DEL Daily News
DEL Time: 16:52
Request For: College Basketball|
Request Title: Transfers
800 transfers in D1 basketball last season, DEL isn't reflecting real life when it comes to transfers.
How can we get the game to a take a step in the right direction?
Reasons a guy would transfer
1. Reduction in Minutes- If a player is getting 20 MPG against cupcakes and then his minutes during conference play is cut back to say 5mpg per game during conference play, he might see the writing on the wall and transfer due to frustration and losing trust in the coach.
This could also encourage coaches to play a tougher OOC schedule to keep minutes constant for players, play deeper benches all years, or play shallow benches all year at the risk of injury.
The drop-off would have to be dramatic. For example, minutes cut down by 75% over last 10 games compared to previous 10 or 1st 10...something of that nature.
2. Breaking Promises- If a coach promises playing time/starting role (more on that in another post) to a player and he does not get those minutes, it is an automatic transfer.
3. Depth Chart Projection- If a C or better player is a Sophomore or older and at the end of the season he 3rd string (100% transfer) or even 2nd string (25% chance of transfer), he may decide to transfer due to wanting a starting role/bigger role at another school.
This would hurt big schools who have over recruited players that never developed to full potential possibly and wants more PT.
4. Low Tier Exposure/Winning- Players who have redshirted at programs that are not on the highest tier who are B or better players, who did not make the tournament last year and are going into senior years, can transfer. Maybe we make the rate 50% roughly.
I would estimate this would be maybe 20/40 players per year?
5. Losing Culture- If a player is a senior rated B or better, is at the highest Tier program and has never had a winning record in conference play during his 1st three years of play, 100% transfer due to frustration of playing for a perennial loser..not matter if he was redshirted or not. If he was not redshirted, he will sit out 1 year and play 1 to finish out his career.
Junior or younger would not transfer due to losing.
This would add a few players to the pool. Probably hurting CPU programs that never win.
Would love thoughts, bad suggestions? Anything that should be added?
Admin notes - combining this with another request so we can keep the discussion on one thread. Other suggested criteria unique from those above:
6. Superior players redshirting
7. Bad season for the team
8. Not on scholarship
9. Former starter now on bench
Submitted Oct 31 16:02:49 2019
by Luke McCann
Coaches In Favor of Change: Luke McCann, Stephen Thompson, Loren Smith, Ron BK DD
Coaches Opposed to Change: Coach Shers, Bill Edwards
Stephen Thompson: I like this - but I think to make this work (especially #5), players would need a new attribute during recruiting which is "Desire to play for winner." And how is "wants to play for winner" fundamentally different from "looking for higher exposure"? Both of these basically tie into "higher prestige" right?
--- one more thing, the #1 driver of kids going into the transfer portal is coaching changes.
Luke McCann: Stephen,
As a response to your input which I value.
I think they are many good players at low tier schools that never get talked about.
Just a quick glance, you have Hartford with a losing record right now, player 483 S.Bell which is an A rated player.
If he transferred to an ACC school, it would be "news" with our "community". Duke signed a 5th year grade transfer S. Bell who could potentially start. ect ect.
Duke is struggling this year it seems, but overall if Bell was in the ACC....he gets more "exposure" than playing in a small conference with no human coaches or coverage.
Which in real life, many starters at lower tier conferences move up to bigger conference schools for yes, the chance to play in the big dance...but also better program, resources, facilities, and it gives them more creditability and opportunity to land overseas contracts.
What sounds better, a guy who averaged 8ppg at Duke or 12 PPG at Hartford?
Also, even if RonBK is having a rough year at Duke in the ACC, they still go up against the better programs in the nation which hypothetically would be aired on national TV, covered by national media. That is what I mean by exposure.
If Bell scores 30 points against FSU and beats them in a upset....he would get much more exposure than scoring 30 points at Hartford.
So in general, higher tier programs offer more exposure even if they are a losing program just because of the competition they play.
Loren Smith: In general, I think Andy's potential changes make sense. I have a couple of thoughts:
For 3 (Depth Chart Projection). Basketball is hard with ability to play multiple positions; there have been times when I've played someone at a position one year and then played him elsewhere later as the roster changes.
To Stephen's point, would we need some way to see each player's general attitude, similar to the PtP info provided today. I'd like to be able to decide whether to find a way to play the disgruntled guy more or just let him walk. Maybe with a little bit of uncertainty as with EPBL low minor league players?
Coach Shers: All Andy's points make sense
I'm voting against but here's why - yes there are a large number of transfers, but they typically aren't the top tier or even the starting lineup of teams. Its typically either after a coaching change has happened (which isn't what we're talking about here, but maybe we should? more on that in a second) but its more often than not kids who think they should be getting more PT even though they haven't cracked the rotation.
I think if the focus was given there, borderline guys with a huge potential number (however that is factored) that forces the coaches to make a gamble on them.
Otherwise where I think we see a number of real life transfers is coach moves. Maybe when we do have a coaching change/vacancy/promotion, a higher number of players than normal transfer out of that school. Would cause chaos (scorched earth) behind if not careful, but thats more in line with reality I think
So anyway, I think if we did something like the above that doesn't really move the needle a whole heck of a lot. Would mean more recruits in the no-region/transfer area which would be nice but not sure its mirroring reality
Ron BK DD (Jan 6 19:57:07 2020
): I really like this change
Status: In Work (last updated Jan 31 17:28:25 2020
Priority: Long Term
I'm certainly willing to consider more aggressive transferring. However, some of these are already in the game, some are possible additions, and some are simply not feasible. Specific comments regarding the criteria:
1. The game doesn't track number of minutes per game. This is a non-starter.
2. This is already in the game.
3. This is partially already in the game - if a player demands starter playing time and doesn't receive it, he would transfer. That said, those demands are based on talent on the depth chart, so we could add a second set of players who aren't demanding playing time (i.e., they won't get dissatisfied and start tanking their performance) but will transfer if they don't get it.
4. I don't think upperclassmen can redshirt in DEL, so this is not applicable.
5. This would be a challenge, as the game doesn't track win-loss record by player and doesn't track past season conference record or final ranking at all. Given this could only be applied to overall record, it seems that it would give yet more motivation for mediocre major-conference teams to schedule nothing but cupcakes non-conference. This doesn't strike me as a good thing, so probably also a non-starter.
6. To be fairer to coaches, I think the appropriate thing here is that any player who would transfer if redshirted should refuse to redshirt.
7. Basing transfers on the results of the season that just ended would mitigate the issues for #5 above, as the game would have the conference record, rankings, and any mitigating circumstances such as a tournament win. That said, this may be realistic but seems like piling-on - not only do you have a disappointing season but your top players then all leave. I'm not inclined to support this.
8. This is already in the game.
9. This one is certainly possible, at least in sports where amount of playing time is in the player's history (e.g., basketball shows minutes/game) so it would be straightforward to see if playing time had been significantly diminished.
In summary, it seems the only feasible changes are to:
a. Augment the number of players asking for significant playing time to include those with A/B talent, not just those most talented on their rosters.
b. Add a transfer criterion based on reduction in playing time from previous seasons.
c. Players can refuse to redshirt
I will hold this open for additional comments before moving to "in work" status.