NCAA studies idea of 1 transfer with no penalty [merged thread]

[Puppy Love]

It will be interesting to see the impact on APR and graduation rates. Most schools require a minimum number of credits earned at that school to graduate. For athletes who transfer after their junior year, this effectively means they have to spend an extra year at a new school in order to get a diploma. If you were looking to play professionally, you aren’t likely to want to hang around that extra year especially if you’ve used up your eligibility because you didn’t have to sit a year. I can’t see players in that situation being super motivated to do school work.

 

[Centerstream]

The exodus from Oregon to Texas when Mike White moved, for example.

Exactly who I was thinking of!

 

[Steelerone]

Wait a minute. Weatherman is the only job in America you can be wrong 5 days a week and still have a job on Monday.

 

[Steelerone]

Not only that but the Weather Channel is the most watched channel on television. But I can still remember driving on Rt. 4 in Farmington listening to the weatherman on the radio tell me that the sun was shining while the windshield wipers were on.

 

[Charliebball]

Like I said, this rule benefits the P5's and hurts the mid-majors. But rest assured, if the P5's fall in line, this goes through easy. Anyone see Charlie Collier in Husky blue next year?

based on the past few years I envision just as many players transferring out of UConn as transferring in................

 

[Charliebball]

scholarship conservation would become a very big issue under this transfer scenario.....................................I feel badly for those end of the bench players on the bubble..............

 

[Puppy Love]

Mid year transfers should be disqualified. Imagine a top-five team with a real shot at the national championship. In November, their point guard suffers an ACL tear. Now imagine a senior point guard at another school who has no shot of doing anything that year...her team is rebuilding. Would she transfer for shot at the national championship?

 

[UConnCat]

ESPN article on the proposal to allow immediate eligibility with first transfer.

NCAA transfer proposal guide: What it means, what coaches and players are saying

The NCAA is considering allowing athletes in all sports to transfer once without sitting out a year of competition. Players, coaches and administrators weigh in.

www.espn.com

Three WCBB coaches quoted -- Graves, Staley and McGraw -- with McGraw opposing the proposal. Only Graves mentions the arbitrariness of the waiver process; I'm surprised Dawn didn't mention that as she certainly complained loudly a couple of years ago when Cooper's waiver was denied (after Shepard's was granted). Muffet benefitted from the current system (Shepard and some grad transfers) and hasn't had the experience of a player's waiver request being denied while others were granted.

The reality is that this proposal would not be out there had the NCAA not mismanaged the waiver process.

Graves's statement makes the most sense:

Kelly Graves, Oregon coach

"I feel any student-athlete, regardless of sport. should be able to transfer one time without penalty. It's done in most sports. I'm not sure the numbers would say the transfer penalty is even a deterrent. There are just a million different reasons why a person should be able to transfer. I don't like how the NCAA seems to arbitrarily rule on what reason is valid and what reason isn't. Either you don't let anybody transfer without penalty, or you let them all.

"If they transfer a second time, maybe then you impose a penalty -- sitting a year out. But one time is fine with me. I think there should be penalties if you find out that there is recruitment going on when players are already in college, but I don't see that's going to be any more of an issue than it is already. And it doesn't seem like the other sports that have transfers without penalties have chaos, any more than there is in basketball or football."

 

[UcMiami]

The interesting thing is the NCAA is NOT making its money on football (the schools are.) The NCAA primary money maker is the MBB tournament. And the primary beneficiary of this from a school perspective will be the top of the MBB P5 who are already raiding the better mid-major teams for developing talent.

 

[Beemer]

I can support a one time penalty free transfer especially if the head coach leaves to take another position. I've never thought it right that a coach can leave without penalty but a player who wants to follow him/her or just leave for another school rather than play for the new coach can't.

 

[UConnCat]

The argument against allowing a one-time transfer is that it will lead to coaches poaching players from other teams. Some here will recall that one of best ever at doing that was Pat Summitt back before the rules were changed to require a year in residence.

