NCAA to consider change to graduate transfer rules...

[tykurez]

Every other student can switch schools whenever they want and be allowed to get involved in any sort of program at their new school immediately. If these kids are amateurs, then it's unreasonable to place work restrictions on them. Believe me, you'll understand when a kid sues to avoid having to sit out a year, particularly in a situation when his coach has left school.

Aren't you both arguing the same point? They should be allowed to do whatever they want ... they aren't paid employees of the institution.

 

[Gurleyman]

Tough. You don't own him.

Exactly. If he gets his degree, by any reasonable standard he has fulfilled his academic responsibilities and his part of whatever unwritten contract exists. At that point, he's free to pursue a grad program (or pro contract) wherever he wants.

A better example may be Purvis - if he stays on course to graduate this year, he's in the same spot Gibbs is now. If he feels that UConn isn't where he wants to continue playing/go to grad school, then he earns the freedom to enroll somewhere else by graduating. Hope that doesn't happen of course, but if it does, he's entitled.

 

[upstater]

Every other student can switch schools whenever they want and be allowed to get involved in any sort of program at their new school immediately. If these kids are amateurs, then it's unreasonable to place work restrictions on them. Believe me, you'll understand when a kid sues to avoid having to sit out a year, particularly in a situation when his coach has left school.

He can switch schools. He is not forbidden from switching schools.

Just like any other student.

If you want to compare academic departments with sports, then consider that a professor switching over from one school to another has to negotiate a tangle of regulations and prohibitions if he expects to move his research project from one place to the next. Schools are always regulating conflicts of interest. professors don't have reign over their research grants.

 

[upstater]

Exactly. If he gets his degree....

I was referring toa ll students, not grad transfers.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Every other student can switch schools whenever they want and be allowed to get involved in any sort of program at their new school immediately. If these kids are amateurs, then it's unreasonable to place work restrictions on them. Believe me, you'll understand when a kid sues to avoid having to sit out a year, particularly in a situation when his coach has left school.

As much as I agree in principle that it isn't fair to make kids sit out, the already ugly game of recruiting would become 100 times uglier if every kid currently in college was a free agent after every season. The NCAA would put a rule in place that says coaches aren't allowed to talk to the other players, but that rule would be broken on a daily basis. Mid-major programs would be picked over by the big boys every year.

What I definitely think needs to happen at a minimum is a school shouldn't be able to restrict where a player can transfer to, even within conference. It's absurd that a coach can decide that a player can't transfer to a specific school just because that school is on next year's schedule. Secondly, I agree that provisions should be made for kids when their coach leaves.

 

[Danzz]

The issue shouldn't be 4 years vs. 5 years.

After all, we have certain transfers, medical cases, and redshirts that play for 5 years. In football as well (i.e. Russell Wilson). so 4 vs. 5 is irrelevant.

The question is switching schools.

But why would you prevent a graduate from switching schools (if he still hasn't used up his eligibility) when any kid who is not a graduate can transfer?

A kid can play for 3 years, 4 of them on scholarship, and he can elect not to graduate, but instead to transfer.

"But why would you prevent a graduate from switching schools (if he still hasn't used up his eligibility) when any kid who is not a graduate can transfer?"
An athlete who transfers must sit out a year in most cases. I see your point and its a good one but I don't agree with it.It just doesn't feel right.
And on whether athletes should be paid I'm all for it. Not a huge amount of cash but enough so that thy can lead a normal college life.

 

[CallMeBruce]

He can switch schools. He is not forbidden from switching schools.

Just like any other student.

If you want to compare academic departments with sports, then consider that a professor switching over from one school to another has to negotiate a tangle of regulations and prohibitions if he expects to move his research project from one place to the next. Schools are always regulating conflicts of interest. professors don't have reign over their research grants.

This is exactly my point. The professor is an employee; hes paid and his research was funded by his school. The athlete is an amateur engaged in amateur athletics. Why is that different from a kid in the marching band transferring schools and joining the marching band at his new school? The answer is because you don't care about marching band, but you do care about basketball, so you support the NCAA exercising control over kids because it allows you to enjoy sports more.

