Recruiting Transfer Market

2012Ram

Top Member
Feb 28, 2013
16,089
47,144
There will be those that don't like this and will point to a number of examples why its not good and then there will be those like me that like it for a number of reasons.
I think it will be a double-edged sword for us, in that we will probably get some transfer players that will help us immediately and probably lose some players to transfer that will hurt us immediately.

I like it for the players though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GarseIronjade

TampaKAP

Top Member
Insider
Apr 21, 2009
3,694
7,244
I think it will be a double-edged sword for us, in that we will probably get some transfer players that will help us immediately and probably lose some players to transfer that will hurt us immediately.

I like it for the players though.
Agreed, I love it for the players. We could certainly loose some players but if a player doesn't want to be somewhere, are you going to get their best?


I could go through several examples where I think we would have benefited.
  • We had X on the bench his second year because he would have been a sit one play one if he had "left" and that market didn't exist for him.
  • We only have Bones because, and I can't prove it, but there was a high level of belief that PJ would be in an immediate play situation.
  • And so on and so on
 

Violet Ram

Top Member
Jan 29, 2015
1,525
2,688
I actually think this is bad for players. Yes, players who want to transfer up or down won't have to sit. But those players who are happy where they are will constantly be pressured by new talent coming in and having to learn the playing styles of new teammates. On a personal note, if this encourages even more transfers, it'll make it even more difficult for young athletes to be part of a community and learn to grow and thrive independently.
 

N Mollen

Top Member
Insider
Jun 5, 2012
19,645
59,218
I think it is a terrible idea, and I am not sure on the whole it benefits the kids. If kids can dip without penalty, that also means roster upheaval every year, which means less stability for all concerned. I do believe in a free exit anytime the coach leaves.
 

GuardTheArc

Top Member
Dec 4, 2014
658
1,041
I think it will be a double-edged sword for us, in that we will probably get some transfer players that will help us immediately and probably lose some players to transfer that will hurt us immediately.

I like it for the players though.
Perhaps.

Odds are, though, that we could lose an emerging young stud to the P6 community far more often than we grab a similar stud from the lower tier non-P6 community.

There are essentially two tiers in D-1 basketball.......P6 schools (76 of them) and non-P6 schools (281 of them). The P6 crowd will now use the non-P6 teams as a minor league of sorts and new recruiting pipeline to fill their annual roster needs. They will likely pick off the cream of the crop. What we’ll likely be left with is the second-tier non-P6 talent and the P6 “afterthoughts” that choose to transfer down “just so they can play somewhere.” At the end of the day, true VCU recruiting successes will perhaps end up at P6 programs. We may never see the Maynors, Grahams, Webers, Alie-Coxs, Reddics, etc yield that fruit for 4 years. The P6 lure may be too enticing to turn down.

The truly talented low-level kids, even those from Canisius, Stetson, Mercer, Florida Atlantic, etc, will still get P6 attention/offers. With the no “wait” year, we (VCU) will definitely move down in the overall talent/recruiting pecking order. Talented kids at lower levels (that we really want) probably aren’t going to want to burn their one-time transfer waiver to move from Northern Arizona or Central Arkansas to VCU. They’ll be seeking (and probably getting) P6 school offers. Annual roster turnover is likely going to be chaotic/messy and a net loss (talent drain) for non-P6 schools. The overall talent pool will almost certainly migrate a bit more to the P6 schools with no “wait” year.

This is ultimately a win for the P6 schools (which is why they pushed hard for it). It’s just another reason why UConn hopped over the fence back into P6 territory.......more fertile ground. Houston, Cincy, and Memphis are eager to follow suit. Probably Dayton too.
 

2012Ram

Top Member
Feb 28, 2013
16,089
47,144
I am not sure of the exact details of this new proposal but IIRC wasnt this move so that they could eliminate grad transfers and waivers altogther?

If so, then I would think it could deincentivize transfers altogether because if you transfer, you are stuck at that school like it or not.
 

N Mollen

Top Member
Insider
Jun 5, 2012
19,645
59,218
I am not sure of the exact details of this new proposal but IIRC wasnt this move so that they could eliminate grad transfers and waivers altogther?

If so, then I would think it could deincentivize transfers altogether because if you transfer, you are stuck at that school like it or not.
I haven't heard it described that way, but that would change the dynamics for sure. Also not sure it would be favorable to the kids. One free move and then no ability to transfer?
 

GarseIronjade

Top Member
Nov 16, 2016
361
944
I am not sure of the exact details of this new proposal but IIRC wasnt this move so that they could eliminate grad transfers and waivers altogther?

If so, then I would think it could deincentivize transfers altogether because if you transfer, you are stuck at that school like it or not.
I have looked and I don't see any information on this. Nothing I have read says this any other transfers options are eliminated.

It was my impression that a second transfer was still possible, but that it would cost you a year of eligibility after the "free" one (and you could still use a Grad Transfer after you finish without sitting). I cannot remember the basis for this impression so I could very well be wrong.

I do agree with you and TampaKAP that this is the right thing to do for players.