Muffet's comments;

"What we're saying is with this is, 'That's the way society is, let's let them do what they want.' The really scary part is, I feel like you're going to be in the handshake line after a game with people saying, 'Hey, you didn't play much today, why don't you come over here?'

"I like the way it is now, so I think it would be a terrible thing to do."

 

[meyers7]

The argument against allowing a one-time transfer is that it will lead to coaches poaching players from other teams. Some here will recall that one of best ever at doing that was Pat Summitt back before the rules were changed to require a year in residence.

Muffet's comments;

"What we're saying is with this is, 'That's the way society is, let's let them do what they want.' The really scary part is, I feel like you're going to be in the handshake line after a game with people saying, 'Hey, you didn't play much today, why don't you come over here?'

"I like the way it is now, so I think it would be a terrible thing to do."

Well of course she would think that, Muffett doesn't have any problems getting waivers.

 

[mbr33ct]

The argument against allowing a one-time transfer is that it will lead to coaches poaching players from other teams. Some here will recall that one of best ever at doing that was Pat Summitt back before the rules were changed to require a year in residence.

Muffet's comments;

"What we're saying is with this is, 'That's the way society is, let's let them do what they want.' The really scary part is, I feel like you're going to be in the handshake line after a game with people saying, 'Hey, you didn't play much today, why don't you come over here?'

"I like the way it is now, so I think it would be a terrible thing to do."

...or this other scenario in the handshake line after a game with Jeff saying..."hey, her name is Asia Durr"

 

[UConnCat]

Well of course she would think that, Muffett doesn't have any problems getting waivers.

Not so far.

I'm not sure what Muffet's expectations were regarding Shepard's waiver. Shepard's family said they didn't expect it to be granted so perhaps Muffet felt the same way and wouldn't have complained had it been denied. But once the NCAA made it's decision in the Shepard case and everyone witnessed the impact she had on Notre Dame's team, expectations were raised for subsequent transfers. Then, when a few high profile transfers were denied waivers, some women's coaches saw the NCAA's waiver process as arbitrary (or worse) and began to change their thinking on the transfer rules.

We've seen the same thing happen in men's basketball and college football.

 

[Zinethar]

Geno had some interesting comments on this on his show this week. Seemed to favor it but gave some great reasons why it has not been thought out well yet. One of his concerns if the amount of time and money invested in each player from recruiting to graduation is actually a lot. Will be a lot more is the players get paid in the future. He also implied that the reasons for transfers were not always honest ones but more like society today. I also remember something he implied before that not all players leave a program because they want to. Some might be encouraged to go play elsewhere.

 

[Charliebball]

.
one of the football guys spelled out what's likely to change in recruiting and I think it applies to basketball recruiting too:

"What would be the motivation for universities to recruit from high schools any more? You're basically going to recruit off other campuses. Dependent upon where you are on that food chain, it's going to affect how many high school athletes you would actually take. From a coaching perspective, many times it's easier to take a proven player off another campus. I don't think the fan bases are going to enjoy this, either."

I think he may be right..............

 

[jonson]

Just don't think there are going to be any additional restrictions like the ones you are proposing. It was interesting how this came (leaked) out like a trial balloon. The ACC got right out in front of this.
I'm probably being skeptical here but I see some obstacles in the proposed restrictions.
The proposed restrictions are:
1) In good academic standing and making progress towards degree completion.
2) Not facing suspension at their original school.
3) Receive a release to transfer.

1 is pretty straight forward and 2.0 GPA + % of credits achieved will probably be easy enough to measure.
2 is kind of interesting we'll call this one the Destiny Pitts rule. Pitts was facing a suspension at Minnesota and rather than take the suspension she decided to transfer.
3 Could be a little tricky though especially if the recent retransfer portal is eliminated. Under the transfer portal rules the school is "obligated" to enter the students name in the portal 48 hours after being notified that a SA has decided to transfer. What happens when a schools says no we are not releasing you from your scholarship agreement? That would put us back to the way things used to be with the S/A and the school negotiating -as in we will release you as long as you don't end up in our conference or playing for our main rival or that team that is already stacked which you would put over the top.

Still think this is a done deal and will make for a very interesting (landscaping altering ) event ones it gets approved by NCAA Board of Governors in late April. @oldude was right when he was warning us that it was just too premature to talking about the starting lineup for next year. If I'm a hot shot player that thinks I can crack the UCONN starting lineup next season and help them win #12, the biggest obstacle to realizing that may be removed.

#3 is exactly what didn't happen when Arizona State would not give a release to a softball freshman recruit who wanted to transfer to Oregon before even playing a game in Tempe. She had to sit out a year and is now a redshirt freshman (at Oregon). So schools can play hardball if they wish. (Oregon, on the other hand, released everybody--I think there were 8 or so in all--in the mass exodus that followed the softball coach's move to Texas.)

 

[Dillon77]

Not so far.

I'm not sure what Muffet's expectations were regarding Shepard's waiver. Shepard's family said they didn't expect it to be granted so perhaps Muffet felt the same way and wouldn't have complained had it been denied. But once the NCAA made it's decision in the Shepard case and everyone witnessed the impact she had on Notre Dame's team, expectations were raised for subsequent transfers. Then, when a few high profile transfers were denied waivers, some women's coaches saw the NCAA's waiver process as arbitrary (or worse) and began to change their thinking on the transfer rules.

We've seen the same thing happen in men's basketball and college football.

Cat: Most stories I've read regarding Shepard's waiver had Irish coaches (very pleasantly) surprised that it was granted, in part because the NCAA kept asking for more (and more) information.

As per MM's stance, I can tell you that she didn't go down the hall to talk to her boss, Jack Swarbrick, because he was pushing for it at the ACC meeting. Here's his quote:

Jack Swarbrick, Notre Dame athletic director

"We were at ACC meetings last week, and I advocated for it. There are all kinds of issues still to be resolved, but there's a fundamental fairness in this that I think is important to honor. I'm always looking to find ways to normalize the experience of the student who is an athlete against that of the student who's not an athlete. I think this is a good step in that direction.

"The flip side of a one-time transfer is the second transfer ought to be really difficult, only under extraordinary circumstances. The waiver window on that for me would be really, really small. It would be small and specific and we get out of this whole nonsense we have now with the waiver process.

"When you have the Big Ten and the ACC come out in favor of this conceptually, and I would guess you would see similar sentiments from other conferences, it tells you you're going to get there, you just have to figure out exactly what the process looks like."

 

[CocoHusky]

.
one of the football guys spelled out what's likely to change in recruiting and I think it applies to basketball recruiting too:

"What would be the motivation for universities to recruit from high schools any more? You're basically going to recruit off other campuses. Dependent upon where you are on that food chain, it's going to affect how many high school athletes you would actually take. From a coaching perspective, many times it's easier to take a proven player off another campus. I don't think the fan bases are going to enjoy this, either."

I think he may be right..............

I think he may be wrong and our judgement maybe clouded by the Jessica Shepard transfer because we hate ND. Number of Impact undergraduate transfers who were declared immediately eligible and resulted in a National championship = 1= Jessica Shepard. There was one coach in this article who said what is going to change is that coaches are going to have to spend time each year re-recruiting their own players. I think this is a good thing, certainly more work for the coaches but shouldn’t they be doing that anyway?

 

[UConnCat]

Cat: Most stories I've read regarding Shepard's waiver had Irish coaches (very pleasantly) surprised that it was granted, in part because the NCAA kept asking for more (and more) information.

As per MM's stance, I can tell you that she didn't go down the hall to talk to her boss, Jack Swarbrick, because he was pushing for it at the ACC meeting. Here's his quote:

Jack Swarbrick, Notre Dame athletic director

"We were at ACC meetings last week, and I advocated for it. There are all kinds of issues still to be resolved, but there's a fundamental fairness in this that I think is important to honor. I'm always looking to find ways to normalize the experience of the student who is an athlete against that of the student who's not an athlete. I think this is a good step in that direction.

"The flip side of a one-time transfer is the second transfer ought to be really difficult, only under extraordinary circumstances. The waiver window on that for me would be really, really small. It would be small and specific and we get out of this whole nonsense we have now with the waiver process.

"When you have the Big Ten and the ACC come out in favor of this conceptually, and I would guess you would see similar sentiments from other conferences, it tells you you're going to get there, you just have to figure out exactly what the process looks like."

I did see Swarbrick's comments.

Muffet raises valid concerns. I'm okay with keeping the year-in-residence requirement but then the waiver has to go. Apply the requirement across the board without exception, i.e. no waivers. If the choice is between the status quo or the proposed one transfer rule, then I prefer the latter.

 

[CocoHusky]

Cat: Most stories I've read regarding Shepard's waiver had Irish coaches (very pleasantly) surprised that it was granted, in part because the NCAA kept asking for more (and more) information.

As per MM's stance, I can tell you that she didn't go down the hall to talk to her boss, Jack Swarbrick, because he was pushing for it at the ACC meeting. Here's his quote:

Jack Swarbrick, Notre Dame athletic director

"We were at ACC meetings last week, and I advocated for it. There are all kinds of issues still to be resolved, but there's a fundamental fairness in this that I think is important to honor. I'm always looking to find ways to normalize the experience of the student who is an athlete against that of the student who's not an athlete. I think this is a good step in that direction.

"The flip side of a one-time transfer is the second transfer ought to be really difficult, only under extraordinary circumstances. The waiver window on that for me would be really, really small. It would be small and specific and we get out of this whole nonsense we have now with the waiver process.

"When you have the Big Ten and the ACC come out in favor of this conceptually, and I would guess you would see similar sentiments from other conferences, it tells you you're going to get there, you just have to figure out exactly what the process looks like."

Muffet is not gonna go down the hall and talk to her boss - he is a man!

 

[j66kicker]

[QUOTE="CocoHusky, post: 3454666, member:]There was one coach in this article who said what is going to change is that coaches are going to have to spend time each year re-recruiting their own players. I think this is a good thing, certainly more work for the coaches but shouldn’t they be going that anyway?[/QUOTE]

Great point! In business you keep your good employees not with no-compete agreements, but by providing them benefits like free education, which would help them qualify for better jobs outside- and inside - your company, and you get them to want to work for you.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Mid year transfers should be disqualified. Imagine a top-five team with a real shot at the national championship. In November, their point guard suffers an ACL tear. Now imagine a senior point guard at another school who has no shot of doing anything that year...her team is rebuilding. Would she transfer for shot at the national championship?

That wouldn't be allowed under the proposed rule - or under current rules.

 

[stamfordhusky]

.
one of the football guys spelled out what's likely to change in recruiting and I think it applies to basketball recruiting too:

"What would be the motivation for universities to recruit from high schools any more? You're basically going to recruit off other campuses. Dependent upon where you are on that food chain, it's going to affect how many high school athletes you would actually take. From a coaching perspective, many times it's easier to take a proven player off another campus. I don't think the fan bases are going to enjoy this, either."

I think he may be right..............

He absolutely is right. This rule is a disaster for all schools except the very top ones. The average P6 schools and all midmajors are going to be looted right and left. They will find and develop players, only to have them stolen on many occasions.

 

[DEpup]

The argument against allowing a one-time transfer is that it will lead to coaches poaching players from other teams. Some here will recall that one of best ever at doing that was Pat Summitt back before the rules were changed to require a year in residence.

