The Transfer Carousel - 2021-22

[Billyboy78]

I agree with the greater point but not the ALL CAPS words.

Is he going to be a top assistant for a program comparable to URI? Maybe that is believable.

Don’t see him landing at a P5 being billed as a lead recruiter/assistant on the staff. Could he sneak on a P5/BE bench somewhere? Don’t rule anything out but if he did he’s likely joining as the 3rd assistant, perhaps he has more value for a mid-Atlantic program.

But also, define highly paid? Is he landing on a bench as an assistant making $150-$200k? Depends where he ends up.

Regardless hes not landing elite assistant money and surely not making anything close to what he was making. Not sure why emphasizing the word highly.

I mean I guess we’d agree it’s not like he’s going from URI to some low-major.

One thing you have to remember. DC RAMS thinks that David Cox is the greatest coach in the history of basketball.

Ok, run with that. I really stopped giving a fuck about what you all feel about my allegiances and where they lie…it’s truly a tiring exercise. It doesn’t change the fact that the statement is down right dumb.

LMAO! Everyone here knows where your allegiances lie. Whenever Dave leaves, you will follow, just as you arrived exactly when he arrived.

[rambone 78]

The biggest question for me is, will the Bozeman hire make a difference?

If DC is willing to give TB major input toward all aspects of coaching, and can learn from Todd's experience as a HC, maybe that's his best and only shot at staying here.

Of course, we would have thought that Dave would have learned a lot from Dan.......

[section(105)]

…….so this is where we are……hiring assistants that can continue the OJT of the HC……not expecting much coming from that……sad……

[Rhody72]

Too bad there are Rhody fans who can't get behind the head coach and help him be successful. If you have a problem, it is with the AD who hired him. What makes you think that the same AD won't make an even worse replacement decision? URI Athletics was in better shape financially when Cox was hired than they are today. I haven't given up on David Cox becoming a good college head Cox. Then, if you have treated him fairly, maybe he won't walk on you as others have.

[NYGFan_Section208]

Too bad there are Rhody fans who can't get behind the head coach and help him be successful. If you have a problem, it is with the AD who hired him. What makes you think that the same AD won't make an even worse replacement decision? URI Athletics was in better shape financially when Cox was hired than they are today. I haven't given up on David Cox becoming a good college head Cox. Then, if you have treated him fairly, maybe he won't walk on you as others have.

Holy lolz.....so, if we all had been nicer to DH, he'd still be here? Shoulda said something sooner!

[reef]

Also possible Cox gets a low D1 head job like Morgan St level

[Rhody_NYCT]

I'm pretty sure most Rhody fans are supporting Coach Cox and hoping for the best next season. The endless negativity by a handful is just ridiculous. It can't be taken seriously at this point. I think we can have a good season ahead of us. Only time will tell.

[Blue Man]

Every single person that responds to this troll keeps him around.

For the love of god please stop. Ignore him.

[Rhody74]

I suppose at some point we’ll be talking about transfers in this thread.

At some point? My guess is we will be talking about transfers forever.

You missed my point. This thread, lately, hasn’t been about transfers. If you want to discuss Cox’s abilities as a coach create a new one.

[RIFan]

For anyone who has ESPN+ there is an article that may be of interest: Sales Pitch: How do Gonzaga and others outside the top conferences entice recruits?

It focuses on the A10 & Mountain West

The quotes for URI from an anonymous coach were very complimentary...says URI is built for success, nice arena, commitment, nice location...overall a good job and nice school to sell to recruits.

Now of coarse this was before the SCOTUS said schools could pay players...now i suspect more will come into play in "enticing" recruits. On WEEI yesterday Goodman was on and he specifically mentioned how in theory Cooley could get a booster who owns a few car dealerships to offer players $1m to be a spokesperson or appear in ads and that would be legal. Thought is was interesting Cooley was the coach mentioned. They said this ruling was a boosters dream.

Call me old fashion, but I still dont think kids are working for free...a college dregree isn't cheap or free, and if you play your cards right maybe even a masters degree for free...those seems like a valuable assest to me.

[PeterRamTime]

For anyone who has ESPN+ there is an article that may be of interest: Sales Pitch: How do Gonzaga and others outside the top conferences entice recruits?

It focuses on the A10 & Mountain West

The quotes for URI from an anonymous coach were very complimentary...says URI is built for success, nice arena, commitment, nice location...overall a good job and nice school to sell to recruits.

