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

[CocoHusky]

Too late to help UCONN and Evina but there is always next year.

NCAA studies idea of one transfer with no penalty

The NCAA Division I transfer waiver working group is considering a concept that would allow athletes in all sports to transfer once without sitting out a year of competition.

www.espn.com

 

[dogged1]

Hmmmm,
Fair to the Athlete? Check.
Uniformly, applicable, no undefined waiver process, Check
Serves the best interests of the "P5" institutions and coaches, No Check
No Go, never gonna happen.
Mea Culpa, I have a jaundiced opinion of our wonderful NCAA and its glorious leader M.E.

 

[JordyG]

Hmmmm,
Fair to the Athlete? Check.
Uniformly, applicable, no undefined waiver process, Check
Serves the best interests of the "P5" institutions and coaches, No Check
No Go, never gonna happen.
Mea Culpa, I have a jaundiced opinion of our wonderful NCAA and its glorious leader M.E.

Non P5 schools also are looking side eyed at this. I think they more than the P5 schools, knowing their one and only good recruit can up and scoot, are wary of this rule. I loved this idea from the scrum, though I think it just encourages the rich to get richer.

 

[DEpup]

The most logical thing to do!

 

[CocoHusky]

Non P5 schools also are looking side eyed at this. I think they more than the P5 schools, knowing their one and only good recruit can up and scoot, are wary of this rule. I loved this idea from the scrum, though I think it just encourages the rich to get richer.

Looks like two of the P5 is getting out in front of this. I think this will be a wrap by April.

ACC: Student-athletes should be allowed one-time transfer exemption

The Atlantic Coast Conference has decided to support a one-time transfer for student-athletes across all sports.

www.espn.com

 

[Steelerone]

The NCAA wouldn't know fairness if it was given to them by Hilton Kaderlly.

 

[JordyG]

Looks like two of the P5 is getting out in front of this. I think this will be a wrap by April.

ACC: Student-athletes should be allowed one-time transfer exemption

The Atlantic Coast Conference has decided to support a one-time transfer for student-athletes across all sports.

www.espn.com

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?

 

[Centerstream]

Maybe add a rule that a school can only add 1 transfer per year, excluding grad transfers.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Hmmmm,
Fair to the Athlete? Check.
Uniformly, applicable, no undefined waiver process, Check
Serves the best interests of the "P5" institutions and coaches, No Check
No Go, never gonna happen.
Mea Culpa, I have a jaundiced opinion of our wonderful NCAA and its glorious leader M.E.

The ACC and B1G are on board. If the B1G and/or $EC want it to happen it will happen.

 

[JordyG]

The NCAA wouldn't know fairness if it was given to them by Hilton Kaderlly.

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.

 

[j66kicker]

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.

You forgot Economist (sorry, @MilfordHusky )

 

[pvdoggy]

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?

Why? Collier is having a pretty good season at Texas, arguably better than Liv's season at Uconn.

 

[LCConnFan]

You forgot Economist (sorry, @MilfordHusky )

Oops! You forgot Charley Creme!

 

[JordyG]

You forgot Economist (sorry, @MilfordHusky )

Ooooooooooooooooooooooo! I'm tellin' @MilfordHusky just what you said! You're gonna be in troublllllllllllllle now!

 

[JordyG]

Why? Collier is having a pretty good season at Texas, arguably better than Liv's season at Uconn.

..and playing for a program going nowhere under a coach that may be on her last legs at Texas.

 

[bballnut90]

Maybe add a rule that a school can only add 1 transfer per year, excluding grad transfers.

I'm all for let the players play where they want to without penalty, but I think a slow rollout with something like this would be quite interesting.

 

[bballnut90]

Regarding the thought process that it'll benefit the P5 programs and be a detriment to mid majors, I don't think this is necessarily the case. In college volleyball they have very limited transfer restrictions and it seems to work for most parties. You commonly see top recruits who are buried on talented rosters transfer to lesser programs where they can get playing time and make an impact. On the flip side some top mid major players transfer up to P5 programs if they want to compete against better competition. Someone with more hard data could provide a greater breakdown, but all in all I think the process works well and you do see transfers but athletes aren't penalized for seeking their best interest.

In WCBB we've already seen numerous top recruits transfer out to non-P5 programs (Decosta, Boothe, Mulkey, McCoy, Hayes, etc) so I think the talent will continue to spread out across the board in both directions.

 

[Alydar]

While I support giving players some freedom, one unintended consequence is that we will see a hoard of surrogates roaming the country and luring late developing athletes to major institutions that are their clients. Difficult if not impossible to control. Raiding other programs was made illegal many decades ago and this new rule could revive it.

 

[oldude]

Non P5 schools also are looking side eyed at this. I think they more than the P5 schools, knowing their one and only good recruit can up and scoot, are wary of this rule. I loved this idea from the scrum, though I think it just encourages the rich to get richer.

While nothing is perfect, your concern is certainly warranted. Forget about WBB. If and when this proposal goes into effect, I can forsee the rise of a bunch of shady middlemen in MBB, soliciting players for P5 programs. Need to replace a pg? So and So from mid-major U is really interested in becoming a Jayhawk, Cardinal, Tar Heel, fill-in-the-blank.

However, I think it’s better then what we have right now, because it’s in the best interests of the players.

 

[CL82]

Hmmmm,
Fair to the Athlete? Check.
Uniformly, applicable, no undefined waiver process, Check
Serves the best interests of the "P5" institutions and coaches, No Check
No Go, never gonna happen.
Mea Culpa, I have a jaundiced opinion of our wonderful NCAA and its glorious leader M.E.

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.

While nothing is perfect, your concern is certainly warranted. Forget about WBB. If and when this proposal goes into effect, I can forsee the rise of a bunch of shady middlemen in MBB, soliciting players for P5 programs. Need to replace a pg? So and So from mid-major U is really interested in becoming a Jayhawk, Cardinal, Tar Heel, fill-in-the-blank.

However, I think it’s better then what we have right now, because it’s in the best interests of the players.

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.

 

[donalddoowop]

..and playing for a program going nowhere under a coach that may be on her last legs at Texas.

I see Baylor, not UConn. (Excuse me for speculating.) Women's college volleyball players don't have to sit a year after transferring, so why can't it be the same for basketball. It has not hurt volleyball.

 

[oldude]

I see Baylor, not UConn. (Excuse me for speculating.) Women's college volleyball players don't have to sit a year after transferring, so why can't it be the same for basketball. It has not hurt volleyball.

 

[dogged1]

The NCAA wouldn't know fairness if it was given to them by Hilton Kaderlly.

That is soooo good. Can I steal it? LOL

 

[Centerstream]

I'm all for let the players play where they want to without penalty, but I think a slow rollout with something like this would be quite interesting.

And thank you for expressing your opinion.

 

[Centerstream]

I see Baylor, not UConn. (Excuse me for speculating.) Women's college volleyball players don't have to sit a year after transferring, so why can't it be the same for basketball. It has not hurt volleyball.

And it is allowed in softball and I am amazed each spring how many "name" players are now on a different, usually highly ranked, team. And when a big name coach goes to a new school, it's amazing how many players transfer to the new school.

 

[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.