Originally Posted by SeasonTicketFan
The transfer game plays both ways. When I was younger, I thought he scholarship was four years. That was the term I heard. Later, when I learned that scholarships are one years at a time, I was surprised. Dayton has dropped some players over the years. One can argue that they were deserved. Such as Norman....
Loyalty has to be a two way street. With the number of one and dones, transfers and players dropped, loyalty does not feel as if it runs up and the down the NCAA very hard. Of course, big money turns almost everybody into mercenaries.
|
This is a very good point. Players are impatient, and I'm not suggesting that players do not transfer in order to play more or to "trade up" so to speak. However, the majority of the players who transfer do so because their coaches either do not renew their scholarships, or they're told they won't play if they don't transfer.
As crazy as this sounds, I have a theory that if they got rid of the rules where players had to sit out a year, and that schools could have a say in who they were or were not released to, the transfer rate may actually go down. The reason?? Coaches would be less likely to force a player out who could go somewhere else and play right away.
The equivalency sports don't have that rule. You can transfer and play right away. On top of that, not all scholarships are the same. A softball player may have a partial scholarship at one school, and have the option of transferring to another school for a bigger scholarship AND not have to sit out a year. One would think the transfer rates in those sports would be through the roof. They're not. They're actually lower than men's basketball. That should tell you something. Most of the time it's not the result of young people wanting everything now. It's the result of coaches wanting everything now, and not being willing to wait for players to develop.