Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Transfer Portal - Good or Evil?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Transfer Portal - Good or Evil?

    Having a good natured exchange with Timothy A about Wisconsin and Ohio State's recent transfer portal pickups I figured it's time for it's own thread.
    On the positive side it has allowed athletes to play who wouldn't have this season with their programs sitting it out, but on the bad side it also allows them to jump ship for the slightest of reasons causing a team to have to find a replacement and sometimes the bleeding doesn't stop. It creates uncertainty and instability allowing players to basically switch teams at will and to keep team shopping after they're accepting scholarship money and have been fully integrated into a program.
    Thoughts?

  • #2
    Mixed feelings. I agree with your points about creating uncertainty. On the other hand, players should be able to move to situations that make them happier. They generally commit 3-4 years before they arrive at a school without knowing much about the school. They change in the interim, the coaches can change, the school can change. It’s essentially a job so no one would say that an adult couldn’t leave a job where they are unhappy. So I think overall the portal benefits the players and that is what it is designed for. It also creates more accountability on coaches and schools to treat players well and not as indentured servants.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Rightnut View Post
      Mixed feelings. I agree with your points about creating uncertainty. On the other hand, players should be able to move to situations that make them happier. They generally commit 3-4 years before they arrive at a school without knowing much about the school. They change in the interim, the coaches can change, the school can change. It’s essentially a job so no one would say that an adult couldn’t leave a job where they are unhappy. So I think overall the portal benefits the players and that is what it is designed for. It also creates more accountability on coaches and schools to treat players well and not as indentured servants.
      Good points, but what about a player who's copped a pis#sy attitude? Football is pretty big for that, you lose your starting position and instead of working harder and develop yourself to earn it back you bail.
      Would the program and player be better to part ways or does the transfer portal decay the work ethic if you want something you have to work harder for it?
      Competition in sports is supposed to mirror what you want to do to earn success in your post college world.
      Last edited by Hockeybuckeye; 02-23-2021, 09:56 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rightnut View Post
        ... players should be able to move to situations that make them happier.
        This. I don't think that it does the original program any good to have someone on the roster who doesn't want to be there.

        In an ideal world, maybe people would have more of a desire to finish what they started. However, it is a free country, and the ultimate decision for where a young lady goes to college should rest with her, if she has the resume to gain admission.

        "... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
        And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ARM View Post
          This. I don't think that it does the original program any good to have someone on the roster who doesn't want to be there.

          In an ideal world, maybe people would have more of a desire to finish what they started. However, it is a free country, and the ultimate decision for where a young lady goes to college should rest with her, if she has the resume to gain admission.
          Agree, many factors can influence whether a player is a good fit for a program. Sometimes, that "fit" may not be determined until the dynamic evolves. While this has been normal in boys hockey, it is a relatively new development in the women's game. Ultimately, the player should land in a program where they can contribute and feel valued.

          Comment


          • #6
            So how do you feel about the old NCAA platform of if you want to leave a program that's fine but you have to sit out a year to regain your eligibility?
            Sure a kid has a right to go somewhere lese if they want but if ship jumping becomes the new norm and if you can play right away isn't that going to create a problem for the programs? If a school has a really tough demanding coach what keeps players with delicate sensibilities from leaving en mass?
            I guess my point is as it currently stands the transfer portal is something that can easily be abused and probmatic unless there's some tweaking of it's rules.
            Last edited by Hockeybuckeye; 02-23-2021, 10:51 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
              So how do you feel about the old NCAA platform of if you want to leave a program that's fine but you have to sit out a year to regain your eligibility?
              Sure a kid has a right to go somewhere lese if they want but if ship jumping becomes the new norm and if you can play right away isn't that going to create a problem for the programs? If a school has a really tough demanding coach what keeps players with delicate sensibilities from leaving en mass?
              I guess my point is as it currently stands the transfer portal is something that can easily be abused and probmatic unless there's some tweaking of it's rules.
              Why does a kid have to sit out a year? A coach or AD that moves to a new job does not. That rule is just designed to make it harder for the player. And it gets the coach off the hook for addressing the issues that cause the kid to transfer in the first place. Not that I am saying that its all on the coach- sometimes its just not a good fit, bad team dynamics or whatever. But the 1 year rule is clearly just to provide a disincentive to transfer.

