Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 15:16:47 GMT -5
Am I reading the first post (the post the OP updates) correctly? 148 D1s transferred last for this year? So that would be 325 D1 schools X 9 scholarships = 2925 total. 148 / 2925 = 5% So 5% of eligible* D1s choose to transfer? Does that seem high/low. It is only 1/20. I was thinking it is pretty good (ie. low). * "eligible" = Seniors cannot transfer which is why I assume only 9 scholarships per school since 3 of the athletes on each team could not transfer. Senior with a year of eligibility left can transfer. I understand that but had to make some assumption to get a percentage. What I was trying to ask is whether the whole transfer portal did not change that much? I would love to hear rich kern's views on this. You would have expected a huge increase in transfers when you lowered the barrier, made it safer and added the technology factor that helps you shop yourself. But 5% does not seem that high to me. It seems pretty low actually. on average it would seem that each D1 school would only have 1 transfer every 3 years? That would seem to indicate that the changes did little to affect transfers?
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Sept 3, 2019 16:06:29 GMT -5
Am I reading the first post (the post the OP updates) correctly? 148 D1s transferred last for this year? So that would be 325 D1 schools X 9 scholarships = 2925 total. 148 / 2925 = 5% So 5% of eligible* D1s choose to transfer? Does that seem high/low. It is only 1/20. I was thinking it is pretty good (ie. low). * "eligible" = Seniors cannot transfer which is why I assume only 9 scholarships per school since 3 of the athletes on each team could not transfer. You may be reading that correctly, but there are many players in the portal other than the 148. There are 554 players listed in the portal for "Women's Volleyball" from D1 institutions. Of course, not all of those were on scholarship and a few of those withdrew their request or just decided not to play anymore. I think the "148" number came from cases that were confirmed via press release or individual's social media accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 16:35:03 GMT -5
Am I reading the first post (the post the OP updates) correctly? 148 D1s transferred last for this year? So that would be 325 D1 schools X 9 scholarships = 2925 total. 148 / 2925 = 5% So 5% of eligible* D1s choose to transfer? Does that seem high/low. It is only 1/20. I was thinking it is pretty good (ie. low). * "eligible" = Seniors cannot transfer which is why I assume only 9 scholarships per school since 3 of the athletes on each team could not transfer. You may be reading that correctly, but there are many players in the portal other than the 148. There are 554 players listed in the portal for "Women's Volleyball" from D1 institutions. Of course, not all of those were on scholarship and a few of those withdrew their request or just decided not to play anymore. I think the "148" number came from cases that were confirmed via press release or individual's social media accounts. Now that is interesting. So 554 out of 2925 athletes want to transfer (still assuming players in their 4th year rarely want to transfer). But still, is that a lot of people? Seems more troubling (1 in 6).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 17:00:10 GMT -5
You may be reading that correctly, but there are many players in the portal other than the 148. There are 554 players listed in the portal for "Women's Volleyball" from D1 institutions. Of course, not all of those were on scholarship and a few of those withdrew their request or just decided not to play anymore. I think the "148" number came from cases that were confirmed via press release or individual's social media accounts. Now that is interesting. So 554 out of 2925 athletes want to transfer (still assuming players in their 4th year rarely want to transfer). But still, is that a lot of people? Seems more troubling (1 in 6). That’s still much lower than the general student population, which transfer at around 25%.
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Sept 3, 2019 17:26:21 GMT -5
You may be reading that correctly, but there are many players in the portal other than the 148. There are 554 players listed in the portal for "Women's Volleyball" from D1 institutions. Of course, not all of those were on scholarship and a few of those withdrew their request or just decided not to play anymore. I think the "148" number came from cases that were confirmed via press release or individual's social media accounts. Now that is interesting. So 554 out of 2925 athletes want to transfer (still assuming players in their 4th year rarely want to transfer). But still, is that a lot of people? Seems more troubling (1 in 6). I would also think that 2925 number is low. Why 325 x 9? A fully-funded D1 has 12 available scholarships (I know not all are fully funded), also taking into account schools that have walk-ons or 2-for-2s. I would say that, instead of 2925, you take the number of teams and multiply it by 13 or 14 (a smaller roster size) to get a more accurate representation of how many players there are. You do not have to be "on scholarship" to appear in the portal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 20:43:03 GMT -5
Now that is interesting. So 554 out of 2925 athletes want to transfer (still assuming players in their 4th year rarely want to transfer). But still, is that a lot of people? Seems more troubling (1 in 6). I would also think that 2925 number is low. Why 325 x 9? A fully-funded D1 has 12 available scholarships (I know not all are fully funded), also taking into account schools that have walk-ons or 2-for-2s. I would say that, instead of 2925, you take the number of teams and multiply it by 13 or 14 (a smaller roster size) to get a more accurate representation of how many players there are. You do not have to be "on scholarship" to appear in the portal. Ok, I do not disagree with your logic but I needed to make an assumption. I assumed 1/4 of the athletes on the team are already in their 4th year and are NOT part of the "eligible population" (ie. they cannot transfer and play somewhere else). I know, there are some that redshirted etc. etc. but it is an assumption.