Now of coarse this was before the SCOTUS said schools could pay players...now i suspect more will come into play in "enticing" recruits. On WEEI yesterday Goodman was on and he specifically mentioned how in theory Cooley could get a booster who owns a few car dealerships to offer players $1m to be a spokesperson or appear in ads and that would be legal. Thought is was interesting Cooley was the coach mentioned. They said this ruling was a boosters dream.

Call me old fashion, but I still dont think kids are working for free...a college dregree isn't cheap or free, and if you play your cards right maybe even a masters degree for free...those seems like a valuable assest to me.

Yeah people act like players are being tortured or something.

There's great arguments for paying players, but don't act like it's the biggest travesty in human history.

They get A LOT out of it. Free school that's otherwise worth tens of thousands of dollars. Opportunity upon opportunity. You get to play a sport! Do something you love! Many teams have great facilities you get to enjoy. Be on TV! Be apart of something great if your team wins. Learn a lot from losing. Lifelong memories to cherish. The list goes on.

It really isn't that big of a damn deal.

I have no idea how they're going to figure out how to pay players. Most schools can't.

Name image likeness makes sense, but there's tons of issues attached to that.

It's going to be a whole new ballgame.

How about this, Georgia's incoming 5 start freshman QB already has an endorsement deal on the way while UGA's current Heisman candidate QB doesn't.

What does that do to a locker room? Some dude that's proved nothing gets some dough and the starter gets nothing.

[reef]

For anyone who has ESPN+ there is an article that may be of interest: Sales Pitch: How do Gonzaga and others outside the top conferences entice recruits?

It focuses on the A10 & Mountain West

The quotes for URI from an anonymous coach were very complimentary...says URI is built for success, nice arena, commitment, nice location...overall a good job and nice school to sell to recruits.

Now of coarse this was before the SCOTUS said schools could pay players...now i suspect more will come into play in "enticing" recruits. On WEEI yesterday Goodman was on and he specifically mentioned how in theory Cooley could get a booster who owns a few car dealerships to offer players $1m to be a spokesperson or appear in ads and that would be legal. Thought is was interesting Cooley was the coach mentioned. They said this ruling was a boosters dream.

Call me old fashion, but I still dont think kids are working for free...a college dregree isn't cheap or free, and if you play your cards right maybe even a masters degree for free...those seems like a valuable assest to me.

I read this also , good to see outsiders think their is good upside to the URI coaching job

[NYGFan_Section208]

Kids aren't working for free, but in some instances, they are making a sheet ton o' cash for the school. It's like anything...where there is a ton of money being made (and that billion dollars a year for the NCAAT is going to somebody)...who should it go to if not the players? Same argument as pro sports...there's a lot of money being made...who SHOULD it go to? I'd just as soon see it go to the players...

[RIFan]

I think a lot of the rules were too restrictive and should be updated. It’ll be interesting to see how they are going to maintain a competitive environment. Imagine the transfer portal if players can get a pay raise at another school. Will schools be more likely to rescind a scholarship if they are paying a player and they are not living up to expectations? After all it’s a business...take the good with the bad. Maybe they would just reduce their pay if they are not performing. Thus they get the player for less money or they transfer.I can see the top players getting a guaranteed contract for 4 years...it’s going to be like professional free agency. Going to be interesting...

[NYGFan_Section208]

I think a lot of the rules were too restrictive and should be updated. It’ll be interesting to see how they are going to maintain a competitive environment. Imagine the transfer portal if players can get a pay raise at another school. Will schools be more likely to rescind a scholarship if they are paying a player and they are not living up to expectations? After all it’s a business...take the good with the bad. Maybe they would just reduce their pay if they are not performing. Thus they get the player for less money or they transfer.I can see the top players getting a guaranteed contract for 4 years...it’s going to be like professional free agency. Going to be interesting...

HC is either going to have to be a GM, or get one

[RhodyKyle]

This just paves the way for allowing players to capitalize on their name, image and likeness (NIL). URI doesn't need a GM, it needs more business owner alums that have a need for spokespeople. The SCOTUS ruling just allows Mark Emmert/NCAA to keep their DiMaggio-like streak of being on the wrong side of common sense to keep on rolling.

