New Transfer rules?

[UConnCat]

Well of course it has. The NCAA does not want to make this change.

 

[CocoHusky]

Typical NCAA, no backbone so they punt and hope we forget.

 

[DefenseBB]

We are the proverbial "slippery slope". I hope most of us understand the hypocrisy to which we refer on transfers vs. coaches abandoning deals midway through to take on a better job. So, my first job, I do well, but can't get a promotion or pay raise, am I allowed to go elsewhere or am I beholden to my company because they gave me the job and because they want a competent and cheap worker so they don't have to promote me or allow me to go elsewhere? That is what Hinson is saying. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

What the NCAA has is a morals and ethics clause that if Power 5 schools (or any school) initiates contact with an athlete at another school, it's a violation. In my opinion, the NCAA needs to start banning coaches-HC, Assistants, Athletic Dept personnel, whomever violates these rules for pre-described years. However, students can, of their "own volition", leave a school. My quotes are for the fact that what kid leaves "without knowing" he can go where he wants without some re-assurance from the new school. Color me suspect for the highly talented athlete.

This rule really puts the light on football and men's basketball and as such, is where the coach can and could limit what schools he would allow the student athlete to transfer to. Player wants to leave Alabama for Georgia, he can go over Saban's objection if he sits a year, or he can go anywhere else that Saban agrees to, and play the next year. That would prevent some abuses, not perfectly but it's something to allow athletes to find their best situation.

 

[Shmermerer]

Not true at all. D1 schools do not allow athletes to play right away. Many schools even limit where a transfer can go. D2 and D3 have different rules. I am not sure of your situation-was it a D1 to D1 transfer? Or was it something else? I know Stanford Tennis would not grant a transfer to USC for immediate play. There does need to be an over haul of the process and as we have seen, there are exceptions.
Here is the direct language from the NCAA for all D1 sports:
"Requiring student-athletes to sit out of competition for a year after transferring encourages them to make decisions motivated by academics as well as athletics. Most student-athletes who are not eligible to compete immediately benefit from a year to adjust to their new school and focus on their classes. Student-athletes who must sit out for a year at their new school may practice with their new team and receive an athletics scholarship if they were academically eligible when they left their previous school."

Well I played tennis my freshmen year at Northern Illinois University (D-1) and transferred to DePaul (D-1). I did not have to sit out a year. There is a rule where the school you are transferring from can sign an immediate eligibility waiver so you don’t have to sit out a year. They don’t have to, but they did. I would be more than willing to send you links to my profiles. The Stanford transfer you are referring to was inside the conference. My personal situation, NIU did not want me to transfer to a school in conference or to an opponent on the schedule for next year, which DePaul wasn’t.

 

[Shmermerer]

Why are football and basketball treated differently?

I have no clue to be honest with you. Maybe because the smaller sports don’t generate any money for the university so they don’t care as much.

 

[Charliebball]

 

[Charliebball]

 

[Charliebball]

wow.............looks like we may see a lot of movement for next season if this goes through...........I bet some players wish they had worked a bit harder academically.......

 

[Charliebball]

 

[billnaples]

I have no clue to be honest with you. Maybe because the smaller sports don’t generate any money for the university so they don’t care as much.

It is absolutely about the money, Men's BB, Football, and to a much lesser extent maybe Women's BB are the revenue plus sports. Those are the only sports that require a sit out period for transfers, at least based on all the data I have seen. So don't kid yourself, this is about the cash cow collector that is the NCAA and none of it is in the best interests of the student. They will blow smoke up your skirt to convince you otherwise but if it was truly in the best interests of the student athlete then why not treat all players in all sports the same?

 

[Shmermerer]

It is absolutely about the money, Men's BB, Football, and to a much lesser extent maybe Women's BB are the revenue plus sports. Those are the only sports that require a sit out period for transfers, at least based on all the data I have seen. So don't kid yourself, this is about the cash cow collector that is the NCAA and none of it is in the best interests of the student. They will blow smoke up your skirt to convince you otherwise but if it was truly in the best interests of the student athlete then why not treat all players in all sports the same?

I'm not kidding myself. Lol. I think we are agreeing. But like I had mentioned before I was telling my personal story as someone had mentioned that you can't transfer and be immediately eligible in any D1 sport, which was inaccurate as I was able to play immediately with a one time waiver by my previous school.

 

[Charliebball]

if this goes through it is a game changer for WBB..............not sure if it is a positive or negative for UConn

 

[MilfordHusky]

Comment One. What's Driving This?

A recognition, perhaps, that the standards for "hardship" avoidance of the sit-out year have eroded and become so opaque that the current system is untenable.

That erosion just invites perceptions of arbitrariness, hypocrisy, corruption, you name it.

In other words, we seem to be on the verge of having no standards anyway. Those tasked with making and rationalizing subjective NCAA decisions must have a growing "ick" factor in their jobs.

Hence the appeal of something nice and objective.

Comment Two. Pick Your Fear

A fear expressed by some in this thread is that the successful coaches will change their ways to avoid key players running away the moment they don't get what they want.

A contrary fear, and the original one behind the restriction, is that the best players on less successful teams will all go running toward the successful coaches.

Ever play Red Rover?

Deciding which way to run could give the players whiplash.

I'm not sure what the current rules are, but eliminating the waiting year increases the incentives for coaches to tamper, that is, contact recruits who signed with other schools. Maybe we need a strong penalty to prevent tampering.

 

[billnaples]

[/QUOTE

I wonder if Mr. Lappas let his kids know when he was leaving Manhattan or when he was leaving Villanova or when he was leaving UMass. Were you concerned about your recruits? Just asking. As to transfers being eligible "immediately" I'd say find out what time frame is fairest to the most special interests. Let's see what gets defined as immediately. I would not support a rule permitting a transfer in January to play for another team that season. As it stands now someone who left his team in Jan. 2018 would have to sit out the entirety of the 2019/2020 season so the kid sits for about 18 months. Is that fair? Did you sit out when you transferred jobs? Doesn't look like it from what I saw. But tow that NCAA line and keep those kids down on the farm and let the coaches move wherever and whenever they want with impunity.