NCAA Basketball Tournament - Xavier v Baylor

Grad transfer rule has to remain as long as we have “student”-athletes

1 Comment

I can honestly say that I can go either way when it comes to the graduate transfer exemption.

For those that are unaware, the rule is simple: if an athlete completes their undergraduate degree with eligibility remaining, they can transfer to another school without being forced to sit out for a year so long as the athlete pursues an advanced degree at his new school.

The rule is the reason that Arizona was able to land former Xavier guard Mark Lyons for the 2012-2013 season, bridging the one-year gap between Josiah Turner’s dismissal from the program and Duquesne transfer TJ McConnell becoming eligible to play in 2013-2014. It is also why Kentucky was able to shore up their back court depth by adding former Wright State (by way of NC State) guard Julius Mays. Brandon Wood (Valpo to Michigan State), Sam Maniscalco (Bradley to Illinois) and Jeff Peterson (Florida State from Arkansas by way of Iowa) took advantage of the rule last season.

Like I said, I can go either way on the matter.

On the one hand, I think it is fair to allow a player that has completed his degree an opportunity to transfer without having to sit out for a season. They put in the work, they should be rewarded. On the other hand, I can see the frustration that comes with developing a player for three or four years only to see them leave the program at the peak of their collegiate career.

And while any power that a school or the NCAA has over a player’s decision to transfer bothers me, I will admit that I am not totally comfortable with the precedent being set by Mays. He enrolled at NC State, couldn’t get minutes in his first two seasons, transferred down to Wright State where he spent a year developing his skill and another year building his confidence while torching the Horizon League before ultimately transferring back up to the highest level of the sport. Three schools in five years is a little much, even for a self-proclaimed, college basketball liberal.

That said, the way the NCAA is currently designed, the grad transfer rule simply cannot be changed.

At least not until the kids that play college sports are no longer referred to as “student”-athletes.

These kids are supposed to be students first, right? They are supposed to be using their athletic talents to pay for an education that is getting more and more expensive, aren’t they? Isn’t that the ideal that the NCAA is based on? Isn’t that the entire reason that basketball and football players that are responsible for generating obscene amounts of revenue — the money that has warped the landscape of college sports in an armageddon known as realignment — have to fight tooth and nail just to get full cost of attendance scholarships? Isn’t that the entire reason that the NCAA doesn’t have to pay taxes and can call themselves a non-profit?

Well, if these athletes are “students” first, then there is no justifiable reason to block their ability to further that education. These kids aren’t just transferring and auditing ballroom dancing classes. They are pursuing advanced graduates degrees. I don’t have an advanced graduate degree. I wouldn’t mind having one, though. It probably would make my potential earnings increase, just like it could help Mark Lyons’ increase his value to an employer once his basketball career ends.

Because the whole point of his scholarship to play basketball is to prepare him to go pro in something other than sports.

Right?

Look, if the NCAA wants to change how they view these athletes, than I have no problem with eliminating the rule. If they want to pay these athletes and acknowledge the fact that the reason these kids are in school is because of how fast they can run or how high they can jump or how well they can shoot, that’s fine. Make them sign a contract that stipulates where and when they are allowed to transfer. I’m fine with that.

But barring the NCAA changing their party line, there is no justification for eliminating the graduate transfer rule.

Rob Dauster is the editor of the college basketball website Ballin’ is a Habit. You can find him on twitter @robdauster.

Nigel Hayes’ comment on basketball brands hits on greater point

Wisconsin's Nigel Hayes (10) drives on Ohio State's Jae'Sean Tate (1) during the second half of an NCAA college basketball game Thursday, Feb. 4, 2016, in Madison, Wis. Hayes had a team-high 21 points in Wisconsin's 79-68 win. (AP Photo/Andy Manis)
AP Photo/Andy Manis
Leave a comment

Much is made about the ball when it comes to how the sport of basketball is played and rightfully so, as the ball is the most important piece of equipment. Different brands have different characteristics, and with college basketball programs being able to pick the ball they use for home games there are adjustments to be made during the season.

Wisconsin will play at No. 2 Maryland Saturday, meaning that in the days leading up to the game the Badgers needed to get used to the Under Armour basketball. The brand became a conversation point in the aftermath of Maryland’s win over No. 4 Iowa last month, with the Hawkeyes (while not blaming the ball for their loss) made note of the differences between the Under Armour ball and the Nike ball they use for their home games.

Thursday Wisconsin forward Nigel Hayes offered up his observations on the basketball while also pointing out (albeit sarcastically) the goal of intercollegiate athletics.

“It’s definitely different,” Hayes said. “Personally, we don’t like it too much. I don’t like the Under Armour ball whatsoever. But that’s the way this amateur sports league is set up. We’re supposed to be having fun, but all the money is in these basketballs that colleges play with. But it’s an amateur sport, we’re just here for fun. It’s not really that serious. So I guess any ball should be OK.

“Maybe we should have a universal ball like the NBA. You don’t go to the Clippers’ stadium and play with a Nike and then go to Golden State and play with a Rawlings. But in this amateur sport of college, where money isn’t the goal — it’s the student education and experience that you get — we play with a million different basketballs.”

Hayes makes a good point here, and in regards to the NBA all hell would break loose under similar circumstances (remember the leather vs. microfiber composite controversy in 2006?). If these games are solely about fun and the college experience, wouldn’t having one ball used by all schools better fit that mission? This isn’t the biggest of deals when it comes to “amateur” athletics, as different basketball brands have been used for years.

But Hayes was able to take this situation and work it into the discussion of the goals of intercollegiate athletics. Is it about the experience? Or does the ability to profit, be it through a minor move such as using a particular ball or the more impactful step of moving from one conference to another, take precedence? Given the shifts that have occurred in college sports in recent years, it’s quite apparent that the search for additional revenue streams has won out.

Hayes did note that neither he nor his teammates would make excuses, saying that the team would simple “have to get used to” the unfamiliar basketball according to the Wisconsin State Journal. In the end, this was a good use of sarcasm by Hayes to make a greater point about the collegiate athletics machine he and his teammates are but minor parts of.

Marquette fan sends Providence money for missed free throw

Providence's Kris Dunn reacts to his shot during the first half of an NCAA basketball game against Villanova, Sunday, Jan. 24, 2016, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Chris Szagola)
AP Photo/Chris Szagola
Leave a comment

It goes without saying that sports can inspire some interesting promises, from players and coaches guaranteeing victory to fans making statements that hinge on the outcome of a particular game or play (see: tattoos celebrating a team’s triumphs before they’ve even won the game in question). For one Marquette fan, the need for Providence’s Kris Dunn to miss a free throw during Wednesday night’s game (which Marquette won in overtime) inspired him to make a promise that he intended to keep.

Jamey Schilling took the approach of yelling that he’d pay Dunn $10 if he missed the free throw. Sure enough Dunn missed the shot, and Schilling made good on his promise. But with players themselves unable to receive such funds due to NCAA rules, Schilling sent the check to the Providence athletic department.

Schilling’s gesture did not go unnoticed by Marquette either, as the school sent him a gift card to use in the Marquette Spirit Shop.

H/T For The Win