A Question On Transfer Rules

[CajunHusky]

First, a student athlete gets 4 years of eligibility to be used during a 5 year period that begins with date a student athlete first starts college.

Second, a year of competition is the academic year extending from September to May. Once a student athlete enters a competition during that period they have used a year of eligibility.

Third, it is my understanding that a student athlete that wishes to transfer must be a student in good standing.

Fourth, any student athlete that transfer must sit out competitions for a 12 month period.

Examples:
1) Natalie Butler sat out the 12 month period that coincided with the 2014-15 academic year.
2) Sadie Edwards sat out the second half of the 2014-15 and the first half of the 2015-16 academic years.

Then am I correct that, using the 4 years in 5 rule, and using the examples above.....Natalie DID NOT use a year of eligibility while she sat out since she transferred at the end of the academic year. And Sadie DID use years of eligibility for both 2014-15 and 2015-16 since she transferred in the middle of the academic year and played in both academic years.

 

[Orangutan]

If I'm reading you right, yes you are correct.

Edwards and Butler are both sophomores in the athletic sense i.e. they both have two years of eligibility remaining after the current year.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Yes, playing even one second of one game uses up one season of eligibility.

 

[UcMiami]

I guess that is all correct - an interesting question - Sadie only played in six games her first semester at Uconn ... if she had come down with a mysterious ailment that precluded her playing further, could she actually regain that year of eligibility after her transfer? She did not come down with said ailment so it is mute, but theoretically she probably could have.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I guess that is all correct - an interesting question - Sadie only played in six games her first semester at Uconn ... if she had come down with a mysterious ailment that precluded her playing further, could she actually regain that year of eligibility after her transfer? She did not come down with said ailment so it is mute, but theoretically she probably could have.

It is actually an iffy point, apparently. I know of 2 cases (one at Rutgers and the other I forget the details) where a "sixth" year was denied because the cause of wanting a sixth year (2 years of injury) was combined with a transfer sit out year.

 

[boontonbomber]

Speaking of transfers: Sadie had 20 the other night against Oregon St. , and Brianna had 25 as Penn St. beat Northwestern.

 

[stamfordhusky]

I guess that is all correct - an interesting question - Sadie only played in six games her first semester at Uconn ... if she had come down with a mysterious ailment that precluded her playing further, could she actually regain that year of eligibility after her transfer? She did not come down with said ailment so it is mute, but theoretically she probably could have.

It might be possible IF two things happened:

1. The team doctor was willing to lie and certify she had a season-ending injury. If it was just a fabricated injury, it might get him/her in trouble; and

2. There was convincing medical documentation, e.g. MRI's, x-rays etc, to support the injury claim. Medical evidence must accompany any request for a medical hardship waiver.

 

[stamfordhusky]

It is actually an iffy point, apparently. I know of 2 cases (one at Rutgers and the other I forget the details) where a "sixth" year was denied because the cause of wanting a sixth year (2 years of injury) was combined with a transfer sit out year.

Different from Sadie's case, since she is only going to play four years as things stand now. Half of her first season, half of her second season, and then two more. She wouldn't be asking for a 6th year.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Different from Sadie's case, since she is only going to play four years as things stand now. Half of her first season, half of her second season, and then two more. She wouldn't be asking for a 6th year.

Miscalculated, sorry. Not particularly familiar with her case, so I read an extra year into the hypothetical scenario presented.