[rjsuperfly66]

Per my understanding, the NCAA wasn’t against NIL, just about restricting aspects of it. I believe the NCAA was very worried about the “booster” aspect, that any business owner whether fan or not can offer $$ with no cap… that if a car dealership owner wanted to pay a kid $250k for an advertisement even thought that owner is a program booster, season ticket holder, etc, he can. There was an article by CBS the other day that expressed this, that any attempt by the NCAA to try to limit income would likely result in another losing lawsuit. Don’t think the NCAA is wrong on this one.

[RIFan]

Will be interesting, if player X gets a 4 year "contract" but is not performing up to expectations and his playing time is reduced significantly. Now does that player stay when he normally would have transferred, because no way he gets that same money elsewhere? So many potential new scenarios!

[Jersey77]

Which players stay in the draft, return to their school, or remain in the transfer portal?

[RhowdyRam02]

I don't think this is going to have the effect that most do. Think about it, this money has already been going to bigger schools and they've used those funds on facilities and amenities because they couldn't pay the athletes themselves. Instead of money going to those things now they'll be going directly to the player. We'll be just as far behind as we've always been, just in a different area now

[rjsuperfly66]

Are you sure about that?

Obviously there are fundraising ventures where someone donates to a very specific need (practice facility, turf, etc.)

But when someone makes a general donation, is that going directly to the program or is it potentially being reallocated to other parts of the athletic department?

So now if fans are saying “We’ll give some money but let’s also give back to the players,” it may not necessarily hurt the basketball program but is it having a significant negative impact on the athletic department as a whole?

I’m not sure how every $$ funnels through at every school, but my first thought is that more low-end athletic programs end up getting cut at a lot of places.

[RhodyKyle]

Per my understanding, the NCAA wasn’t against NIL, just about restricting aspects of it. I believe the NCAA was very worried about the “booster” aspect, that any business owner whether fan or not can offer $$ with no cap… that if a car dealership owner wanted to pay a kid $250k for an advertisement even thought that owner is a program booster, season ticket holder, etc, he can. There was an article by CBS the other day that expressed this, that any attempt by the NCAA to try to limit income would likely result in another losing lawsuit. Don’t think the NCAA is wrong on this one.

They were 100% against it until states started passing their own laws allowing it. Now the NCAA wants to come in and start legislating NIL rules. The issue now is that they were on the wrong side and they lost control of NIL rules. If Emmert wasn't such a chode and embraced this from the beginning, the NCAA could define the rules and the states would have never gotten involved. NCAA could have handled this and made sure there were booster provisions in place...but Emmert/NCAA dug their heels in and now they are totally screwed.

Now what is he going to do? He can't kick out institutions that follow their state's laws. CA, MI, FL and AL already passed NIL laws. CT, AZ, NC and KY all have bills introduced. Will the NCAA kick out all of their top programs? In those states you have Duke, UNC, UConn, UCLA, USC, FSU, UF, Bama, Auburn, UM, Michigan State, Kentucky, Louisville, Arizona and ASU.

Not to mention that almost every single state has either passed a law or has one already introduced to be voted on.

[RhowdyRam02]

Are you sure about that?

Obviously there are fundraising ventures where someone donates to a very specific need (practice facility, turf, etc.)

But when someone makes a general donation, is that going directly to the program or is it potentially being reallocated to other parts of the athletic department?

So now if fans are saying “We’ll give some money but let’s also give back to the players,” it may not necessarily hurt the basketball program but is it having a significant negative impact on the athletic department as a whole?

I’m not sure how every $$ funnels through at every school, but my first thought is that more low-end athletic programs end up getting cut at a lot of places.

In fairness I'm comparing this to a lot of things I've read that college sports are dead, URI is dead, college sports aren't worth following anymore. There will be major changes, but in the end I think most of the programs we care about will be about where they were coming into today. Yes, I'm sure athletic departments will cut programs, but was it ever really fair for basketball and football players to be subsidizing those scholarships in the first place?

[rjsuperfly66]

Per my understanding, the NCAA wasn’t against NIL, just about restricting aspects of it. I believe the NCAA was very worried about the “booster” aspect, that any business owner whether fan or not can offer $$ with no cap… that if a car dealership owner wanted to pay a kid $250k for an advertisement even thought that owner is a program booster, season ticket holder, etc, he can. There was an article by CBS the other day that expressed this, that any attempt by the NCAA to try to limit income would likely result in another losing lawsuit. Don’t think the NCAA is wrong on this one.

They were 100% against it until states started passing their own laws allowing it. Now the NCAA wants to come in and start legislating NIL rules. The issue now is that they were on the wrong side and they lost control of NIL rules. If Emmert wasn't such a chode and embraced this from the beginning, the NCAA could define the rules and the states would have never gotten involved. NCAA could have handled this and made sure there were booster provisions in place...but Emmert/NCAA dug their heels in and now they are totally screwed.

Now what is he going to do? He can't kick out institutions that follow their state's laws. CA, MI, FL and AL already passed NIL laws. CT, AZ, NC and KY all have bills introduced. Will the NCAA kick out all of their top programs? In those states you have Duke, UNC, UConn, UCLA, USC, FSU, UF, Bama, Auburn, UM, Michigan State, Kentucky, Louisville, Arizona and ASU.

Not to mention that almost every single state has either passed a law or has one already introduced to be voted on.

True but there were a lot of people against it in the very beginning, just like there were many people against the living stipends (or whatever it’s formal name is) until Napier/LeBron made it a big deal. I don’t blame people for being behind the 8-ball but what matters is how they adjust to it. The NCAA did embrace this in 2019 (admittedly after CA passed it) and rather than fight it tooth and nail to the end tried to find a fair pathway to move forward. They had already established an NIL commission before the CA ruling was passed, so it’s not like it was a reactive move to their ruling. But even then the sticking point was that critics of the NCAA called their guidance “restrictive.”

Trying it back into recruiting/transfers, I’m sure an aspect of recruiting will be players going to current team members and saying “How much do you make?” If the average player on Team A makes $5k and the average player on Team B makes $50k, doesn’t it make recruiting more about money? That’s always been my issue with this NIL rollout. Not about the coach, the facilities, the conference, for many players itll be about getting close to the highest bidder. Might the other things make a difference if arguing about $45k vs $50k? Perhaps.

[RIFan]

It's funny how free agency in the NBA has become more of a recruitment of players by players, and the NCAA is now poised to become more of a salary based free agency, with players going openly to the highest bidder.

[SGreenwell]

It's funny how free agency in the NBA has become more of a recruitment of players by players, and the NCAA is now poised to become more of a salary based free agency, with players going openly to the highest bidder.

Separate kind of issues, though. The NBA made the "mistake" of setting max salaries low enough that two or three of those players could end up on one team. And given the emphasis on "RINGS OR SHUT UP!!!" among people evaluating legacies, well, it makes sense the players would collude and lobby one another to give themselves the best chance at a championship. (By the way - I'm not sure if this is any better or worse than how it was done before, which was basically that by the luck of ping-pong balls, a team had control of your professional destiny for 3 to unlimited years, depending on the NBA era.)

With the new NCAA regulations, we'll have to see how things pan out. My suspicion is that less is going to change than people think. Like, if you're Trevor Lawrence, he probably would have loved the ability to earn great money while he was still in school. I doubt Lamar Odom was going to stay at URI for another year regardless of the circumstances, but if we had more of a fringe NBA prospect - a guy projected as a late first round pick his junior year - then maybe his ability to do off-season basketball camps in Rhode Island, and pocketing that cash, is the difference between him staying or leaving.

From that perspective, I think there's a chance it might incentivize some players to stay in college longer. But I don't think it means that the 6th man at Duke is going to be getting a ton of endorsement money, or some sham internship. If anything, it might increase talent distribution - Why be the second or third banana at Duke if you can be the clear #1 option at a slightly worse program?

[rjsuperfly66]

Well it depends - sports becomes almost more about the endowment and having large donors/more money in the fan base.

Take URI - What’s the max money you think “donors” are spending on one player? $100K per year? Yet there might be blue blood schools out there with donors who can pay $100K per year minimum, with guys making 3-4x that.

With the monetization of social media posts, etc., you need to be playing in places with maximum visibility, from the fan base to the national stage.

Or how about this - a bunch of donors work together to get 1-2 guys to a school, but it creates a bunch of jealous/chemistry issues and all those guys leave. Or when a guy sees his stock blow up and he lets it known to those around him “I’ll stay but I need money like what URI Player X makes.”

Idk I guess I would just be very surprised to see that smaller schools would have such a great financial backing that they can compete with larger powers for individual players.

