Yes, I know that there has already been much discussion on the topic of the liberalization of the transfer portal rules in college sports. But the thread on Mike Rice’s recent tweet provides more to think about. I know that Rice is hardly a beloved figure at RU and that most of the thread was spent slamming him. But IMHO, his point is valid regarding the transfer portal rules relaxation moving the pendulum toward wholesale “team-jumping” among existing college players, and away from traditional high school recruiting, and that is a springboard to a wider discussion. I will admit that my initial reaction to news about the portal change was negative. However, I really tried to learn more about the subject and hear arguments on the other side. After doing that, I have concluded that I am more against this change than ever. Basketball, with its small rosters and low number of on-court players, is by far the most impacted.
Certainly, if a player is unhappy due to lack of playing time, or not liking one or more coaches, or not being happy about the school, or any other reason, the liberalization can make life less trying for a player, by allowing the penalty-free transfer. In that sense, the change is “pro-athlete,” and that is not a bad thing. The arguments from some that college athletes are exploited are quite valid. But I do not think that this was the primary driver of this rules shift. My personal perception is that it came from pressure on the NCAA from coaches, athletic directors and others involved in the college sports infrastructure to get rid of the “sit out one season” system, with its capricious and inconsistent hardship exceptions on a case basis. In finally getting rid of this clumsy process, at least for one season per player, teams could utilize talent immediately, to the great benefit of the program in many instances. In doing this, however, the NCAA opened the floodgates. The frequency of transfers affecting practically every school this year perhaps should not be so surprising, but the numbers nevertheless are jaw dropping.
I am not sure that anything like this occurs anywhere in organized sports. In the professional ranks, a player has a contractual obligation to honor his or her commitment to the team for a designated term. To be sure, a major reform to this system started to occur more than 50 years ago, in the form of free agency, which was a badly needed rectification, staring in baseball. It is also true that the occasional unhappy superstar or individual malcontent can pressure his way out of the existing contract, or leverage a new, more favorable one. But the overriding reality is that pro and semi-pro sports operate on a contractual business basis. I cannot think of any other organized team sports in this country, from Pop Warner on up, where team jumping is so unconstrained.
By allowing that one free move at any time during the player’s college eligibility years, the wonderful spirit of continuity is lost. That means the continuity for players as they grow and mature together as a unit and sometimes improve a lot. Every year there are teams that have limited individual talent, but the team makes the post-season games or tournaments because the athletes have played together for several seasons. It also means the loss of continuity for fans, who enjoy watching a connected group of players move forward as a team. Instead of continuity, there will be semi-chaos, a substantially new roster in many programs each year. It is also important to note that some players, piggybacking the one free year rule with the hardship clause, and/or a willingness to sit out one season at another school, could and will end up playing at two and three schools (I am not talking about the present situation, where the special one-added-year due to covid coincided with the portal reg.’s change; I am referring to seasons going forward under normal circumstances). The new portal rules are already substituting program chaos for ordered progression. It is having an impact on almost every school in multiple sports, but most especially in men’s and women’s basketball and football.
The other thing that I dislike about the new portal rules is that by shifting the aforementioned recruiting pendulum to the transfer side instead of the HS recruiting side, you have created a system that fundamentally changes college sports, and not for the better. HS players lose opportunity. College sports become 100% about sports, winning and dominance, rendering whatever tenuous link remained to the academic side of college a joke. Why not just make the major sports programs a private, semi-pro business as a money generator for the university? I do understand that there are benefits in this for players, coaches, and programs, but on balance, I dislike the new transfer system.
I say, restore the old system, fix the most inconsistent parts of it, and be done with it. I like the original idea of the transfer portal, to place some order around the process. But the new rules are a quantum leap to something else entirely.
Certainly, if a player is unhappy due to lack of playing time, or not liking one or more coaches, or not being happy about the school, or any other reason, the liberalization can make life less trying for a player, by allowing the penalty-free transfer. In that sense, the change is “pro-athlete,” and that is not a bad thing. The arguments from some that college athletes are exploited are quite valid. But I do not think that this was the primary driver of this rules shift. My personal perception is that it came from pressure on the NCAA from coaches, athletic directors and others involved in the college sports infrastructure to get rid of the “sit out one season” system, with its capricious and inconsistent hardship exceptions on a case basis. In finally getting rid of this clumsy process, at least for one season per player, teams could utilize talent immediately, to the great benefit of the program in many instances. In doing this, however, the NCAA opened the floodgates. The frequency of transfers affecting practically every school this year perhaps should not be so surprising, but the numbers nevertheless are jaw dropping.
I am not sure that anything like this occurs anywhere in organized sports. In the professional ranks, a player has a contractual obligation to honor his or her commitment to the team for a designated term. To be sure, a major reform to this system started to occur more than 50 years ago, in the form of free agency, which was a badly needed rectification, staring in baseball. It is also true that the occasional unhappy superstar or individual malcontent can pressure his way out of the existing contract, or leverage a new, more favorable one. But the overriding reality is that pro and semi-pro sports operate on a contractual business basis. I cannot think of any other organized team sports in this country, from Pop Warner on up, where team jumping is so unconstrained.
By allowing that one free move at any time during the player’s college eligibility years, the wonderful spirit of continuity is lost. That means the continuity for players as they grow and mature together as a unit and sometimes improve a lot. Every year there are teams that have limited individual talent, but the team makes the post-season games or tournaments because the athletes have played together for several seasons. It also means the loss of continuity for fans, who enjoy watching a connected group of players move forward as a team. Instead of continuity, there will be semi-chaos, a substantially new roster in many programs each year. It is also important to note that some players, piggybacking the one free year rule with the hardship clause, and/or a willingness to sit out one season at another school, could and will end up playing at two and three schools (I am not talking about the present situation, where the special one-added-year due to covid coincided with the portal reg.’s change; I am referring to seasons going forward under normal circumstances). The new portal rules are already substituting program chaos for ordered progression. It is having an impact on almost every school in multiple sports, but most especially in men’s and women’s basketball and football.
The other thing that I dislike about the new portal rules is that by shifting the aforementioned recruiting pendulum to the transfer side instead of the HS recruiting side, you have created a system that fundamentally changes college sports, and not for the better. HS players lose opportunity. College sports become 100% about sports, winning and dominance, rendering whatever tenuous link remained to the academic side of college a joke. Why not just make the major sports programs a private, semi-pro business as a money generator for the university? I do understand that there are benefits in this for players, coaches, and programs, but on balance, I dislike the new transfer system.
I say, restore the old system, fix the most inconsistent parts of it, and be done with it. I like the original idea of the transfer portal, to place some order around the process. But the new rules are a quantum leap to something else entirely.
Last edited:
