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

[Ozimoto]

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

 

[CocoHusky]

It serves the interests of the P5 (a football designation, but I know what you mean) in that it will make most other programs (G5 etc.) a de facto farm club for the big boys. The net effect of "unrestricted" transfers is that the rich will get richer.


Agree. I think a reasonable compromise can be worked out. Something along the lines of:

1. One time transfer for any student athlete based without penalty.
Makes the student thoughtful about whether to use the transfer in any given year. Otherwise we'd have de facto free agency, potentially with talented players moving annually.

2. Cap on the number of players any school can lose in a given year.
Prevents mid-major who has a good season from losing their team en masse. Would need rule to reconcile application of rule 1.

3. Cap on the number of players a school can accept either annually or over a given period.
Prevents schools from constantly scavenging players from smaller schools. Call it the Kentucky rule. I can see Calipari gaming an unlimited transfer rule without it.

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.

 

[dogged1]

Lots of good posts by lots of posters more knowledgeable than me. So, this is just a matter of analysis and opinion on my part and the arguments of others that I agree with. Feel free (as always) to disagree and tear it apart.

To clarify my position regarding the NCAA:

When it comes to revenue producing sports, the NCAA will do (regulate) whatever is in its best interest.

Right now the best interest of the NCAA is whatever the P5 tells them it is.

In Division 1 the NCAA is composed of 2 groups the “INs” and the “OUTs” The INs are the “P5”, I know that’s a football term, but it succinctly describes a group that controls a huge portion of sports revenue; TV revenue, attendance revenue, athletic department budget, and access to the football playoff system. About the only large dollar thing they don’t directly control is the basketball playoff system.

The P5 has implied on several occasions that if they don’t get their way on rules changes that are important to them, they could form their own athletics association separate and distinct from the NCAA, not just in football, but in all revenue producing sports. That would be a disaster for the NCAA and the basketball playoff system as we know it.

The P5 is a cartel and they know how to use their power, both dollars and institutional. To them the NCAA is only a shell, a puppet to be used by the P5 for marketing and regulatory purposes. If the NCAA had a spine the P5 removed it and disposed of it a long time ago.

To be fair, in non-revenue sports and in Div. II and Div. III, the NCAA provides a reasonable structure for schools and athletes to operate in.

As it applies to this situation, the P5 will back the rules that will help them dominate a sport. If a rule change causes a flow of top notch athletes from the mid majors to the P5, then it will be approved. If it could lead to a flow in the opposite direction then it will not be approved. The best interest of the student-athlete is given some weight, but is of secondary importance.

One final thought: Mark Emmert is, was, and always will be a putz.

Way to long a post for me, apologies.

 

[Biff]

Lots of good posts by lots of posters more knowledgeable than me. So, this is just a matter of analysis and opinion on my part and the arguments of others that I agree with. Feel free (as always) to disagree and tear it apart.

To clarify my position regarding the NCAA:

When it comes to revenue producing sports, the NCAA will do (regulate) whatever is in its best interest.

Right now the best interest of the NCAA is whatever the P5 tells them it is.

In Division 1 the NCAA is composed of 2 groups the “INs” and the “OUTs” The INs are the “P5”, I know that’s a football term, but it succinctly describes a group that controls a huge portion of sports revenue; TV revenue, attendance revenue, athletic department budget, and access to the football playoff system. About the only large dollar thing they don’t directly control is the basketball playoff system.

The P5 has implied on several occasions that if they don’t get their way on rules changes that are important to them, they could form their own athletics association separate and distinct from the NCAA, not just in football, but in all revenue producing sports. That would be a disaster for the NCAA and the basketball playoff system as we know it.

The P5 is a cartel and they know how to use their power, both dollars and institutional. To them the NCAA is only a shell, a puppet to be used by the P5 for marketing and regulatory purposes. If the NCAA had a spine the P5 removed it and disposed of it a long time ago.

To be fair, in non-revenue sports and in Div. II and Div. III, the NCAA provides a reasonable structure for schools and athletes to operate in.

As it applies to this situation, the P5 will back the rules that will help them dominate a sport. If a rule change causes a flow of top notch athletes from the mid majors to the P5, then it will be approved. If it could lead to a flow in the opposite direction then it will not be approved. The best interest of the student-athlete is given some weight, but is of secondary importance.

One final thought: Mark Emmert is, was, and always will be a putz.

Way to long a post for me, apologies.

You could have just gone with your final thought....saved some typing.

 

[dogged1]

D*mn, that was good. I did actually laugh out loud.

 

[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.

What the NCAA transfer proposal means, and how coaches and players are reacting

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.