They struggle now, this just feels like something that’ll make it even worse.

[RIFan]

I hope the future is closer to what SGreenwell sees, but I think it's closer to rjsuperfly66. What if the URI donors go all in on a guy, now they have set prcedent, now the next top target is going to want to be paid...money will equal respect. It's going to set the pecking order and if the money and the talent don't end up matching then we have ego problems. The pockets better be deeeeeep.

[rhodylaw]

I don't see very money programs offering money that will be close to professional basketball contracts (in USA or oversees). Will we miss out on some guys who want a few thousand dollars more now, sure. But as long as the program consistently produces professional basketball players I think we will see enough guys who will pass up being the 7th guy on a team where they make a few thousand dollars to be THE GUY. That exposure will lead to more money later.

We are going to have to pay something to the players though if that is what starts happening.

[rjsuperfly66]

My concern with that approach is that it’s whys basically already happening - there is a reason Duke/Kentucky clean up the Top 20… it’d be easy now for recruit #25 in the country whose the 5th best in Kentucky’s class to say “Let me go elsewhere and shine,” but they don’t. Now there is a potential financial component.

Teams were illegally paying Top 35 recruits several thousand dollars … what it is going to look like when boosters can write off these as “business expenses?” Do you really think Kentucky’s boosters are only going to compensate players a couple of thousand dollars? Do you think programs with a lot of deep-pocketed donors are only going to cough up a few thousand dollars?

Most kids don’t care about exposure from playing a bigger role at a lesser program now, what’s that going to look like when money is at play?

[bigappleram]

The market will likely be multi tiered

The 1%: this will be the Zions of the world, most likely from basketball or football programs. The guys/gals with national profiles that would be potentially interesting partners for big corporate brands in endemic categories. Think Nike, Gatorade, nutrition space, training industry, etc. Don’t think these guys will get big car deals or cell phone deals but there will be National opps for them.

The mid tier guys/gals with social media followings: this will encompass all sports from the URI point guard (think Fatts) to the swimmer at UCLA with a sizable social footprint. There will be action here from local/regional businesses, camp and instruction dollars to be had, autograph signings, appearances etc. Smaller deals but savvy social media users will be able to land five figure deals in this space.

Everyone else. No change for a huge number of folks there just won’t be demand for it in an open market.

Unscrupulous boosters will be able to play in both of first two buckets. With bucket 1 who cares, those won’t be kids that would ever consider Rhody anyhow. In the 2nd bucket there could be kids that we target that could potentially get bigger carrot dangled from a UConn, St John’s, DePaul or any number of schools with bigger donor bases. That second bucket also has the potential to encourage players to spend more time monetizing their social presence than practicing their craft.

[rambone 78]

The obvious bottom line from all this is, URI will have to spend even more if they want to compete at the top of the A10.

Dayton and VCU have much bigger budgets and a lot larger donor base.

A big money race does not suit URI well.

[McRam]

I guess what I am trying to figure out is how much would a player like "Fatts" get? How about the Mitchell twins or for that matter Ish?

[rhodylaw]

I guess what I am trying to figure out is how much would a player like "Fatts" get? How about the Mitchell twins or for that matter Ish?

I think a program like RHODY is going to be better off using assets to retain players over recruiting them. Come up with a baseline number you give all players as a stipend 5k-15k, then when they come in and actually perform start looking at ways to increase their compensation with marketing campaigns, NIL, camps and for a select few superstars more direct cash.

[theblueram]

Wait, I thought this was about endorsements and not schools paying players. Not sure how much Cardi's is going to pay URI basketball players.

[rhodylaw]

Wait, I thought this was about endorsements and not schools paying players. Not sure how much Cardi's is going to pay URI basketball players.

I think we are just going down the rabbit hole - I actually have what might be a really cool idea on the NIL and how to generate revenue for players but won’t go into it here.

[rjsuperfly66]

Wait, I thought this was about endorsements and not schools paying players. Not sure how much Cardi's is going to pay URI basketball players.

I think the general speculation is that rather than donating to the schools, donors with deep pockets will run “advertising expenses” through their business and compensate players that way… Essentially that you will see donors working together on compensation plans for players to elevate the program. The school can’t/isn’t directly paying the players but in a way it will be important for the school to have the right donors in place to make compensation competitive because ultimately at the end of the day players will be able to compare NIL earnings from school to school as a recruiting tactic.

