Judge's ruling favors NCAA athletes seeking 2nd transfer

[GamecockFam]

Ruling favors NCAA athletes seeking 2nd transfer

College athletes who were denied the chance to play immediately after transferring a second time can return to competition after a judge issued a restraining order against the NCAA.

www.espn.com

Thoughts? Are there any notable players that could play during this 14 day window?

 

[GamecockFam]

I also wonder if this restraining order affects transfers that happen outside of the transfer window (i.e., Talaysia Cooper at Tennessee)?

 

[MSSportsGuy]

Sigh. I'm not shocked except for the fact I figured the NCAA would cave.

It's amazing the sit out one year rule was never challenged for as long as it was. The cynic in me says the association did this to themselves by gradually opening up Pandora's box with a never ending series of waivers and no logic behind who received one and who didn't. The end result may have ultimately been the same.

The old school person in me will always believe a transfer should sit out one year from competitive games but that ship has long sailed.

 

[Geew1992]

I always felt if the coaches aren’t penalized then why should the students/players

 

[cancontent]

1). The stay only affects the states that are part of the suit. So, teams in West Virginia, Tennessee, etc can take advantage is how I understand it.

2). Have seen on X that some of the MBB programs who can take advantage of the stay may opt to keep their players out in the event this gets over turned.

3). To the question about Cooper for Tennessee, I don't know if her situation falls in this category.

4). To @MSSportsGuy's point about the sit out rule, I've wondered the same. My only guess is that the rule benefitted the schools in the past and they didn't care. Now that the waiver rules have tightened up, it's a different story as approvals have been a lot harder to get than before.

 

[GamecockFam]

I always felt if the coaches aren’t penalized then why should the students/players

Yeah this kind of thinking makes me wonder if we could penalize student athletes for breaching the scholarship terms like we do with coaching contracts.

I've been floating an idea that coaches could offer 1-4 year scholarships and there would be financial penalties if students do not honor the term length of the scholarship (such as the repayment of used scholarship benefits). Like, I could see if a student accepts a 1 year scholarship then they're free to transfer after that year or apply for another 1-3 year scholarship at their current university -- but they also face the possibility that they will not receive a new scholarship offer from the coaches. But if a student agrees to a 4 year scholarship and decides to transfer after year 1, they'll have to repay the earned benefits of that scholarship -- for example $10k in boarding/food expenses per year.

I know my idea probably isn't legally feasible but I like the sound of it. I would hope financial penalties would help discourage transferring due to NIL dreams...

 

[MSSportsGuy]

4). To @MSSportsGuy's point about the sit out rule, I've wondered the same. My only guess is that the rule benefitted the schools in the past and they didn't care. Now that the waiver rules have tightened up, it's a different story as approvals have been a lot harder to get than before.

While I am old school, I find it terrible that a school could block a transfer to a certain program, or even make life miserable trying to get away from a bad situation. That doesn't mean the part about sitting out a year was bad and I believe it reduced tampering, allowed kids (because these are young people we are talking about) to give it thought before pulling the trigger and also let coaches be able to make longer term plans.

To me, sitting out a year wasn't punishment since the player received a scholarship, could practice and get the benefits of being on the team. They just didn't play in games and got the extra year back after the sit out period was up. I literally don't recall a transferring player ever getting a waiver for immediate eligibility approved in CFB, MBB, or WBB when I was younger but I haven't done any exhaustive search on the matter.

Immediate eligibility was done for the coaches and P5 programs, not for the benefit of the student. It gives teams immediate gratification. The gate will eventually come down on second transfers as well and then it's free agency.

 

[Floridaduck]

Hope this frees up 6’2” Guard Priscilla Williams for Oregon. Began at Syracuse, then to USF, now at Oregon. Listed as a Sophomore.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Hope this frees up 6’2” Guard Priscilla Williams for Oregon. Began at Syracuse, then to USF, now at Oregon. Listed as a Sophomore.

Is she like a 5th year soph? Following the Sedona Prince blueprint?

 

[cancontent]

Hope this frees up 6’2” Guard Priscilla Williams for Oregon. Began at Syracuse, then to USF, now at Oregon. Listed as a Sophomore.

1). Depends on when a final decision is made, however I don't know if it would be in time for her to play.

2). The state of Oregon is not part of the suit so they can't leverage the 14-day window.

3). I understand Oregon is in need of guards, but per the current rules Williams has to sit out as it's her second time. Waiver rules had been tightened up before she left USF.



And that's the crux of the issue from what I've observed. Teams are finding their waiver requests are getting rejected more often this year and they're not happy. But the programs "agreed" to these changes when the NCAA put them in place. So now they're in buyer's remorse mode and trying to find ways to get around it.

With the way things are going, get rid of the transfer sit out rule or get rid of the one time exemption. Something has to give. It's unfortunate that schools are using the courts to make the final decision.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Sigh. I'm not shocked except for the fact I figured the NCAA would cave.

It's amazing the sit out one year rule was never challenged for as long as it was. The cynic in me says the association did this to themselves by gradually opening up Pandora's box with a never ending series of waivers and no logic behind who received one and who didn't. The end result may have ultimately been the same.

The old school person in me will always believe a transfer should sit out one year from competitive games but that ship has long sailed.

+1 to all of this. The entropy factor for college sports grows exponentially seemingly by the day.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

+1 to all of this. The entropy factor for college sports grows exponentially seemingly by the day.

I thought the waiver business was ridiculous but I'm not sure why they dropped the non-graduate transfer rule. It had a legitimate seeming academic purpose that they undermined by dropping it.

 

[cancontent]

At least one WBB program will take advantage of the stay. Further confirms Diamond Johnson never got the waiver that some in the media reported had been granted.

 

[GamecockFam]

At least one WBB program will take advantage of the stay. Further confirms Diamond Johnson never got the waiver that some in the media reported had been granted.

With the latest news, I hope they reconsider.

NCAA: Transfers could lose eligibility during TRO

The NCAA announced Thursday that student-athletes who participate in games during the 14-day temporary restraining order will lose a season of eligibility if Wednesday's federal ruling on transfer rules is reversed.

www.espn.com

 

[TC22]

The NCAA has reversed an earlier ruling. Now athletes are immediately eligible for the spring and that will be final for the semester. They’ll be allowed to play all semester and it will count toward their eligibility.
Talasia Cooper at Tennessee will be immediately eligible. She transferred from SC last year.

 

[GamecockFam]

The NCAA has reversed an earlier ruling. Now athletes are immediately eligible for the spring and that will be final for the semester. They’ll be allowed to play all semester and it will count toward their eligibility.
Talasia Cooper at Tennessee will be immediately eligible. She transferred from SC last year.

This flip-flopping by the NCAA is worse than a preteen trying to decide what to wear on the first day of school.

 

[cancontent]

This flip-flopping by the NCAA is worse than a preteen trying to decide what to wear on the first day of school.

It is however this makes it easier for schools to understand what they can or can't do. Not to mention, as this has gone to court now, this could help avoid additional requests to extend the stay.

With the timing of the ruling too, teams may not have many games scheduled during that window. While I'm not a fan of all of this drama, it seems like a fair middle ground while everything plays out.

And who knows how long the actual case will take? Some of these kids could be graduates by the time a decision is made.