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Sept 3, 2019 21:25:14 GMT -5
I would also think that 2925 number is low. Why 325 x 9? A fully-funded D1 has 12 available scholarships (I know not all are fully funded), also taking into account schools that have walk-ons or 2-for-2s. I would say that, instead of 2925, you take the number of teams and multiply it by 13 or 14 (a smaller roster size) to get a more accurate representation of how many players there are. You do not have to be "on scholarship" to appear in the portal. Ok, I do not disagree with your logic but I needed to make an assumption. I assumed 1/4 of the athletes on the team are already in their 4th year and are NOT part of the "eligible population" (ie. they cannot transfer and play somewhere else). I know, there are some that redshirted etc. etc. but it is an assumption. Ok, that makes sense to me. The other part of the transfer portal, though, is that there are several players listed who exhausted all 4 years of indoor eligibility but are in the portal to try to go somewhere to play a year of beach vb. Last year, there wasn’t a way to sort them out without doing a little bit of digging. For this year, they have a better way of marking those individuals. Of the few athletes who are already in the portal for this 2019-2020 cycle, I think about half of them are this type of player. Not sure what that number was last year.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Sept 9, 2019 20:58:52 GMT -5
Senior with a year of eligibility left can transfer. I understand that but had to make some assumption to get a percentage. What I was trying to ask is whether the whole transfer portal did not change that much? I would love to hear rich kern's views on this. You would have expected a huge increase in transfers when you lowered the barrier, made it safer and added the technology factor that helps you shop yourself. But 5% does not seem that high to me. It seems pretty low actually. on average it would seem that each D1 school would only have 1 transfer every 3 years? That would seem to indicate that the changes did little to affect transfers? What I've read is mostly based on football results, but the indications are that the # of transfers with the portal are not significantly different from prior transfer numbers. Someone may have the numbers, but my recall is that 148 in volleyball is not vastly different from prior numbers.
Perhaps some possible reasons. Players being blocked previously from transferring was perhaps overblown. Also there must be two interested parties to complete a transfer. A couple of reports said that a number of players found out that there was little interest from other schools or at least schools at the level that they desired.
How did the portal make transferring safer?
|
|
|
Post by beachcomber on Sept 12, 2019 16:02:44 GMT -5
Beach transfer: Darby Dunn, formerly of Stetson, is now at LMU. Last year, she and partner Sammee Thomas were named to the NCAA beach Volleyball Championship All-Tournament team. Dunn has been a three-time ASUN Pair of the Year winner, and won two ACVA Top Flight Awards. She leaves Stetson with an 86-22 career record over three seasons, including a perfect 37-0 conference record, the third-best wins total in program history.
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Sept 12, 2019 23:23:41 GMT -5
Beach transfer: Darby Dunn, formerly of Stetson, is now at LMU. Last year, she and partner Sammee Thomas were named to the NCAA beach Volleyball Championship All-Tournament team. Dunn has been a three-time ASUN Pair of the Year winner, and won two ACVA Top Flight Awards. She leaves Stetson with an 86-22 career record over three seasons, including a perfect 37-0 conference record, the third-best wins total in program history. LMU is putting their stake in the sand, to build a nationally competitive beach program. They knocked off perennial WCC Champion Pepperdine in 2019, for the first time. Nice pick up for them.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Sept 18, 2019 18:55:36 GMT -5
After just 2 weeks in, Anyse Smith is off another roster (Arkansas Tech this time and formerly Colorado). A shame for such a fire arm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2019 21:03:01 GMT -5
After just 2 weeks in, Anyse Smith is off another roster (Arkansas Tech this time and formerly Colorado). A shame for such a fire arm. Didn’t she just have 16 kills this past weekend? That is sudden.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyballFella on Sept 18, 2019 21:05:32 GMT -5
After just 2 weeks in, Anyse Smith is off another roster (Arkansas Tech this time and formerly Colorado). A shame for such a fire arm. Didn’t she just have 16 kills this past weekend? That is sudden. Yep, and yep.
|
|
|
Post by brybast on Sept 28, 2019 21:16:21 GMT -5
Didn’t she just have 16 kills this past weekend? That is sudden. Yep, and yep. What's the story with her? Why did she leave CU?
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Sept 28, 2019 21:25:51 GMT -5
What's the story with her? Why did she leave CU? I bet the staff in Russellville is wishing THEY had asked that same question!
|
|