Proposal To Let Athletes Transfer Instantly After Coaching Change Gaining Steam

[Drew]

Proposal to let athletes transfer instantly after a coaching change picks up steam

Athletes would be allowed to transfer schools without restriction if their coach were fired or left for another job as part of sweeping proposal that is making its way through Division I, CBS Sports has learned. However, athletes would not be permitted to follow the departing coach to their new program.

The proposal, which originated from the Big 12, would also allow athletes to transfer without sitting out a season (as currently mandated by NCAA rules) in the event a postseason ban is handed down by the NCAA as punishment to their program.

The traditional academic "year in residence" for transfers in all other situations would still be in place and extended to every sport. Presently, that is only a requirement in five NCAA sports.

The proposal authored by the faculty athletic representatives at Baylor and Iowa State has received early support. Skeptics note it is merely a proposal, not the proposal. Still, the document shared with CBS Sports seems to be the most detailed offering to date as a means of fixing the NCAA's long-criticized transfer policies.

"Basically, we're saying kids can go anywhere they want," Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard said. "For the first time ever in college athletics, the student-athlete is empowered."

Changing the NCAA's entrenched transfer rules has become one of the most significant undertakings in the association's history.

Coaches have long been able to "block" where a transfer goes. Athletes also have to seek release from their scholarships to immediately get aid at another school. Frequently, they have to get "permission" from the school/coach to move on to their desired school.

Those practices would end if the aforementioned proposal is adopted.

 

[Exit 4]

I'd be in favor of a NLI release w/o penalty for a coaching change between the NLI signing date and the first game of the freshman year. Other than that, this will unleash chaos that will be difficult for all to manage. Basically a free agency market for 20% of the programs every year.

 

[huskymedic]

Wonder how they end up defining “their coach”; e.g. would a position coach apply?

 

[Exit 4]

And for rising coaches, they will have the ability to take their star kids with them. Milton to Nebraska? Etc, etc. Bad news for G5 programs.

 

[huskymedic]

And for rising coaches, they will have the ability to take their star kids with them. Milton to Nebraska? Etc, etc. Bad news for G5 programs.

Don’t think so...

>>”...However, athletes would not be permitted to follow the departing coach to their new program.”<<

 

[uconnphil2016]

I'd be in favor of a NLI release w/o penalty for a coaching change between the NLI signing date and the first game of the freshman year. Other than that, this will unleash chaos that will be difficult for all to manage. Basically a free agency market for 20% of the programs every year.

This makes sense. Some kids got royally screwed this year (take Arizona and Rich Rod's recruits for example). That's totally unfair and needs to be fixed.

 

[UConnJim]

This is actually a much better proposal than originally feared. People were thinking kids could transfer at any time without sitting out, but that would only be the case for coaching changes or post season bands and kids couldn't follow their coach to a new school.

In basketball for UConn, since we pay well and probably shouldn't have much head coaching turnover over time, this shouldn't have any negative impact, but it could be positive as kids could transfer in.

In football for UConn, it depends on if we can keep coaches over time, so it could be somewhat negative. For schools like Houston and UCF with their recent coaching turnover after successful seasons, it would be negative.

 

[Colt house75]

And for rising coaches, they will have the ability to take their star kids with them. Milton to Nebraska? Etc, etc. Bad news for G5 programs.

Agree.
Given AAC coaching changes; seems chaotic for G5 programs.

 

[blue93]

In football for UConn, it depends on if we can keep coaches over time, so it could be somewhat negative. For schools like Houston and UCF with their recent coaching turnover after successful seasons, it would be negative.

Agreed, this could be a huge benefit of having RE back because (fingers crossed) he won't be looking to leave what he built for a second time and is in it with us for the long haul.

 

[UConnJim]

Agree.
Given AAC coaching changes; seems chaotic for G5 programs.

P5 programs have just as many coaching changes as G5. This year, there were head coaching changes at 13 P5 and 8 G5 programs. Last year, there were 10 P5 and 13 G5 coaching changes.

 

[noeynox]

Agreed, this could be a huge benefit of having RE back because (fingers crossed) he won't be looking to leave what he built for a second time and is in it with us for the long haul.

Lol. Had a dream Edsall left for Michigan State cause "he runs a clean no nonsense program." Dreamier Job.

 

[Ldandy]

I know its a quaint notion, but this rule would not be necessary if kids committed to the school and not to coaches. Not allowing kids to transfer to the location of the new coach will curtail a lot of the mass exodus fear, but this like any change is loaded with potential issues.

