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

[billybud]

If anyone can transfer once with impunity....

Just call it free agency...let programs bid what benefits they can afford to procure the athlete...fair to the athlete who can pick and choose.

Everyone wants it their way...

....current elite programs would want to transfer in top players from other programs without a sit out year. It is a change that, in basketball, could benefit the UConn's and Nova's.

....If it was a free agency and you could just "buy" the athlete...the moneyed programs would have the advantage...the Bama, Texas crowd.

 

[BroadwayVa]

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.

All players "developed" for other teams are DEVELOPED for the receiving team---I can think of two that transferred into Uconn that didn't fit the UConn mold ( as most Developed by Geno) even after sitting a year (both sat).

The truth of you Million Dollar Salary is factual and does not sit well with people like me. That to me is the greatest reason for PAYING players. I detest the thought of PAID players by the very nature of them being paid (apart from stipend ) they become PROFESSIONALS AND poaching become rampant.

 

[southofnorth]

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

No, but I guess that raises the questions of if walk-ons or non-scholarship players in general have to agree to any terms while playing for the team since it's the team/university that is in a contract with the NCAA.

 

[Dokey]

Courts will look at the past record of NCAA for consistency and how they handle transfers across the board in all sports and as quick as you mention the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the current transfer rule will be thrown out. That’s how I see it based on my old constitutional law classes.

 

[billybud]

Courts will look at the past record of NCAA for consistency and how they handle transfers across the board in all sports and as quick as you mention the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the current transfer rule will be thrown out. That’s how I see it based on my old constitutional law classes.

I don't think that the equal protection clause is a flyer....Women's Basketball, as the premier women's sport, is being treated re transfers like the premier men's sport (football).

The Supreme Court has also used the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit discrimination on other bases besides race. Most laws are assessed under so-called “rational basis scrutiny.” Here, any plausible and legitimate reason for the discrimination is sufficient to render it constitutional.

To treat the women differently might be discriminatory......However, a plausible. legitimate reason to treat women differently from men might make it allowable.

 

[Figurehead]

So it will be interesting with Sedonia Prince. December is coming up and still no decision. I can't help but think that by Coach Graves playing it so low keyed it might be to Princes advantage. By saying she won't be ready to play until January and also saying at this point she has already accepted either result already might work in her favor. The NCAA does not like its boat rocked much it you get what I am saying here.

That is instead of rushing it through from the get go. Btw, They applied very late in the process.

 

[UConnCat]

So it will be interesting with Sedonia Prince. December is coming up and still no decision. I can't help but think that Graves playing it so low keyed might be to Princes advantage. By saying she won't be ready to play until January and also saying she has already accepted either result already might work in her favor. That is instead of rushing it through from the get go. They applied very late in the process.

Dawn tried that strategy with Cooper's waiver request last year and it didn't work.

 

[DEpup]

I really like the 1 free transfer policy idea. They are young people so things will happen in their lives and they will grow and realize a better decision for them could have been made.....I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

[CL82]

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.

Mmm I think you missed the part where the plaintiff introduces evidence about all the times the NCAA deviated from the general rule and asks the NCAA to explain and justify those deviations.

Not a problem. I have their response:

 

[willtalk]

The major problem in every aspect of the NCAA is the lack of transparency. No one really knows if they are following their own standards consistently. The more power any agency acquires and the longer they have it the more arrogant it becomes in respect to exercising that power. The NCAA's standards have been under question for some time, but the Shepard case was so egregious that it might have been the " the final straw". Had Shepard not made a public statement as to why she was transferring it too might have gone less noticed. However, when you state publicly that you are transferring for the benefit of your professional basketball future it pretty much negates all subsequent reasons. The NCAA really screwed up on that one. I think that their cutting back on waivers this season is purely a damage control reaction. But reactions tend to create more problems than they actually solve.

That said you can not just have unlimited transfers for multiple reasons. Teams make scholarship offers based on long term positional needs. Recruits also accept those offers base on the same criteria. The unlimited transfer scenario upsets both of their ability to make any long term commitments in that respect. Schools do not know who will be on their roster each year as will recruits not know who will be their competition to the schools they are thinking about committing too as well. It will destroy any sense of team continuity.

I could see a standing waiver without having to sit out for freshmen. That one year should give them a good enough feel for the program from which they can make a more informed long term decision. Nothing is ever going to make everyone happy. There is always some sort of tradeoff involved so a middle ground needs to be found. One thing that does not involve a negative tradeoff for any school is accountable standards. Before any changes are made accountability by those responsible for enforcing the rules needs to be in place. Any sort of governing body needs to have rules for governing themselves in place before they can effectively govern others.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Mmm I think you missed the part where the plaintiff introduces evidence about all the times the NCAA deviated from the general rule and asks the NCAA to explain and justify those deviations.