 

[CallMeBruce]

As much as I agree in principle that it isn't fair to make kids sit out, the already ugly game of recruiting would become 100 times uglier if every kid currently in college was a free agent after every season. The NCAA would put a rule in place that says coaches aren't allowed to talk to the other players, but that rule would be broken on a daily basis. Mid-major programs would be picked over by the big boys every year.

What I definitely think needs to happen at a minimum is a school shouldn't be able to restrict where a player can transfer to, even within conference. It's absurd that a coach can decide that a player can't transfer to a specific school just because that school is on next year's schedule. Secondly, I agree that provisions should be made for kids when their coach leaves.

Then the rule needs to restrict coaches. They're the employees, not the kids.

 

[upstater]

This is exactly my point. The professor is an employee; hes paid and his research was funded by his school. The athlete is an amateur engaged in amateur athletics. Why is that different from a kid in the marching band transferring schools and joining the marching band at his new school? The answer is because you don't care about marching band, but you do care about basketball, so you support the NCAA exercising control over kids because it allows you to enjoy sports more.

A kid who isn't on scholarship can play sports at another school, or play trombone, or play the drums, or make wicker baskets. He's not on athletic scholarship. I'm pretty sure under NCAA rules that a walk-on can simply leave, no?

 

[CallMeBruce]

A kid who isn't on scholarship can play sports at another school, or play trombone, or play the drums, or make wicker baskets. He's not on athletic scholarship. I'm pretty sure under NCAA rules that a walk-on can simply leave, no?

There's no such restriction for students on scholarship for other things, like music or art.

 

[Gurleyman]

There's no such restriction for students on scholarship for other things, like music or art.

Or athletes in any sport besides basketball and football (and maybe hockey - they used to have that rule too).

A soccer or baseball player is eligible right away.

 

[CL82]

"You need two years in grad school anyway, so it makes sense"

The only thing it makes sense for is limiting any competitive advantage another school would gain by obtaining a grad transfer. Just like the competitive advantage of offering up the one-and-done factory Cal has created (and Coach K seems to be opening up to.) You can't possibly argue one without arguing the other.

I'd be okay with this if the NCAA simultaneously that you could not fill the scholarship of a one and done until after the completion of what would have been his second season. In that way, having a kid play for a year costs you two years of eligibility regardless of whether it was at the start or at the end of his collegiate career.

[Ok actually, I wouldn't because it still penalizes a kid who actually completed his college career, but you get the point.]

 

[Jerry1714]

I think this has something to do with Cal being pissed at UConn. Not the NCAA.

On the other hand, it was pretty clear to me that both Herbst and Manuel believed the NCAA was out to get UConn unfairly over APR. So why would anyone call them morons? I'm glad Napier embarrassed Emmert in multiple ways.

Because anyone who thinks the NCAA is changing the rule because of UConn is a moron. Period.

 

[upstater]

Because anyone who thinks the NCAA is changing the rule because of UConn is a moron. Period.

Manuel argued forcefully that the retroactive nature of the rule snared UConn and no one else. The UConn people even took that up with UHartford's Harrison. The idea that it was targeted at UConn was more than taken up in the Courant it interviewed Manuel

This is not a fringe idea at all.

In fact, when Manuel was asked to comment on the APR retro punishment in relation to academic scandals around the country, he even said that he noticed the NCAAs hypocritical stance in the way it treated UConn.

 

[Jerry1714]

Manuel argued forcefully that the retroactive nature of the rule snared UConn and no one else. The UConn people even took that up with UHartford's Harrison. The idea that it was targeted at UConn was more than taken up in the Courant it interviewed Manuel

This is not a fringe idea at all.

In fact, when Manuel was asked to comment on the APR retro punishment in relation to academic scandals around the country, he even said that he noticed the NCAAs hypocritical stance in the way it treated UConn.

I am not talking about the APR, I am talking about the transfer rule.