After reading the board yesterday, a lot of people were irked by Currie's email about transfers. Whether you agree with him or not regarding transfers this year at KSU, I do think it's obvious that transfers are a major issue and concern in NCAA basketball. Moreso than in football, if you lose 3 basketball players, it's about 25% of you roster, and that doesn't count players graduating. Now, it's "easier" to continually turn over your roster in BBall than in football, but it also harms teams each year who aren't upper-echelon programs.
I don't have a good solution, but I would think the NCAA, in wanting to be as financially successful as possible, would want to find a way to improve this situation that absolutely ravages some teams each year.
Kind of like the process of football recruitment and a lack an early signing period in football, it needs looked at. The way schools and players "commit" to each other is actually a complete lack of commitment. Players and schools (usually players) back out at any time and leave the other hanging in football each season. I wish there was a better way for teams to be tied to players and players tied to their commitments than what there is. An early signing period will help some, but it's still a flawed process.
It sucks when a school bases their recruitment of a position around a "committed" football player only to be left high and dry in late January. On the flipside, a school can pull one like Auburn did to Elijah Sullivan in telling him he had a spot, then trying to make him grayshirt after they over sign. It goes both ways and we benefit and suffer from the musical commitment chairs every year. Sometimes we poach a "commit" and sometimes we lose them. I just wish there was a better process. I understand that kids may commit early and get better offers, change their mind, having coaching changes at their schools, etc., but that's also why I wish commitments were more binding--in both directions--in terms of offers from schools and in commitments from players. Then you wouldn't see schools offer a billion kids or pull scholarship offers at the last second and players wouldn't be able to just "commit" to a school only to hose them at the last second. Coaching changes, as in transfers, would be a possible exception. If there is a head coaching change at the school, then people should be free to come and go, but that's just my opinion and is a gray area.
The system is broken and needs fixed. It would help both the schools and recruits.
That was a long rant, and maybe I'm off base on some of it.
I don't have a good solution, but I would think the NCAA, in wanting to be as financially successful as possible, would want to find a way to improve this situation that absolutely ravages some teams each year.
Kind of like the process of football recruitment and a lack an early signing period in football, it needs looked at. The way schools and players "commit" to each other is actually a complete lack of commitment. Players and schools (usually players) back out at any time and leave the other hanging in football each season. I wish there was a better way for teams to be tied to players and players tied to their commitments than what there is. An early signing period will help some, but it's still a flawed process.
It sucks when a school bases their recruitment of a position around a "committed" football player only to be left high and dry in late January. On the flipside, a school can pull one like Auburn did to Elijah Sullivan in telling him he had a spot, then trying to make him grayshirt after they over sign. It goes both ways and we benefit and suffer from the musical commitment chairs every year. Sometimes we poach a "commit" and sometimes we lose them. I just wish there was a better process. I understand that kids may commit early and get better offers, change their mind, having coaching changes at their schools, etc., but that's also why I wish commitments were more binding--in both directions--in terms of offers from schools and in commitments from players. Then you wouldn't see schools offer a billion kids or pull scholarship offers at the last second and players wouldn't be able to just "commit" to a school only to hose them at the last second. Coaching changes, as in transfers, would be a possible exception. If there is a head coaching change at the school, then people should be free to come and go, but that's just my opinion and is a gray area.
The system is broken and needs fixed. It would help both the schools and recruits.
That was a long rant, and maybe I'm off base on some of it.