Not a problem. I have their response:

They don't have to explain the deviations. The process by definition is subjective and decided by committee. I get it. People are frustrated by the lack of transparency in the process, but people need to realize the only part of the process we know for sure is the reaction by the coach and the player. We don't know what gets submitted by the school, what information, why the committee ruled the way it did, etc. People are upset over something where they have basically zero facts. Facts we're not entitled to really. If there was some legal avenue to challenging this, surely someone would have thought of that and pursued it by now. Must be some reason it's never legally challenged as I'm sure some pretty smart people have looked at the rules and process to see if there was some edge.

 

[CL82]

They don't have to explain the deviations. The process by definition is subjective and decided by committee. I get it. People are frustrated by the lack of transparency in the process, but people need to realize the only part of the process we know for sure is the reaction by the coach and the player. We don't know what gets submitted by the school, what information, why the committee ruled the way it did, etc. People are upset over something where they have basically zero facts. Facts we're not entitled to really. If there was some legal avenue to challenging this, surely someone would have thought of that and pursued it by now. Must be some reason it's never legally challenged as I'm sure some pretty smart people have looked at the rules and process to see if there was some edge.

The premise in your post was a court case on the issue with a swift dismissal based merely on the existence of NCAA rules:

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.

My response pointed out that application of those rules would be a part any such case particularly when the plaintiff can make a case showing an apparently arbitrary and capricious application of those rules.

Regarding your new argument that since no one has challenged NCAA rules yet, there must not be a basis to do it, I point out that a Memphis athlete did just that this year. His indefinite suspension became 11 games (IIRC). Further, UNC threat of litigation caused the NCAA to back off significant penalties as did Penn State's.

I'm not commenting on whether I think anyone would prevail. I'm just noting that both your original and secondary presumptions in your posts were inaccurate.

 

[uconnfan68]

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.

You’d make up for it by stealing football players.

 

[uconnfan68]

It's whose oxe that gets gored, I reckon....

On the football board, folks are bemoaning the loss of three Junior O linemen to transfer and how that will make it more difficult to build back to a winning program.

They are graduates, not juniors.

 

[billybud]

They are graduates, not juniors.

In terms of football eligibility, they are either juniors or RS Juniors...

For instance, FSU's best O lineman, Landon Dickerson, didn't play his last season at FSU this year...as a grad, he transferred to Alabama where he starts..(he is a senior in terms of eligibility..).

 

[Purduke]

In terms of football eligibility, they are either juniors or RS Juniors...

For instance, FSU's best O lineman, Landon Dickerson, didn't play his last season at FSU this year...as a grad, he transferred to Alabama where he starts..(he is a senior in terms of eligibility..).

Or RS Sophs. I think the best way to express it is that they are students who have completed the requirements for their bachelors degree and still have athletic eligibility remaining. There are instances of graduate transfers having two years of remaining eligibility.

 

[chrissaran]

It shouldn't matter, in conference or out of conference. I like Geno's idea. You get one transfer. If you want a second transfer, you sit out a year.

 

[Hope]

Graduate transfer Destinee Walker scores 23 pts. in Irish win over #21 Michigan.

 

[BostonBay]

The major problem in every aspect of the NCAA is the lack of transparency. No one really knows if they are following their own standards consistently. The more power any agency acquires and the longer they have it the more arrogant it becomes in respect to exercising that power. The NCAA's standards have been under question for some time, but the Shepard case was so egregious that it might have been the " the final straw". Had Shepard not made a public statement as to why she was transferring it too might have gone less noticed. However, when you state publicly that you are transferring for the benefit of your professional basketball future it pretty much negates all subsequent reasons. The NCAA really screwed up on that one. I think that their cutting back on waivers this season is purely a damage control reaction. But reactions tend to create more problems than they actually solve.

That said you can not just have unlimited transfers for multiple reasons. Teams make scholarship offers based on long term positional needs. Recruits also accept those offers base on the same criteria. The unlimited transfer scenario upsets both of their ability to make any long term commitments in that respect. Schools do not know who will be on their roster each year as will recruits not know who will be their competition to the schools they are thinking about committing too as well. It will destroy any sense of team continuity.

I could see a standing waiver without having to sit out for freshmen. That one year should give them a good enough feel for the program from which they can make a more informed long term decision. Nothing is ever going to make everyone happy. There is always some sort of tradeoff involved so a middle ground needs to be found. One thing that does not involve a negative tradeoff for any school is accountable standards. Before any changes are made accountability by those responsible for enforcing the rules needs to be in place. Any sort of governing body needs to have rules for governing themselves in place before they can effectively govern others.

And the fact that her case had such a major impact on the final "results" for that year. The NCAA made it worse by "restricting" borderline cases now, since there seems to be no rhyme or reason what it takes to have a successful waiver today.

 

[Jmsdawg]

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.

I owned a defense contracting business and we had many contracts with different Government agencies. I have never heard of any contractor who was allowed to deviate from the contract without the Government agreeing to the contract mod. The Government could modify the contract but the contractor could not. The contractor could request a contract mod but the Government was under no obligation to agree to the mod.