OT: another coach fed up with the NCAA transfer waiver process

[pvdoggy]

Izzo leaves board after NCAA denies waiver

Michigan State coach Tom Izzo abruptly resigned from a coaches board Thursday, angered after the NCAA denied an appeal from forward Joey Hauser to play this season.

www.espn.com

 

[EricLA]

I like Geno's idea - every single player gets a 1 time transfer waiver - can play immediately. A 2nd transfer requires a 1 year delay in PT meaning they have to sit out. Each conference can decide if they want to allow immediate PT for a transfer intra-conference. Easy peasy and consistent for everyone.

 

[veryolddog]

I think that if a young person wants to change from one college to another, that is that person's right to do so. And, should they choose to play for that institution, they should and can play immediately, if they are qualified. The NCAA has no authority to take away this "right" from any individual who wishes to change from one College or another for any reason whatsoever. If this was challenged in the Courts, this would defuse the NCAA.

 

[hoopsfan22]

I think that if a young person wants to change from one college to another, that is that person's right to do so. And, should they choose to play for that institution, they should and can play immediately, if they are qualified. The NCAA has no authority to take away this "right" from any individual who wishes to change from one College or another for any reason whatsoever. If this was challenged in the Courts, this would defuse the NCAA.

Here's how the court case would go: they ask the NCAA what the rules are, then they ask the plaintiff if they signed any documentation unconditionally accepting those rules. Case dismissed.

 

[Alydar]

Here's how the court case would go: they ask the NCAA what the rules are, then they ask the plaintiff if they signed any documentation unconditionally accepting those rules. Case dismissed.

The response to that would be that yes, they signed, but it was with a symbolic gun to their head because without signing they wouldn't have been given the scholarship. I've seen companies use this tactic successfully with government contracts they signed.

 

[hoopsfan22]

The response to that would be that yes, they signed, but it was with a symbolic gun to their head because without signing they wouldn't have been given the scholarship. I've seen companies use this tactic successfully with government contracts they signed.

There's no legal path forward here. There was no gun held to their head. The student-athlete voluntarily accepted the athletic scholarship and all of the strings that come attached to that. Nearly 100% of college kids that earn their degrees do so without the burden of NCAA rules and regulations.

 

[Centerstream]

I am gonna say the same thing that I have said time and time again...
If a Softball player can transfer and play immediately, then every other student-athlete should be given the same opportunity.
And other sports also do not require transfers to sit out a year.

 

[maccca3232]

Teams are rightfully looking for consistency, so everyone knows where they stand. I would prefer a rule where both the team and player know before making a decision whether that player would be eligible right away.

I wonder what the NCAA's intention is? There is no restriction on how many highly ranked players a team can sign to an NLI. So why is there a restriction on transfers?

I could understand why a player wanting to transfer within the same conference but even in that case at worst they shouldn't be allowed to play against their former team that first year, otherwise it seems illogical.

While giving Shepherd a waiver didn't win Notre Dame the championship, it definitely increased their chances and in doing so impacted the national landscape, personally I don't think that should be allowed on a case-by-case basis it's either no one is eligible or everyone is eligible.

 

[ucbart]

What I don’t understand is this....why is women’s basketball the only women’s sport that the transfer rule applies to? I’d imagine from a revenue/popularity aspect, volleyball and softball have to be equal to basketball.

Women’s basketball isn’t treated equally in any way, shape, or form to the men’s game...except for this. I don’t get it.

 

[billybud]

Of course...coaches don't love the transfer rule in softball either....

A less restrictive transfer system created what Arizona State coach Trisha Ford calls "absolute chaos," not only in her program, which lost two key players from its 2018 Women's College World Series team, but throughout the country less than four months before the start of the 2019 season.

The 2018 Pac-12 champion, Oregon, has been hard hit too, losing six players including All Pac-12 pitcher Miranda Elish and two others to Texas, where former Ducks coach Mike White moved after last season.

 

[billybud]

I can see a coach get hired elsewhere and raid his old squad like Mike White did.

Chaos would help the better women's BB programs and probably hurt the others...the magnet of playing for a Final Four chance is a strong pull to resist.

Maybe a rich get richer, further blow to equity. Especially when a UConn or South Carolina or Notre Dame can pick off developed players from other squads.

 

[Purduke]

What I don’t understand is this....why is women’s basketball the only women’s sport that the transfer rule applies to? I’d imagine from a revenue/popularity aspect, volleyball and softball have to be equal to basketball.

