NCAA recommends not to allow 1-time waiver | The Boneyard

NCAA recommends not to allow 1-time waiver

EricLA said:
Expand ...

Seems right to me.

1. It would create total chaos.

2. Since we don't even know if there's going to be a basketball season yet, those one-time waivers could be totally squandered in the end. And you better believe if that happened, student-athletes would inevitably start asking for another one...
 
The NCAA Division I Board of Directors said Thursday that it does not recommend potential changes to the transfer waiver process.

The Division I Council is expected to vote on a one-time transfer waiver in May that would allow student-athletes in football, men's and women's basketball, baseball and men's ice hockey to transfer and compete immediately at their new school. As it stands, student-athletes in those five sports have to sit out one year before competing.

www.espn.com

NCAA board does not recommend change to transfer waiver process

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 www.espn.com
 
Pardon my ignorance but is there still going to be an official vote or is it a dead issue now?
 
.-.
hoopsfan22 said:
I was hoping they would allow it.
Expand ...
Just my $.02, but I don't see how this really impacts UCONN in a negative way. Geno has significantly changed his coaching of freshman since Megan's first year. The way he treated Christyn and Olivia, and then Aubrey and Anna, was far different from how Megan was coached.

Part of it was due to the fact that Megan was playing behind Pheesa and Lou, not to mention Nurse and Williams (and I think Stevens), so he could afford NOT to play her. But she was in the doghouse far more frequently than any freshman since then.

Does that mean he's mellowed a bit, or was it simply having the luxury of having so much talent ahead of her when she was a freshman? My point - if the 1 year no-waiver transfer rule was in effect, I would not have been surprised to see her jump ship.

We will never really know what would have happened since she would have had to sit out a year. And she stayed. But going forward, with all the talent UCONN is amassing, will Geno go back to being super hard on freshmen?

And maybe I'm wrong on Megan - maybe Geno coached her exactly the way she needed. We won't know unless she ever addresses it.

On the flip side, would Azura have stayed 2 years is eligible right away? For Evina, given her injuries, it seems a blessing in disguise. Bottom line, seems like a mixed bag of impact for UCONN...
 
Last edited:
So, allowing players to transfer one time without sitting is bad, but allowing players to be paid so long as they don't wear their school gear is good.

Sigh, it's like the NCAA uses a random generator to make decisions.
 
As long as they're consistent. Waivers for all, or waivers for none. Not for anyone, not for any reason. Not even for favored schools.
 
I'll bet the lower level schools (outside of the P5) and perhaps some of the lower P5 schools joined to block it because they would just become farm teams for the big boys. The latter will still take the premium recruits but will fill in the gaps by cherry picking players they originally didn't want that the lower level schools invested in and developed. The NCAA basketball tournament is exciting because of the periodic upsets where a non-major that carefully developed a compatible veteran roster beats a power full of young superstars. That would go away because the non-majors won't be able to keep their best players and the majors will use them to add upperclassmen.
 
TheFarmFan said:
Seems right to me.

1. It would create total chaos.

2. Since we don't even know if there's going to be a basketball season yet, those one-time waivers could be totally squandered in the end. And you better believe if that happened, student-athletes would inevitably start asking for another one...
Expand ...

It already is becoming chaos, I don't see opening up a 1 freebie rule as making things that much more chaotic. If a player is unhappy, they're likely going to transfer whether there's a 1 year rule or not IMO. Also, most other NCAA sports don't penalize for transfers and all have lower transfer rates than basketball.

Basketball far and away has the highest transfer percentage of any sport besides beach volleyball, which usually consists of indoor players transferring after completing eligibility to play on the beach for a season.

The current system is also creating a flood of graduate transfers, since several of these players have sat out in previous seasons due to the 1 year sit out rule from a prior transfer. Thing is, grad transfers more often than not do not complete their degree. It seems like most are purely a ploy to continue playing rather than actually focusing on getting a masters degree. Numbers reflect this in men's basketball and football. Not sure if the same can be said for women's basketball but my guess is it does.
 
.-.
I strongly suspect there are a number of potential transfers who were waiting intently to hear the NCAA’s decision on the one-time transfer waiver. If the decision had gone the other way, there may have been a flood of transfer announcements. As it stands now, I don’t anticipate an additional surge in players entering the transfer portal.
 
The NCAA is going to have personnel cuts soon. With the large number of student-athletes transferring, I would be very surprised if they do not allow all transfers to play right away for the 2020-21 season. The man hours to review every case and the backlash from those not granted instant eligibility is not worth it for them.
 
Remember the atrocities at SMU? The players who may have tried to escape that venomous environment were free to go, and be punished. The NCAA is all for the
welfare of the student/athlete $$.
 
EdSaid said:
The NCAA is going to have personnel cuts soon. With the large number of student-athletes transferring, I would be very surprised if they do not allow all transfers to play right away for the 2020-21 season. The man hours to review every case and the backlash from those not granted instant eligibility is not worth it for them.
Expand ...
Good point.
 
I would rather let everyone have a one time no questions asked transfer rather than the current system which says sometimes you can transfer and play right away, and sometimes you can't depending on how the NCAA feels on that particular day. I would rather have a black and white reliable system versus the unpredictable system we have now.
 
EdSaid said:
The NCAA is going to have personnel cuts soon. With the large number of student-athletes transferring, I would be very surprised if they do not allow all transfers to play right away for the 2020-21 season. The man hours to review every case and the backlash from those not granted instant eligibility is not worth it for them.
Expand ...