[Ramulous]

What type of schools have boosters who will raise the money to buy out an unsuccessful coach with upwards of $5M ? Very few in the A10 or big east

[McRam]

Maybe I misread something, but, is there anything preventing a school from paying directly. ?

[Jersey77]

[Cameron_Dollar]

What type of schools have boosters who will raise the money to buy out an unsuccessful coach with upwards of $5M ? Very few in the A10 or big east

The Boston Celtics, worth well over one billion dollars, did not want to buy out Brad Stevens; so they bumped him upstairs. Schools will overpay if necessary to get their coach but not as quick to pull the trigger, let a coach go and face a huge buyout

[Jersey77]

Nice pickup for Shaka
Big10 Defensive POY last season

[ramster]

LeBlanc played with Christion Thompson at Madison Prep. LeBlanc was a freshman while Thompson was a senior. We looked at LeBlanc for a while.
LeBlanc transferred from Georgetown after his freshman year to LSU.

[rhodylaw]

LeBlanc played with Christion Thompson at Madison Prep. LeBlanc was a freshman while Thompson was a senior. We looked at LeBlanc for a while.
LeBlanc transferred from Georgetown after his freshman year to LSU.

So he is a sit out transfer?

[Jersey77]

LeBlanc played with Christion Thompson at Madison Prep. LeBlanc was a freshman while Thompson was a senior. We looked at LeBlanc for a while.
LeBlanc transferred from Georgetown after his freshman year to LSU.

So he is a sit out transfer?

It would appear so, would probably need a waiver to be eligible this season.

[ramster]

LeBlanc played with Christion Thompson at Madison Prep. LeBlanc was a freshman while Thompson was a senior. We looked at LeBlanc for a while.
LeBlanc transferred from Georgetown after his freshman year to LSU.

So he is a sit out transfer?

It would appear so, would probably need a waiver to be eligible this season.

He played 2 years at LSU. Transferring this year with the new immediate eligible rule in place. He can play now.

[Jersey77]

So he is a sit out transfer?

It would appear so, would probably need a waiver to be eligible this season.

He played 2 years at LSU. Transferring this year with the new immediate eligible rule in place. He can play now.

Ramster, I believe he played 1 year (18-19) plus 6 games (19-20) at Georgetown, then a year at LSU.

The no-sit rule only applies to one time transfers.

[ramster]

It would appear so, would probably need a waiver to be eligible this season.

He played 2 years at LSU. Transferring this year with the new immediate eligible rule in place. He can play now.

Ramster, I believe he played 1 year (18-19) plus 6 games (19-20) at Georgetown, then a year at LSU.

The no-sit rule only applies to one time transfers.

One time transfers moving forward as I understand it.

Do you are telling me that a player who transferred in the past, sat out a year then played at a new school must sit out a year again?

I thought anyone who played this past season can transfer and be immediately eligible. No?

If not I see lawsuits coming which is the driving factor for the NCAA changing the rule in the first place to coincide with other college sports such as tennis, golf, swimming, etc. only some sports had the sit out a year rule - not all college sports. NCAA is getting more and more legal challenges due to their inconsistent and bad rules. Hence the latest 9-0 Supreme Court decision that surprised with its unanimous verdict. Most expected 6-3 or 7-2………not unanimous.

[Jersey77]

He played 2 years at LSU. Transferring this year with the new immediate eligible rule in place. He can play now.

Ramster, I believe he played 1 year (18-19) plus 6 games (19-20) at Georgetown, then a year at LSU.

The no-sit rule only applies to one time transfers.

One time transfers moving forward as I understand it.

Do you are telling me that a player who transferred in the past, sat out a year then played at a new school must sit out a year again?

I thought anyone who played this past season can transfer and be immediately eligible. No?

If not I see lawsuits coming which is the driving factor for the NCAA changing the rule in the first place to coincide with other campus sports.

Yes, I believe that is how it is interpreted and the no sit rule doesn't apply to athletes that transferred in the past.
See below.
I believe LeBlanc was granted a waiver, because he transferred close to home at LSU and left Georgetown under bad circumstances.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... demic-year

The players who entered the portal were advised and had the understanding if they would qualify under the new rule.

Even though the twins transferred here prior to the rule change, if they decided to enter the portal again they would need to be granted a waiver to be immediately eligible.

[Billyboy78]