Muffet's comments;

"What we're saying is with this is, 'That's the way society is, let's let them do what they want.' The really scary part is, I feel like you're going to be in the handshake line after a game with people saying, 'Hey, you didn't play much today, why don't you come over here?'

"I like the way it is now, so I think it would be a terrible thing to do."

That is life in the big bad world. Why should bball coaches be shielded from being good leaders and retaining their players? Every supervisor in the world has to do that.

 

[Charliebball]

I think he may be wrong and our judgement maybe clouded by the Jessica Shepard transfer because we hate ND. Number of Impact undergraduate transfers who were declared immediately eligible and resulted in a National championship = 1= Jessica Shepard. There was one coach in this article who said what is going to change is that coaches are going to have to spend time each year re-recruiting their own players. I think this is a good thing, certainly more work for the coaches but shouldn’t they be doing that anyway?

If the NCAA actually opens up one time immediate transfers to every eligible DI player don't you think we'll see a number of Jessica Shepards in the next few years...........? If this was already in effect when UConn was "short" a post player, I would think a quality post player would jump at the chance to play for Geno and a possible championship if they didn't have to sit out a year.........

 

[BBallF]

It's free agency for college players. " Hey Coach, we need a point guard. Let's see who we can get in the transfer portal". It will really hurt the non-top tier schools. The problem is that the NCAA has been less than uniform in the application of their own Rules and there is no further appeal to the Courts so no real review of what they do.

 

[CocoHusky]

If the NCAA actually opens up one time immediate transfers to every eligible DI player don't you think we'll see a number of Jessica Shepards in the next few years...........? If this was already in effect when UConn was "short" a post player, I would think a quality post player would jump at the chance to play for Geno and a possible championship if they didn't have to sit out a year.........

No I don't. First of all there are not "a number" of Jessica Shepard out there. There is probably only 1 post player of that caliber per class normally. IDK seems to me UCONN is short a quality post player for next season, let's see what happens.

 

[Dillon77]

No I don't. First of all there are not "a number" of Jessica Shepard out there. There is probably only 1 post player of that caliber per class normally. IDK seems to me UCONN is short a quality post player for next season, let's see what happens.

Coco: Question for you. In all the articles you and others have posted (thanks, by the way), most summaries say that if this is voted forward in April the law would take effect in the 20-21 academic year. My question is does that mean it allows for immediate transfers who can then play in the 20-21 year? Or is the entire process -- from deciding to transfer to portal to acceptance -- starting in 2020-21. I can't get my arms around that. Thanks to you or anyone else who has better insight/information.

BTW, I agree with you: Jessica Shepards are not hanging around to add at any given time. Given how she did at Nebraska her sophomore season, I'm not sure anyone could've predicted that kind of immediate and dramatic impact on the ND team (remembering that was a team that lost their All-American Center).

 

[UcMiami]

I do think the Shepard situation has had an disproportionate affect on WCBB fans because it seemed to come out of the blue and hasn't been repeated.

People seem to think the sit-out year is some sort of cruel and unusual punishment and yet the number of athletes and number of star athletes transferring has steadily increased and I don't really hear complaints from the athletes. We hear fans and coaches but ... The biggest complaints and the serious backlash has been about colleges not granting release which forces the athlete to pay for the sit-out year.

Personally, getting an extra year of college fees paid (if they stay for full eligibility) and a year to actually watch and practice but not play is not that bad a deal. And making transfers a little painful isn't that bad - it makes the initial decision to sign an NLI more important, and the decision to transfer also more important.

Not sure I want Geno having to re-recruit all his players every year; seems to be a recipe for potential disaster. And it would seems to add pressure to the athletes from friends and family if their immediate freshman experience isn't 'perfect'.

One adjustment to this that might be interesting - make the free transfer available only after sophomore season. They could still transfer during or after their freshman year, but would have to sit out.