This wouldn't be true, especially for softball. NCAA publishes attendances by sport at their stats.NCAA.org site so you can see for yourself. Unfortunately they only publish by school without a consolidated average\total.

But running a few data points shows WBB is much better attended (all 2018-19 D1 data). For instance, WBB highest avg attendance is 10,406 (South Carolina); 17 of the high 20 programs avg > 5,000\game with little break after 17, and at the bottom only 76 of 351 schools avg below 500\game.

For WVolleyball the top attendance is 8,205 (Nebraska) but only 4 of 20 highest avg > 5,000 per game and there is a sig drop after those 4 such that the rest of the Top 20 avg out around 2,500 attendance. At the bottom 176 of 336 schools avg below 500 avg attendance.

For Softball it is just much lower. Highest Avg attendance is 2,544 (Alabama); only 2 programs avg > 2,500 per game and 253 of the 297 programs average less than 500 in attendance.

WBB and WVball play about the same number of games between 16 and 20 (with Volleyball looking like it is about 10% higher); Softball does play 2 to 2.5X as many home games.

 

[pvdoggy]

I can see a coach get hired elsewhere and raid his old squad like Mike White did.

Chaos would help the better women's BB programs and probably hurt the others...the magnet of playing for a Final Four chance is a strong pull to resist.

Maybe a rich get richer, further blow to equity. Especially when a UConn or South Carolina or Notre Dame can pick off developed players from other squads.

I would not mind if the rule is everyone has to sit one year, no matter what, to prevent the situation you are talking about with Mike White and Texas. I think it is the inconsistency of how the rule is being applied that is frustrating people.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Of course...coaches don't love the transfer rule in softball either....

A less restrictive transfer system created what Arizona State coach Trisha Ford calls "absolute chaos," not only in her program, which lost two key players from its 2018 Women's College World Series team, but throughout the country less than four months before the start of the 2019 season.

The 2018 Pac-12 champion, Oregon, has been hard hit too, losing six players including All Pac-12 pitcher Miranda Elish and two others to Texas, where former Ducks coach Mike White moved after last season.

This. I imagine if everyone was allowed to transfer and have immediate eligibility, you would see abuse of the system. Probably tampering and "poaching" would be occurring frequently as well. I think it already does, but it would get worse.

 

[southofnorth]

This. I imagine if everyone was allowed to transfer and have immediate eligibility, you would see abuse of the system. Probably tampering and "poaching" would be occurring frequently as well. I think it already does, but it would get worse.

That’s what makes this such a difficult subject. My solutions would be one of the following:

1) Schools offer 4 year GUARANTEED scholarships (if you redshirt one year, that still counts as one of those years; injuries that were season-ending or that limited the player to less than 20% of the season wouldn’t count towards the total). If a player decides to transfer at any point throughout the 4 years without just cause (e.g. abuse) then they have to sit out a year period (I wouldn’t include coaching changes as just cause, either). I know some schools already offer something like this, but this would prevent players from bouncing around school to school.

2) A one-time get-out-of-sitting-our free card. Similar to what Geno has described. A player gets one free transfer (everyone makes mistakes, especially high school kids deciding on their future) and after that they sit out (I might even extend this to grad transfers)

These might not be the perfect solutions, but the NCAA has a monopoly on college sports, which means kids don’t get a chance NOT to agree to the NCAA’s egregious terms if they want to play D1 collegiate sports. There has to be some middle ground between free transfers (as far as playing right away goes) and obscure panels deciding who gets a waiver and who doesn’t.

 

[JordyG]

I like Geno's idea - every single player gets a 1 time transfer waiver - can play immediately. A 2nd transfer requires a 1 year delay in PT meaning they have to sit out. Each conference can decide if they want to allow immediate PT for a transfer intra-conference. Easy peasy and consistent for everyone.

Now look here Eric, this idea just makes too much sense. Why in the world would the NCAA ever elect to do this?

 

[JordyG]

That’s what makes this such a difficult subject. My solutions would be one of the following:

1) Schools offer 4 year GUARANTEED scholarships (if you redshirt one year, that still counts as one of those years; injuries that were season-ending or that limited the player to less than 20% of the season wouldn’t count towards the total). If a player decides to transfer at any point throughout the 4 years without just cause (e.g. abuse) then they have to sit out a year period (I wouldn’t include coaching changes as just cause, either). I know some schools already offer something like this, but this would prevent players from bouncing around school to school.

