The Swamp

I think the "why" is self-evident; the kid wins and the original school loses so the kids are and should be doing it far more often for personal gain. Pretty similar to how people switch jobs far more often now than in the past.

mister d wrote:I think the "why" is self-evident; the kid wins and the original school loses so the kids are and should be doing it far more often for personal gain. Pretty similar to how people switch jobs far more often now than in the past.

and how companies are not nearly as loyal to their employees as they used to be

mister d wrote:I think the "why" is self-evident; the kid wins and the original school loses so the kids are and should be doing it far more often for personal gain. Pretty similar to how people switch jobs far more often now than in the past.

That doesn't really explain it. The kid "wins" only at the cost of sitting out for an entire season. That's a hell of a cost for these guys, I would think. Especially since the idea is that they transferring to somewhere they can play more. Nothing about this part has changed in the last 50 years.

The one change that has affected transfers, of course, is the fifth-year guy who can play right away. Those are obviously very easy to understand. And maybe it's just the rise of those types of transfers that have opened the eyes of other players to the benefits, even at the cost of sitting on the bench for a year.

In general, there's varying reasons including kids wanting exposure. Damion Lee averaged 21.4 points at Drexel as a redshirt junior and scored over 1500 points in 3+ seasons, then transferred to Louisville and averaged almost 16 points per game. He might get drafted now, which was very unlikely to happen at Drexel. Anthony Livingston averaged close to 16 points and ten rebounds a game the last two years at Arkansas State. He's looking at St. John's or West Virginia for his final year of eligibility.

Syracuse has had four kids transfer out in the last two years and is bringing in one fifth-year transfer for next season. Three of the kids who left are doing so because they were more or less told they wouldn't play. Two of those three were recruited over while on campus, including one kid passing the other in the rotation, then getting beaten out the following season by a freshman. The fourth kid got clipped a year by the NCAA for academic issues... and he is leaving with his degree after three years so he can play right away because he won't see the floor if he stays.

In short, if those kids want to play, which I am guessing most do, they choose to leave.

And now, with two scholarship guards on the roster next season if Malachi Richardson decides to stick in the NBA draft, they've gone out and added a fifth-year senior transfer guard for next season and have scholarships available to add more one-year guys. If Richardson stays, they're at eight scholarship players for next year, meaning there are two more spots they can fill.

Shirley wrote:

mister d wrote:I think the "why" is self-evident; the kid wins and the original school loses so the kids are and should be doing it far more often for personal gain. Pretty similar to how people switch jobs far more often now than in the past.

That doesn't really explain it. The kid "wins" only at the cost of sitting out for an entire season. That's a hell of a cost for these guys, I would think. Especially since the idea is that they transferring to somewhere they can play more. Nothing about this part has changed in the last 50 years.

The one change that has affected transfers, of course, is the fifth-year guy who can play right away. Those are obviously very easy to understand. And maybe it's just the rise of those types of transfers that have opened the eyes of other players to the benefits, even at the cost of sitting on the bench for a year.

Some kids just don't pan out and coaches often recruit a better player (One of the D1 schools I was recruited to told me that I would probably start my first year and then likely lose my spot to a better player as he planned to get better players than me the next year). Yeah but if you have a choice of riding the pine for 2 or 3 more years because the next hot freshmen class has come in versus transferring, the math may play out to take a year off from games. Still practicing with the team and getting the credits.

Look at the outbound Terps from a few years back and what they did this past season. Of this group maybe Seth Allen woul0d have gotten playing time becuase of Dion Wiley's knee injury
Seth Allen-> VA Tech 16 starts and 14.7 min/game
Charles Mitchell -> Georgia Tech 25.1 minutes ~10 pts a game
Nick Faust-> Long Beach 33 starts 30.9 minutes per game 17 pts per game
Rodney Peters-> USF 8 starts 26.6 minutes ~10 pts per game (before injury and being dismissed for repeated violations of school policy)
Shaq Cleare-> Texas 33 games/0 starts 12min/game 3.6 pts per game (just not as good as people thought he would be in high school)

Shirley wrote:That doesn't really explain it. The kid "wins" only at the cost of sitting out for an entire season. That's a hell of a cost for these guys, I would think.

