we have entered the era of college transfer free agents

no transfer year sit out year... image and likeness compensation... change of culture ... no contract period or salary cap like the nba

all these factors favor the power teams, and widen the gap between them and the rest of the teams. Collectively they are a major and radical game changer

So what's Cal's strategy in this new world order? It's critical that we have a strategy, and either ride the wave, or be washed ashore

HoopDreams said:

---

we have entered the era of college transfer free agents

no transfer year sit out year... image and likeness compensation... change of culture ... no contract period or salary cap like the nba

all these factors favor the power teams, and widen the gap between them and the rest of the teams. Collectively they are a major and radical game changer

So what's Cal's strategy in this new world order? It's critical that we have a strategy, and either ride the wave, or be washed ashore

---

Some thoughts, not necessarily in order:
1. I think the notion of having a coach with a system that uses 4 year players to produce senior laden teams is a quant anachronism.
2. Teams will be fluid and coaches need to be very flexible to adapt their strategy to the players they end up with each year.
3. Do not redshirt a player except for injury.
4. Top teams will get top transfers, but they will also continue taking top freshman talent for a long time. It will take awhile for them to abandon the current practices that they dominate. Their reserves will transfer, it will be harder for them to stockpile talent.
5. If a player comes in as a transfer, they cannot transfer again (except as a grad) without losing a year. Thus taking transfers is better than taking freshmen.

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

we have entered the era of college transfer free agents

no transfer year sit out year... image and likeness compensation... change of culture ... no contract period or salary cap like the nba

all these factors favor the power teams, and widen the gap between them and the rest of the teams. Collectively they are a major and radical game changer

So what's Cal's strategy in this new world order? It's critical that we have a strategy, and either ride the wave, or be washed ashore

---

Some thoughts, not necessarily in order:
1. I think the notion of having a coach with a system that uses 4 year players to produce senior laden teams is a quant anachronism.
2. Teams will be fluid and coaches need to be very flexible to adapt their strategy to the players they end up with each year.
3. Do not redshirt a player except for injury.
4. Top teams will get top transfers, but they will also continue taking top freshman talent for a long time. It will take awhile for them to abandon the current practices that they dominate. Their reserves will transfer, it will be harder for them to stockpile talent.
5. If a player comes in as a transfer, they cannot transfer again (except as a grad) without losing a year. Thus taking transfers is better than taking freshmen.

---

Agree withj most of this as well as HD's comments, but I would point out that most of this impacts the top 20 programs - leaving over 300 teams relatively unchanged. So . . . . the quaint anachronism may still apply to them.

And maybe its time to be best of the rest?

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

we have entered the era of college transfer free agents

no transfer year sit out year... image and likeness compensation... change of culture ... no contract period or salary cap like the nba

all these factors favor the power teams, and widen the gap between them and the rest of the teams. Collectively they are a major and radical game changer

So what's Cal's strategy in this new world order? It's critical that we have a strategy, and either ride the wave, or be washed ashore

---

Some thoughts, not necessarily in order:
1. I think the notion of having a coach with a system that uses 4 year players to produce senior laden teams is a quant anachronism.
2. Teams will be fluid and coaches need to be very flexible to adapt their strategy to the players they end up with each year.
3. Do not redshirt a player except for injury.
4. Top teams will get top transfers, but they will also continue taking top freshman talent for a long time. It will take awhile for them to abandon the current practices that they dominate. Their reserves will transfer, it will be harder for them to stockpile talent.
5. If a player comes in as a transfer, they cannot transfer again (except as a grad) without losing a year. Thus taking transfers is better than taking freshmen.

---

Agree withj most of this as well as HD's comments, but I would point out that most of this impacts the top 20 programs - leaving over 300 teams relatively unchanged. So . . . . the quaint anachronism may still apply to them.

And maybe its time to be best of the rest?

---

If you are outside the top 20 and you take a recruit with the idea of a 4 year development cycle and you get one worthless year, one poor to mediocre year, one good year, and then he transfers to a top 20 for his great year, you are impacted. I think that calumnus is right to that a four year plan in basketball is naive.

No point in taking projects that you can develop for someone else.

It is a horrible situation because, bluntly, while this may be the policy for ATHLETICS it decidedly is NOT for the regular student body (or the athletes in the classroom). It is hard to do great research on this topic (universities are so nontransparent with their data) but the best studies suggest that up to 35% of hours do not "Articulate". This policy is going to mean a lot more kids do not graduate. But hey, gotta worship at the all mightly $$$ temple, kids be dammed.

(one of the reasons I say that is if you think the schools the transfer is going to are going to be upfront about that loss of units I got a covid-cure to sell you.)

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

we have entered the era of college transfer free agents

no transfer year sit out year... image and likeness compensation... change of culture ... no contract period or salary cap like the nba

all these factors favor the power teams, and widen the gap between them and the rest of the teams. Collectively they are a major and radical game changer

So what's Cal's strategy in this new world order? It's critical that we have a strategy, and either ride the wave, or be washed ashore

---

Some thoughts, not necessarily in order:
1. I think the notion of having a coach with a system that uses 4 year players to produce senior laden teams is a quant anachronism.
2. Teams will be fluid and coaches need to be very flexible to adapt their strategy to the players they end up with each year.
3. Do not redshirt a player except for injury.
4. Top teams will get top transfers, but they will also continue taking top freshman talent for a long time. It will take awhile for them to abandon the current practices that they dominate. Their reserves will transfer, it will be harder for them to stockpile talent.
5. If a player comes in as a transfer, they cannot transfer again (except as a grad) without losing a year. Thus taking transfers is better than taking freshmen.

---

Agree withj most of this as well as HD's comments, but I would point out that most of this impacts the top 20 programs - leaving over 300 teams relatively unchanged. So . . . . the quaint anachronism may still apply to them.

And maybe its time to be best of the rest?

---

If you are outside the top 20 and you take a recruit with the idea of a 4 year development cycle and you get one worthless year, one poor to mediocre year, one good year, and then he transfers to a top 20 for his great year, you are impacted. I think that calumnus is right to that a four year plan in basketball is naive.

No point in taking projects that you can develop for someone else.

---

Pretty much most of the NON P5 programs have been doing just this for years. Naive, maybe, but only a few have been able to break that barrier (Gonzaga). I guess my point is that the the rest of the P5, that aren't top 20 (about another 100 programs) probably need to be more flexible or join a lower tier conference.

I should have added to my list of changing factors, the mid-year transfers!

and this probably favors schools on the quarter system to boot