What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Transfer Portal - "Beam me over there, Scotty."

Hockeybuckeye said:
I haven't kept up with how much it's being utilized by the men's programs but it's become a massive free agency for women's hockey in my opinion and even more so with the Ivy League sitting out last season. I had a thread on the portal on the women's thread "Transfer Portal - Good or Evil?" There were more than a few responses worth reading.
Click to expand...

But the twist on the men's side is that the sit-out penalty is going to be waived. Women's hockey transfers don't typically need to sit out, do they?
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with this new rule. These are kids. If they don't like the situation they are currently in and want to move on, no need to make em sit out a year. They don't make coaches sit out a year when moving on to better opportunities.
 
I worry about
  • tampering (by a staff to get that missing piece)
  • effectively free agency in what is supposed to be amateur sport
The flip side is, yes, the student athlete is treated like any other college student who finds they didn't make the right campus selection (or that has a coach leave).
 
The Sicatoka said:
I worry about
  • tampering (by a staff to get that missing piece)
  • effectively free agency in what is supposed to be amateur sport
The flip side is, yes, the student athlete is treated like any other college student who finds they didn't make the right campus selection (or that has a coach leave).
Click to expand...

I think kids should get this opportunity, but I wonder if it will naturally favor the bigger programs at the expense of the mid-majors, especially in basketball and football.
 
The Sicatoka said:
I worry about
  • tampering (by a staff to get that missing piece)
  • effectively free agency in what is supposed to be amateur sport
The flip side is, yes, the student athlete is treated like any other college student who finds they didn't make the right campus selection (or that has a coach leave).
Click to expand...

Tampering is already happening big time.! The players get multiple calls all season from someone who says, I can get you... insert UND etc here. I wonder about the poor recruit who gets told, oh we picked up a new all-star forward from somewhere else so you'll have to stay in juniors another year.
 
DavidNardolillo said:
I think kids should get this opportunity, but I wonder if it will naturally favor the bigger programs at the expense of the mid-majors, especially in basketball and football.
Click to expand...

From following those sports, this is absolutely happening. Kids who emerge at smaller schools are being scooped up by bigger programs. I don't like that aspect either but it goes back to the movement to give these "exploited" athletes more rights.
 
A fan of UND (or UMN, BC, BU, UM, uw, UMD, DU...) should be welcoming this with open arms. Our teams will benefit while others are hurt.
 
Bonin21 said:
A fan of UND (or UMN, BC, BU, UM, uw, UMD, DU...) should be welcoming this with open arms. Our teams will benefit while others are hurt.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Maybe it's just me being kind of a jerk, but I think if I'm a kid who wasn't recruited by any of the big schools, but some smaller one gave me a chance, and I started becoming a star there, I'd tell a BC or a DU to pound sand if they started sniffing around a couple years later. "Where were you when I needed you?"
With only 61 or so schools competing (give or take a Lindenwood or UAA here or there), it's not like pro scouts can't find you at the smaller schools.
 
Maybe that will happen in hockey but it hasn't really happened in hoops/football. A lot of examples in hoops of kids jumping to bigger programs once they emerge. Back in the day you would transfer for academic reasons, playing time, wanting to be close to home...now it's happening to boost your profile with a bigger program.
 
Bonin21 said:
A fan of UND (or UMN, BC, BU, UM, uw, UMD, DU...) should be welcoming this with open arms. Our teams will benefit while others are hurt.
Click to expand...

I get that, but I carry these silly outdated notions of fair play and sportsmanship. Tampering and roster-picking flies in the face of that.
 
Bonin21 said:
A fan of UND (or UMN, BC, BU, UM, uw, UMD, DU...) should be welcoming this with open arms. Our teams will benefit while others are hurt.
Click to expand...

This is why I'm still in favor of the sit-out rule for undergrads. Some of these teams will now be recruiting directly from other schools to fill immediate needs. Have a couple Jrs and Sophomores that leave early? Put out a couple "feelers," check the portal 2 weeks later, replace them with some of the top Jrs and Sophomores from another program. Having the sit-out year makes those players think extra hard about jumping ship when they have to take a year off from playing.

Grad transfers, have at it. When a player graduates, even with eligibility left, they've fulfilled their commitment to their scholarship. No reason they shouldn't be able to further their academic and athletic careers elsewhere.
 
Do you think the same should apply to coaches who leave for bigger opportunities? That's probably a big reason as to how this has come about. Players wanting more rights. Will this lead to a players union down the road?
 
pdt1081 said:
Grad transfers, have at it. When a player graduates, even with eligibility left, they've fulfilled their commitment to their scholarship. No reason they shouldn't be able to further their academic and athletic careers elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Let's define "commitment" because its used inconsistently to the players' disadvantage. There is no commitment to a scholarship. By NCAA rule, teams cannot commit to a scholarship beyond that year. So, all players are "at will." If coaches wanted certainty, they could have the NCAA act like the the rest of the world (and like the coaches and Athletic Department heads themselves) and sign commitments. Coaches don't jump around year to year because the colleges sign them to actual commitments. You want a player to stay four years at a fixed stipend, put it in writing, and you can stop poaching. But like everything else in the NCAA, it needs to be organic and amateuristic for players, but firm for the people earning money.
 
As an alum of one of the "not major" programs, we're seeing this hurt us. With a star like Matt Brown moving to BC (rumor), that's a tough one to take. Rich get richer though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top