              To your point if its a tough demanding coach - did that coach tell the kid that when they were being recruited? And if the players are transferring en masse - that is a problem with the coach not the players. Coach had better evolve or will be out of a job. In women's hockey there are only so many spots. Many schools do not offer schollies so that limits a lot of players. Academics are an issue. Many schools are elite while many others are not desirable for academics. So the real number of landing spots is limited. Its not like if one wants to leave, there is no problem transferring. If you are good and have good grades, you will find a spot. If you are average or below or have bad grades, look out D3.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rightnut View Post

                Why does a kid have to sit out a year? A coach or AD that moves to a new job does not. That rule is just designed to make it harder for the player.
                Exactly, it doesn't mean they can't transfer, it was put in place as a deterrent so you wouldn't jump for something minor you'd eventually get over. It's to give the program a degree of protection.
                These kids mature during their 4 year tenure of playing and a lot of times by the time they're a junior what would bother them as a freshman or sophomore no longer is an issue due to maturity and experience taking root.
                Let's face it there are no set of rules that can factually and fairly cover every situation but what is best to meet the student athlete's desires and offer a program some protections as well and does the transfer portal meet both? I think it currently leans heavily towards the athlete.
                Last edited by Hockeybuckeye; 02-23-2021, 12:59 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I used to think of this in terms of black and white. If a player signed with team X, they had to finish with that team, simple as that. Then ARM (years ago in prior discussions) pointed out that a player's happiness should be part of an equation, a thought that I had never considered ( I was being completely blockheaded). As someone else pointed out in this thread, things can look all rainbows and unicorns during recruiting/research/dating period, but then once you get to school you realize that a big part of the dynamic doesn't work for you. It might be a school thing, it might be a team or coach thing. I think you should have the right to make a move that will make you happy. My sister transferred twice as an undergrad. I was all set to go to UW Madison after a 2 year community college degree, then I figured out that even at 20 yrs old, small town Tim wasn't going to feel comfortable in Madison, so I took a year off and worked 2 jobs, then ended up at UW Whitewater. It was the perfect fit. Life is 1000 shades of grey and we all have to find the couple shades that we're happy with.

                  My only concern is coach X through a 3rd party gets into player z's ear and is tempting/re-recruiting them, trying to get them to hop into the portal. I don't "think" that is happening but I wonder.
                  Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
                  "Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
                  Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Timothy A View Post
                    I used to think of this in terms of black and white. If a player signed with team X, they had to finish with that team, simple as that. Then ARM (years ago in prior discussions) pointed out that a player's happiness should be part of an equation, a thought that I had never considered ( I was being completely blockheaded). As someone else pointed out in this thread, things can look all rainbows and unicorns during recruiting/research/dating period, but then once you get to school you realize that a big part of the dynamic doesn't work for you. It might be a school thing, it might be a team or coach thing. I think you should have the right to make a move that will make you happy. My sister transferred twice as an undergrad. I was all set to go to UW Madison after a 2 year community college degree, then I figured out that even at 20 yrs old, small town Tim wasn't going to feel comfortable in Madison, so I took a year off and worked 2 jobs, then ended up at UW Whitewater. It was the perfect fit. Life is 1000 shades of grey and we all have to find the couple shades that we're happy with.

                    My only concern is coach X through a 3rd party gets into player z's ear and is tempting/re-recruiting them, trying to get them to hop into the portal. I don't "think" that is happening but I wonder.
                    Come on....of course this is going on. You as a WISCO fan should be most aware of this!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
                      So how do you feel about the old NCAA platform of if you want to leave a program that's fine but you have to sit out a year to regain your eligibility?
                      Outside of COVID year exceptions (and "grad transfers"), I believe the "old" rule is the current rule for football, basketball, and I think men's hockey.

                      Also, it is my impression that there is currently WAY more transferring going on in women's volleyball, and much of it has benefitted schools and players. So while i can see a potential for 'overuse', I don't think we're anywhere near such a point. FWIW.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by EMPTYNETTER View Post

                        Come on....of course this is going on. You as a WISCO fan should be most aware of this!
                        Watts are you suggesting?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The pandemic has effected many sports in different ways. I predict womens hockey is going to have some significant changes and impacts over the next couple of years. The bonus year of eligibility will have a significant impact on the recruiting and retention of players at the D1 level. This could manifest itself in a couple of different ways:

                          1. The programs that offer graduate level courses (and allow graduate level athletes (historically not the Ivies)) will most likely end up with more and more grad students. Not average D1 players but more elite players that want to continue to play. I am guessing some of the elite Ivy girls from Cornell, Princeton, and others will end up at Clarkson (canadians), Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northeastern, OSU, BU, BC, etc. Coaches jobs are to win and who is going to help you win more games...a 23 yo with National team experience or a kid that made National camp as a 16 or 17 yo? This extra year could wreak havoc on the HS classes of 20/21/22/23/24/25. A high end 2024 graduate training/playing for a HEA/WCHA/CHA school this season now has eligibility thru the 2024/2025 season.