 

[Life Is Good]

Especially now with the early signing period. First Lashlee, then Grimes and now White. Had those kids not signed their LOI on December 20th it would be a moot issue, they could just decommit and not have to worry about sitting out a year. However, it looks like the recruits are here to stay. HCRE picked some high character athletes. I think things are getting better already.

 

[freescooter]

Seems to me like a solution in search of a problem.

 

[huskymedic]

Forde @ YahooSports: Why NCAA must back revolutionary athlete transfer proposal

 

[huskyblooz]

Makes ADs a little reluctant to fire coaches

 

[UCFBfan]

Especially now with the early signing period. First Lashlee, then Grimes and now White. Had those kids not signed their LOI on December 20th it would be a moot issue, they could just decommit and not have to worry about sitting out a year. However, it looks like the recruits are here to stay. HCRE picked some high character athletes. I think things are getting better already.

I don’t think this applies to assistant or position coaches leaving. It’s solely based on the HC.

To be honest I’m not sure I see a negative to this. A kid should not be punished because the coach he wanted to play for left for greener pastures and now that student is stuck at a rebuilding program instead of a rising one. The caveat that a player can’t get the instant eligibility at the school their former coach went to makes it even more effective.

People are naive to think players commit to schools. They commit to coaches who have proven track records of success on the field and in putting kids in the NFL. No one is going to Alabama because they love the school. They’re going there to play for Saban who has proven time and again to produce National Championships and get players drafted.

I’m not sure I see a downside to this. However, I’m sure there will be one exploited somehow by the P5. There’s always something they’re tying to do to further subdue the G5

 

[Excalibur]

Agree.
Given AAC coaching changes; seems chaotic for G5 programs.

Which is exactly why it will happen . . .

 

[HuskyHawk]

I'd be in favor of a NLI release w/o penalty for a coaching change between the NLI signing date and the first game of the freshman year. Other than that, this will unleash chaos that will be difficult for all to manage. Basically a free agency market for 20% of the programs every year.

Recruiting might never end. You'd see constant recruitment of other team's players.

 

[blue93]

I don’t think this applies to assistant or position coaches leaving. It’s solely based on the HC.

To be honest I’m not sure I see a negative to this. A kid should not be punished because the coach he wanted to play for left for greener pastures and now that student is stuck at a rebuilding program instead of a rising one. The caveat that a player can’t get the instant eligibility at the school their former coach went to makes it even more effective.

People are naive to think players commit to schools. They commit to coaches who have proven track records of success on the field and in putting kids in the NFL. No one is going to Alabama because they love the school. They’re going there to play for Saban who has proven time and again to produce National Championships and get players drafted.

I’m not sure I see a downside to this. However, I’m sure there will be one exploited somehow by the P5. There’s always something they’re tying to do to further subdue the G5

I think the downside will be potentially having to rebuild your entire roster when a coach leaves for a bigger job on top of implementing a new staff/system, which is already difficult on its own.

I'd imagine this issue can be mitigated somewhat by hiring the new coach from within so that there are less question marks for players as they'd already be familiar with their new head coach and less tempted to bolt.

 

[Chin Diesel]

So, in the future, when a Scott Frost leaves UCF for Nebraska, he can take however much of his UCF roster with him?

 

[TheDrifter75]

So, in the future, when a Scott Frost leaves UCF for Nebraska, he can take however much of his UCF roster with him?

No... That's exactly what he can't do.

 

[huskymedic]

Speaking of blocking/restricting transfers to certain schools...

 

[RSTuthill]

As is well known, beauty, including the ability to play a position well at the FBS level, is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder (the HC) leaves, other beholders (the assistant coaches) also usually leave. This can have a devastating effect on a kid's athletic career. Say John Dunn comes in with a new head coach and wants nothing but pro sets, run first down and second, and nothing but pocket passing. Where do you think that leaves the current QB corps? For this reason I think that while this new rule should not apply to regular assistants, it should apply also to coordinators.

 

[kibblesnbits]

This might be a great employment plan for mediocre coaches. Say your team has gone 6-6, 7-and 5-7 the last few years. At many schools that would put the HC on the hot seat. But what if the AD has to consider the possibility that such a move would gut the roster and leave a new coach starting from scratch? It's hard enough to put together a good recruiting class in a coaching transition year, but combine that with losing top players from the existing roster and an AD would have to think twice. It would probably take 3 or 4 years minimum to recover.