Why? At worst, its going to a perceived better situation. At best, its that plus an extra year of free school.

And this is really awful: Dayton Flyers center Steve McElvene dies at 20

mister d wrote:

Shirley wrote:That doesn't really explain it. The kid "wins" only at the cost of sitting out for an entire season. That's a hell of a cost for these guys, I would think.

Why? At worst, its going to a perceived better situation. At best, its that plus an extra year of free school.

That still doesn't explain why the numbers have roughly tripled (I think) in the past 5-10 years. And the usual explanation that kids today are impatient doesn't make sense, because a transfer requires the patience of sitting out for year.

Maybe it's just as simple as that with the "new" rule allowing graduated players to transfer without sitting out, those transfers have created roster gaps that coaches want to fill. Or maybe just seeing more players change schools has made other kids wonder if maybe they should do that too.

Or maybe it's coaches who are more impatient. They would rather push out a mid or lower kid in the hopes of rolling the dice with more recruits - or a proven transfer moving up from a lower tier program.

Is there any way to correlate it against coaching changes?

A_B wrote:Is there any way to correlate it against coaching changes?

What do you mean? More transfers just before a coach leaves/is fired?

Shirley wrote:

A_B wrote:Is there any way to correlate it against coaching changes?

What do you mean? More transfers just before a coach leaves/is fired?

Yeah. Maybe even a year after a new coach is hired too. Transfers because of coaching changes have happened forever, probably at a near constant level.

Shirley wrote:Or maybe just seeing more players change schools has made other kids wonder if maybe they should do that too.

Sure, but I think that's the same basic thing as self-interest. Less of a stigma around making a me-over-us decision.

Peak La Salle optimism doesn't quite make it 6 weeks as our recent top 100 grad transfer has withdrawn from classes. It was always meant to end like this.

Birds fly. Politicians lie. Larry Brown Quits.

wlu_lax6 wrote:So Mike Lonergan (George Washington) turned down Rutgers (who tried to get Danny Hurley). Rutgers gets Steve Pikiell from Stony Brook.

Go Rutgers?

Thanks a lot, Baylor.

Well, that didn't quite go the way I was expecting.

Reading the article though, I think it was just Lonergan belittling the AD. I don't think he was saying the AD was literally going to jerk off to basketball practice tapes. Either way, he sounds like a pretty big asshole.

Good coach though. I was impressed when they played (and beat) UVA last season.

Of course here comes the other side of the stories as players who liked Lonergan defend him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc- ... -the-line/

Tyrek Coger of OSU passes away after team workout

Tragic, and mysterious. He had surgery as a teenager, to 'remove fluid on the brain'. And had problems with headaches in the past. Just terrible.

Enlarged heart, same thing that killed McElvene from Dayton. Bad offseason.

The coroner's description of the cause of death is kinda unusual. Cardiomegaly (enlarged heart) with left ventricular hypertrophy (thickened muscle of one chamber of the heart.) Those are descriptive terms, and both of those characteristics are seen in good health and in disease.

Many trained athletes, particularly tall basketball players will have hearts that fit that description. In other words, neither of those terms are diseases. You don't die from an enlarged heart - you die from the thing that caused the enlarged heart.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a disease, the one that killed Hank Gathers, Flo Hyman and others. One that is pretty easily diagnosed at autopsy by looking at the heart tissue under a microscope. Maybe because of the public and press attention the coroner announced this preliminary finding, before they had looked at microscopic slides or otherwise completed the study.

And/or because OSU had the team running stairs in 100 degree heat.

That would be a cause of death, that would (or would not) manifest in specific physical findings at autopsy. Cardiomegaly and left ventricular hypertrophy are not manifestations of that cause.

Obviously.

Lonergan fired from GW on Saturday. Good job by GW announcing this over the weekend. Smart PR. GW won the NIT last year. Goes back to the issue linked above (player abuse and calling the AD names). Lonergan says they did not follow process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/c ... story.html

Terps extend Turg for 4 more years. Interesting to see how the $ work for a big time D1 coach (and that he was paid less than the Purdue's coach).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ter ... extension/