Looks like non-grad transfers gonna have to sit a year?

[uconngb]

NCAA board doesn't back transfer waiver change

Ahead of a vote on a one-time transfer waiver, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors said Thursday it did not recommend any changes to the process.

www.espn.com

Know this is not definitive, but would they really vote against the NCAA recommendation? Ah, who knows

 

[RichZ]

For the sake of argument, let's just say the 20/21 season does not take place because of the whole Covid deal. Will the wasted year count as the sit out year for transfers? Of would Emmert and crew decide to flex their muscle and arbitrarily decide that 2020 transfers would need to sit out the next year, because -- no season, no countee. It doesn't make sense, but then again, this is the NCAA we're talking about here.

 

[auror]

Adrianne Swinney, COO of UConn is on the Board of Directors. One of 25.

 

[Fishy]

For the sake of argument, let's just say the 20/21 season does not take place because of the whole Covid deal. Will the wasted year count as the sit out year for transfers? Of would Emmert and crew decide to flex their muscle and arbitrarily decide that 2020 transfers would need to sit out the next year, because -- no season, no countee. It doesn't make sense, but then again, this is the NCAA we're talking about here.

That’s non-sensical.

If the kids are in residence at their new school for a year, they are eligible.

 

[Uconnrick]

We !ARE talking about the NCAA here. Non-sensical is their specialty

 

[RichZ]

That’s non-sensical.

I said it didn't make sense. But neither does the NCAA still blowing smoke about athlete's right to make money off their own images, this long after O'Bannon. Or retroactively punishing UConn a 2nd time over the grades issue that had been finalized a year earlier. Or delaying eligibility approval for Boat. Or before him, Charlie. The NCAA has historically displayed an affinity for randomly asserting authoritarian positions that don't serve any greater good and usually hurt either the athletes, the member schools or both.

 

[UconnU]

Even if they don’t pass the rule change you have to think they will grant waivers pretty leniently give the circumstances.

 

[uconngb]

That’s non-sensical.

If the kids are in residence at their new school for a year, they are eligible.

Devil's advocate: Does that then mean that eligible players lose a year of eligibility??

 

[jkfer98]

Honestly, if this gets pushed back a year I think it benefits UConn.

 

[don356]

Even if they don’t pass the rule change you have to think they will grant waivers pretty leniently give the circumstances.

Yep, all it is from what i read is the same system which is run poorly and inconsistently, but still allows a guy to apply. 50/50 ball.

 

[Mazhude]

Coaches strongly oppose a transfer waiver, so don’t expect the NCAA to do the right thing

"Changing the rule is, without question, the fairest thing to do. As proponents of the change point out, it’s unfair that coaches can change schools and coach immediately and that athletes in most non-revenue sports are allowed to do the same thing once — while those in the five sports that sell tickets are forced to sit out. That would certainly be the way to go in a utopian world. Unfortunately, college athletics is about as far from a utopia as any place on Earth..."

 

[CallMeBruce]

Devil's advocate: Does that then mean that eligible players lose a year of eligibility??

Good god