portal.



<snip>
I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I support increased choices for student-athletes and I generally think fewer restrictions on transferring is probably a good thing.  But when 1 in 4 student athletes is transferring, it seems less like a transfer portal and more like free agency.  It's probably worth seeing how this settles out in the post-coronavirus environment.



BC

I agree that this year probably isn't a good one to use as a prediction of future trends. I would also like to know what percentage of these transfers are "grad transfers". I think those "transfers" are completely different things. These transfers are often academically justifiable (even important) to allow a graduate to pay for advanced studies at another university. It also may be speculative, in that the athlete is going elsewhere to study and if nothing materializes athletically said graduate will "retire".

I suspect most undergraduate transfers are  driven by the desire for more playing time or to escape a mismatch with a given program. These transfers basically are "free agency". They are not academically related. That doesn't mean such transfers are all bad. If a player has some kind of an epiphany and has the opportunity to go from a lower-prestige program to a high-prestige program along with enhanced professional opportunities, it makes lots of sense. If it is just the opportunity to compete for playing time elsewhere, it calls into question the place of academics in the athlete's priorities. If academics are "generic" and one university is interchangeable with another the concept of "student-athlete" becomes unsupportable. It is all about sports and little or nothing about education. In that case, the future would not be compatible with sports in a university setting IMHO. The importance of "student" in "student-athlete" has to be significant to justify the current model. If it becomes clear that is not the case for a large percentage of college athletes, the universities will have a very difficult time arguing for non-profit status and anti-trust protection.

[Goose]

At this point, 28%(!) of Div. 1 basketball players are in the transfer portal.



<snip>
I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I support increased choices for student-athletes and I generally think fewer restrictions on transferring is probably a good thing.  But when 1 in 4 student athletes is transferring, it seems less like a transfer portal and more like free agency.  It's probably worth seeing how this settles out in the post-coronavirus environment.



BC

I agree that this year probably isn't a good one to use as a prediction of future trends. I would also like to know what percentage of these transfers are "grad transfers". I think those "transfers" are completely different things. These transfers are often academically justifiable (even important) to allow a graduate to pay for advanced studies at another university. It also may be speculative, in that the athlete is going elsewhere to study and if nothing materializes athletically said graduate will "retire".

I suspect most undergraduate transfers are  driven by the desire for more playing time or to escape a mismatch with a given program. These transfers basically are "free agency". They are not academically related. That doesn't mean such transfers are all bad. If a player has some kind of an epiphany and has the opportunity to go from a lower-prestige program to a high-prestige program along with enhanced professional opportunities, it makes lots of sense. If it is just the opportunity to compete for playing time elsewhere, it calls into question the place of academics in the athlete's priorities. If academics are "generic" and one university is interchangeable with another the concept of "student-athlete" becomes unsupportable. It is all about sports and little or nothing about education. In that case, the future would not be compatible with sports in a university setting IMHO. The importance of "student" in "student-athlete" has to be significant to justify the current model. If it becomes clear that is not the case for a large percentage of college athletes, the universities will have a very difficult time arguing for non-profit status and anti-trust protection.