2) A one-time get-out-of-sitting-our free card. Similar to what Geno has described. A player gets one free transfer (everyone makes mistakes, especially high school kids deciding on their future) and after that they sit out (I might even extend this to grad transfers)

These might not be the perfect solutions, but the NCAA has a monopoly on college sports, which means kids don’t get a chance NOT to agree to the NCAA’s egregious terms if they want to play D1 collegiate sports. There has to be some middle ground between free transfers (as far as playing right away goes) and obscure panels deciding who gets a waiver and who doesn’t.

...and here you are making even more sense.

 

[hoopsfan22]

These might not be the perfect solutions, but the NCAA has a monopoly on college sports, which means kids don’t get a chance NOT to agree to the NCAA’s egregious terms if they want to play D1 collegiate sports. There has to be some middle ground between free transfers (as far as playing right away goes) and obscure panels deciding who gets a waiver and who doesn’t.

If you aren't on athletic scholarship do you still have to follow the NCAA's egregious terms?

 

[Plebe]

Izzo: "All the research I've seen, the consistency and the guidelines for this seem absurd. There's arbitrary decisions being made. And what bothers me the most is they're being made by individuals who don't really understand what's going on in our game."

NABC executive director: "There's a lack of trust in terms of the process. Coaches look at stories about this kid becoming eligible immediately and then find out this kid is not and there's a lot of uncertainty. Tom deeply cares about the game and is a great steward. When his frustration comes to the point that he wants to disengage from the conversation, I think that says something significant."

 

[CTtransplant]

If you aren't on athletic scholarship do you still have to follow the NCAA's egregious terms?

Or more concretely, do Ivy League student athletes have to sit out for a year if they transfer? Do they have to sign the same LOI if they are not receiving an athletic scholarship?

 

[hoopsfan22]

Or more concretely, do Ivy League student athletes have to sit out for a year if they transfer? Do they have to sign the same LOI if they are not receiving an athletic scholarship?

I thought if you don't take an athletic scholarship, you are not bound to the same rules. In other words, before TLaw was put on scholarship she could transfer to a different school every year and play right away if she wanted, while Evina obviously can't.

 

[UConnCat]

The NCAA is going to have to do something. I wouldn't be surprised if we see another lawsuit filed challenging the year-in-residency requirement on antitrust grounds. The first attempts failed on the grounds that that the NCAA eligibility rules are presumptively valid and shielded from antitrust scrutiny. The O'Bannon decision poked a hole through that facade and may have provided an opening for a new challenge.

 

[billybud]

Coaches want to fill their needs...right now. And get PO'd if they can't get their way. Especially if they think that a competitor did while they did not.

And wouldn't you? If your million dollar salary was riding on winning?

I could see back door poaching if anyone could transfer once without a sit out...

As an example, I could see a UConn/South Carolina/Baylor wanting FSU's true freshman 6'5" Center...McDonald's All American, 5th best post player...after she develops in a couple years.

Great for elite programs wanting to bring in developed players...devastating to programs who gave up a recruiting slot, and spent a couple of seasons developing a talent.

 

[OldAlum]

If they dont want to go to immediate eligibility for all transfers, they at least need to make the criteria obvious, public, and reasonable.

So immediate eligibility if the recruiting coach leaves. But that does not extend to the school that coach went to. Perhaps eligibility for players that played less than X% in the first three quarters of games during regular season. (So playing "garbage time" wont tend to count) Maybe some other specific circumstances.

But clarity and the perception of equal treatment is needed.

 

[billybud]

The Family Hardship Waiver is difficult to provide transparency in...athletes are students and there is confidentiality. And their family members have the right to expect the NCAA to respect medical confidentiality

The NCAA must be provided..

• Nature of the injury or illness: The injury or illness should be life-threatening and involve an immediate family member (parent, legal guardian, or sibling). Waivers that are denied typically involve an extended family member (aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc.) unless that family member raised the student-athlete.
• Student-athlete’s responsibilities related to the care of the family member: The more involved the student-athlete is in the day-to-day care for the family member, the more likely the waiver is to be granted.
• Chronology of events: Waivers are more likely to be granted if something changed that prompted the student-athlete’s transfer like a diagnosis, the actual injury, or a worsening condition. Waivers are less likely to be granted if a family member has been ill or injured for a while, and nothing changed that require the student-athlete to transfer.