                          2. There are a handful of girls in HS that were recruited before the recruiting rules changed. Some of those girls have continued to improve while others have not. I can think of at least 2 girls in my area who have not improved and I fully expect to change their commitment (1-Ivy and 1-WCHA) as a result of their skills drop and their committed schools not having room for them. Another de-committed last summer from an Ivy to a CHA school.

                          3. It is my understanding that most of Harvard, Princeton, & Yale players took gap years. Most/all of the Cornell team went to school first semester and are not in school this semester. The Ivy League has announced that it will give baseball (and other spring sports?!?) players who are in their Senior year right now an additional year of Ivy eligibility if they would like it. Have not heard if that is an option for hockey players.

                          4. The transfer portal is going to be a busy place for years to come. Too many players for many rosters and then players trickling down to lesser D1's and then D3's.

                          5. This will all create less spots for more hopeful young players across the women's game for the next several seasons. This will eventually work itself out (by the time the HS classes of 2025 and beyond arrive in college).

                          6. This might mean more gap year situations for girls hockey players (both the prep school route and playing Tier 1 as 18 or 19 year olds) in order to have a spot on a roster.

                          Side note: the additional years of eligibility combined with chronic over recruiting and 300+ D1 schools has created a big issue for the HS classes of 22/23/24/25 in baseball. Everyone at every level of college baseball received a bonus year for the 2020 season. It was announced in the late fall that every kid that is at a JUCO, D2, and D3 have a bonus year of eligibility for the 2021 season (that just started). So you now have kids that have been at a JUCO for the 2019/2020 and the 2020/2021 school years training/playing for 20+ hours a week that will be 3rd year "Freshman" in the 2021/2022 school year eligibility wise. Should be interesting!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by used2lurk View Post
                            The pandemic has effected many sports in different ways. I predict womens hockey is going to have some significant changes and impacts over the next couple of years. The bonus year of eligibility will have a significant impact on the recruiting and retention of players at the D1 level. This could manifest itself in a couple of different ways:

                            1. The programs that offer graduate level courses (and allow graduate level athletes (historically not the Ivies)) will most likely end up with more and more grad students. Not average D1 players but more elite players that want to continue to play. I am guessing some of the elite Ivy girls from Cornell, Princeton, and others will end up at Clarkson (canadians), Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northeastern, OSU, BU, BC, etc. Coaches jobs are to win and who is going to help you win more games...a 23 yo with National team experience or a kid that made National camp as a 16 or 17 yo? This extra year could wreak havoc on the HS classes of 20/21/22/23/24/25. A high end 2024 graduate training/playing for a HEA/WCHA/CHA school this season now has eligibility thru the 2024/2025 season.

                            2. There are a handful of girls in HS that were recruited before the recruiting rules changed. Some of those girls have continued to improve while others have not. I can think of at least 2 girls in my area who have not improved and I fully expect to change their commitment (1-Ivy and 1-WCHA) as a result of their skills drop and their committed schools not having room for them. Another de-committed last summer from an Ivy to a CHA school.

                            3. It is my understanding that most of Harvard, Princeton, & Yale players took gap years. Most/all of the Cornell team went to school first semester and are not in school this semester. The Ivy League has announced that it will give baseball (and other spring sports?!?) players who are in their Senior year right now an additional year of Ivy eligibility if they would like it. Have not heard if that is an option for hockey players.

                            4. The transfer portal is going to be a busy place for years to come. Too many players for many rosters and then players trickling down to lesser D1's and then D3's.

                            5. This will all create less spots for more hopeful young players across the women's game for the next several seasons. This will eventually work itself out (by the time the HS classes of 2025 and beyond arrive in college).

                            6. This might mean more gap year situations for girls hockey players (both the prep school route and playing Tier 1 as 18 or 19 year olds) in order to have a spot on a roster.

                            Side note: the additional years of eligibility combined with chronic over recruiting and 300+ D1 schools has created a big issue for the HS classes of 22/23/24/25 in baseball. Everyone at every level of college baseball received a bonus year for the 2020 season. It was announced in the late fall that every kid that is at a JUCO, D2, and D3 have a bonus year of eligibility for the 2021 season (that just started). So you now have kids that have been at a JUCO for the 2019/2020 and the 2020/2021 school years training/playing for 20+ hours a week that will be 3rd year "Freshman" in the 2021/2022 school year eligibility wise. Should be interesting!
                            Great post!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The transfer portal can only be viewed by administrators and NCAA coaches. It would go a long way in understanding it's effect if we as fans could see how many people are in it at any given time, their sport and schools. We'd probably go nuts on forum with "OMG! Why aren't we getting that kid??!!" or "Why are they bailing on us??"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X