Not really if they continue their normal review process

1588275742593.png
 
.-.
McFly said:
As long as they're consistent. Waivers for all, or waivers for none. Not for anyone, not for any reason. Not even for favored schools.
Expand ...
Except for some NCAA sports that allow immediate participation, they are consistent. :rolleyes:
 
Centerstream said:
Except for some NCAA sports that allow immediate participation, they are consistent. :rolleyes:
Expand ...
Snark aside from Centerstream (Trust me, I love snark more than most), the NCAA does allow all other sports the ability to transfer without penalty. From a Football and Men's Basketball perspective with Apparel/Shoe and the money generated, I understand the concern about "shadiness" for WCBB and Hockey, I have no idea why the NCAA puts restrictions on them.
 
bballnut90 said:
It already is becoming chaos, I don't see opening up a 1 freebie rule as making things that much more chaotic. If a player is unhappy, they're likely going to transfer whether there's a 1 year rule or not IMO. Also, most other NCAA sports don't penalize for transfers and all have lower transfer rates than basketball.
Expand ...
The difference is by replacing the swishy "hardship" guidelines with a bright line rule (1 time no sit out rule) you have a clear guideline that is applied equally. I think that is all anyone is asking for.
 
kibblesnbits said:
I'll bet the lower level schools (outside of the P5) and perhaps some of the lower P5 schools joined to block it because they would just become farm teams for the big boys. The latter will still take the premium recruits but will fill in the gaps by cherry picking players they originally didn't want that the lower level schools invested in and developed. The NCAA basketball tournament is exciting because of the periodic upsets where a non-major that carefully developed a compatible veteran roster beats a power full of young superstars. That would go away because the non-majors won't be able to keep their best players and the majors will use them to add upperclassmen.
Expand ...
Very good analysis.
 
CL82 said:
So, allowing players to transfer one time without sitting is bad, but allowing players to be paid so long as they don't wear their school gear is good.

Sigh, it's like the NCAA uses a random generator to make decisions.
Expand ...
I agree. If an athlete decides that a particular school they chose was just not right for them, they should be able to transfer ONCE! However, allowing them to be paid when they are clearly amateurs, NOT professionals is absurd! What is the NCAA thinking? Head bang An education should be first and foremost. But if an athlete gets a taste of money too early, it will clearly cloud their judgement when deciding when they turn pro! Not getting their degree can very well determine how their life will be spent if / when they get hurt. A career in sports can end just like that...........then what will they do? Goo crying to their sponsors or team? :confused:
 
EdSaid said:
The NCAA is going to have personnel cuts soon. With the large number of student-athletes transferring, I would be very surprised if they do not allow all transfers to play right away for the 2020-21 season. The man hours to review every case and the backlash from those not granted instant eligibility is not worth it for them.
Expand ...


I think it will be very surprising if they do let transfers play right away in 2020-21.
 
.-.
kibblesnbits said:
I'll bet the lower level schools (outside of the P5) and perhaps some of the lower P5 schools joined to block it because they would just become farm teams for the big boys. The latter will still take the premium recruits but will fill in the gaps by cherry picking players they originally didn't want that the lower level schools invested in and developed. The NCAA basketball tournament is exciting because of the periodic upsets where a non-major that carefully developed a compatible veteran roster beats a power full of young superstars. That would go away because the non-majors won't be able to keep their best players and the majors will use them to add upperclassmen.
Expand ...


It hasn't been blocked yet. There has been no vote. But I agree with your point that the lower level schools should all be against this proposal.
 
The only reason the NCAA came up with the "pay for play" rule was because if they didn't do something state legislatures and the courts were going to decide the issue for them. They had to exert some sort of control. Don't think for a minute the NCAA "wanted" to have pay for play.
 
Last edited:
CL82 said:
So, allowing players to transfer one time without sitting is bad, but allowing players to be paid so long as they don't wear their school gear is good.

Sigh, it's like the NCAA uses a random generator to make decisions.
Expand ...
I’m glad someone else was thinking this. I’m all for student athletes getting paid if schools, networks, and the NCAA are going to make money off of their likeness, but the board saying a one time transfer rule is bad for student athletes is total bs to me. How will it make life for student athletes worse in any way? That logic makes no sense me.
 
UConn is an exception, but most D1 schools lose money on basketball. Many of those programs take in second-tier recruits and try to develop them while giving them scholarships worth $50k to $75k per year. To allow the ones they do effectively develop to simply abandon the program as a free agent prior to their most productive years is not fair to the school that lost a lot of money on their freshman and sophomore scholarship. It would introduce more chaos to a system already out of control.
 
stamfordhusky said:
UConn is an exception, but most D1 schools lose money on basketball. Many of those programs take in second-tier recruits and try to develop them while giving them scholarships worth $50k to $75k per year. To allow the ones they do effectively develop to simply abandon the program as a free agent prior to their most productive years is not fair to the school that lost a lot of money on their freshman and sophomore scholarship. It would introduce more chaos to a system already out of control.
Expand ...
Wouldn’t it make more sense to do partial scholarships or get rid of the scholarships and/or sports altogether if the thought is those recruits are an investment (that are already costing them more money than they make the school) rather than a student athlete?
 
CL82 said:
So, allowing players to transfer one time without sitting is bad, but allowing players to be paid so long as they don't wear their school gear is good.

Sigh, it's like the NCAA uses a random generator to make decisions.
Expand ...
Cl, see my post to answer your question. I'll give you a hint. Money.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,497
Messages
4,578,637
Members
10,489
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom