Will Batouly and Azura be there tonight?

[Blakeon18]

As I understand it, transfers who are sitting out the year can only go to away games if they pay their own way.
Has that new NCAA rule about student athletes getting an additional stipend beyond the scholarship begun this year? I assume the team went to FSU on Saturday....about 3 days in Florida sounds nice. I wonder if the two might be there given that the opponent is a good one and this would be their first real game at UConn?

I wouldn't be too surprised if they were there....also maybe at the ND game in South Bend in December....granted that the stipend could have many other uses.

The morning of November 18: we will have learned a lot about the team....wins or losses in the meantime.
Given the #1 staff in the country and the quality of young women on the team....these games will help us come late March....and early April.

 

[CocoHusky]

That stipend has not kicked in yet that I'm aware off. So I would not count on either player being at FSU or ND. There is however a separate NCAA provision that allows the school to allow transfers to travel with the team in the year they are sitting out. Lexie Brown used it for Duke last year to travel to some away games.
Using fund, transfer travels with Duke team during year off

 

[UcMiami]

I would be surprised to see them both at this game - early in their first real semester at Uconn. I think it might be more likely later in the year.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Dumb rule. If they are academically OK, they can practice with the team and it's just silly not to let them travel with the team.

 

[UcMiami]

Dumb rule. If they are academically OK, they can practice with the team and it's just silly not to let them travel with the team.

I think there are two semi-valid reasons for the rule -
1. Level playing field - while Uconn uses a fair amount of charters, and has a high budget anyway, there are a lot of schools whose budgets are stretched and who do not use charters - the added expense for them is significant and so the NCAA rule is designed to level out the advantages richer programs might have.

2. NCAA athletics is supposed to be about education and competition - the rule is in place so players that are not going to be playing in games do not get pressured by their coaches to miss classes and study time to travel to away games. As soon as it becomes 'optional' for athletes, there will be some pressure to attend the way games, overt, implied, or imagined. You just need to look at the quandary that Polly was in for some road trips last year to understand the issue - Geno and CD were the ones that were helping her balance her team desire vs. her academic realities and suggesting she stay home on some of the trips.

 

[iamcbs]

On a completely separate, yet related issue it's time for the NCAA to revisit its antiquated transfer policy, if a coach can leave a program and coach at another NCAA program the next year, why can't an athlete not be immediately eligible to play if they meet the institutions academic requirements for admission? Sitting out a year is stupid and benefits no one except the NCAA. End of Rant!!

 

[Checkmate]

On a completely separate, yet related issue it's time for the NCAA to revisit its antiquated transfer policy, if a coach can leave a program and coach at another NCAA program the next year, why can't an athlete not be immediately eligible to play if they meet the institutions academic requirements for admission? Sitting out a year is stupid and benefits no one except the NCAA. End of Rant!!

I strongly disagree.... college coaches spend lots of time and money recruiting, allowing student athletes to transfer with immediate eligibility on a whim would be a major mistake.

When a coach leaves the NCAA frequently grants a wavier to the red-shirt year for transfers.

 

[uconnfan68]

I think I have only heard of a single case where that was allowed.

 

[pinotbear]

would a compromise of, say, sitting out one semester, make any sense?

 

[CocoHusky]

On a completely separate, yet related issue it's time for the NCAA to revisit its antiquated transfer policy, if a coach can leave a program and coach at another NCAA program the next year, why can't an athlete not be immediately eligible to play if they meet the institutions academic requirements for admission? Sitting out a year is stupid and benefits no one except the NCAA. End of Rant!!

Completely agree with you. Proposed this a few weeks back and got beat up- It would create "transfer choas" was one opinion.

 

[Carnac]

On a completely separate, yet related issue it's time for the NCAA to revisit its antiquated transfer policy, if a coach can leave a program and coach at another NCAA program the next year, why can't an athlete not be immediately eligible to play if they meet the institutions academic requirements for admission? Sitting out a year is stupid and benefits no one except the NCAA. End of Rant!!

As a former student athlete, I can understand your posture here. The college coach that recruited me, left after my first year. I had a relationship with him, and chose to commit to that university to play for him. Obviously the coach that followed him, had no relationship with any of the returning players. He brought in a couple of new players with him. We all bought in to what he wanted to do, but it was a bit awkward. There was zero chemistry/loyalty between him and us.

What did Megan Walker say just last week as to why she choose UConn? Because of Geno and his staff. Not the school, not the countryside of Storrs, not the curriculum, the coaches, and the relationships she had with them.

Look at the "Laticia Romero" (Florida State Univ) matter at Kansas State University a few years ago. The head coach leaves for a better position, she no longer wants to be there, she petitions the school for a release, the school refuses. The story goes viral. After months of dialog back and forth, along with negative scrutiny from the public, the news media and other collegiate institutions, Kansas State finally reverses their decision and gives her a conditional release. If the NCAA will not allow a player to leave an institution if the coach leaves to transfer and play right away, perhaps let them play the second half of the year instead. That rule has been in place for years. A fair modification would not be out of order. Life is not "fair". Fair is a place where they judge pigs.

 

[CocoHusky]

I strongly disagree.... college coaches spend lots of time and money recruiting, allowing student athletes to transfer with immediate eligibility on a whim would be a major mistake.
When a coach leaves the NCAA frequently grants a wavier to the red-shirt year for transfers.

I don't like the pretense that sitting out a year is "academic" based also believe that this is a case where you might want to treat NCAAMB and NCAAWB differently. By all accounts Courtey was a good student at UCONN what is the benefit to anyone in making her sit out a year at Arizona State. It not like she is joining a power house program to put them over the top.
Also don't the subjective nature of the ruling like how one transfer from Illinois (Chatrice White-FSU) is immediately eligible and another (Brooke Kissinger-Creighton) is not.

 

[WrenchFan69]

They will not be there I saw them on campus just a while ago

 

[CocoHusky]

They will not be there I saw them on campus just a while ago

Also confirmed from the shoot around video this morning at FSU.

 

[Checkmate]

I don't like the pretense that sitting out a year is "academic" based also believe that this is a case where you might want to treat NCAAMB and NCAAWB differently. By all accounts Courtey was a good student at UCONN what is the benefit to anyone in making her sit out a year at Arizona State. It not like she is joining a power house program to put them over the top.
Also don't the subjective nature of the ruling like how one transfer from Illinois (Chatrice White-FSU) is immediately eligible and another (Brooke Kissinger-Creighton) is not.

Romeo from Nebraska is playing immediately at Washington... maybe frequently was erroneous , however it does happen. Immediate eligibility for transfers when a coach leaves could be a good rule.

 

[UcMiami]

On a completely separate, yet related issue it's time for the NCAA to revisit its antiquated transfer policy, if a coach can leave a program and coach at another NCAA program the next year, why can't an athlete not be immediately eligible to play if they meet the institutions academic requirements for admission? Sitting out a year is stupid and benefits no one except the NCAA. End of Rant!!

would a compromise of, say, sitting out one semester, make any sense?

Problem being you are messing with employment law and denying a person the right to earn a living. You could require a 'non-compete' be a part of every university's employment contract for college coaches, but even if you did, I doubt the courts would allow it to be enforced. A conference wide non-compete would have a better chance to succeed than a nationwide one.

With student athletes they are in effect signing a 'non-compete' when they sign their LOI, but the benefit they are receiving in that 'contract' is a free education, room, and board, and as a transfer they get that benefit plus free coaching and facilities still, so their chance of challenging the mandatory redshirt is pretty slim. Students who do not receive a release and have to pay for their transfer year bills out of pocket would stand a pretty good chance in court I think - though it would probably only provide a benefit after the fact as the court case would last some time. (It is not a case that the NCAA would want to see come up in court, as it might as a side issue involve a ruling on whether the student was in fact an 'employee' - an issue that is already in contention.

 

[cbraarj]

Some kids would be transferring every year. Like some have done in HS because they werent happy. Lamar Odom played for 4 HS before trying to play at ST.Thomas Aquinas in New Britain( school no.5). The CIAC denied him and he went to Rhode Island with the coach from St.TA and was one and done. Went to RI because of all his baggage with part of it being all the transfers. I think in certain situations a transfer should be allowed to play ( coaching change or NCAA violations , even misconduct by the coaching staff) but by no meens should it be because of playing time or because they arent happy with the choice they made for school. These last 2 reasons IMO is just a lack of maturity!

 

[CocoHusky]

Some kids would be transferring every year. Like some have done in HS because they werent happy. Lamar Odom played for 4 HS before trying to play at ST.Thomas Aquinas in New Britain( school no.5). The CIAC denied him and he went to Rhode Island with the coach from St.TA and was one and done. Went to RI because of all his baggage with part of it being all the transfers. I think in certain situations a transfer should be allowed to play ( coaching change or NCAA violations , even misconduct by the coaching staff) but by no meens should it be because of playing time or because they arent happy with the choice they made for school. These last 2 reasons IMO is just a lack of maturity!

Kids are transferring every year now. Non-Athletes transfer at a much greater rate than Non-athletes. There are minimum GPA requirements for a player to be eligible to play also. MCBB because of the "One and Done", the amount of revenue generated, and the potential for more corruption is why I would propose that it be treated differently than WCBB.

 

[cbraarj]

Kids are transferring every year now. Non-Athletes transfer at a much greater rate than Non-athletes. There are minimum GPA requirements for a player to be eligible to play also. MCBB because of the "One and Done", the amount of revenue generated, and the potential for more corruption is why I would propose that it be treated differently than WCBB.

WCBB is moving in the direction of the mens game as far as transfers. Look at the last several years. You dont think there isnt corruption in the womens game and yes the mens game is the money maker but dont think recruiting stops after the LOI is signed, after they started playing for that school or being coached by a different head coach either at USA Basketball or working a summer camp somewhere. IMO if someone transfers they should sit out a year and lose a year eligibility unless they graduate in 4 years and only then they get that year back. Recruits should concentrate more on what they need to be successful as a student-athlete instead of wanting to be successful but not sure if I will at this school but I can always try it somewhere else. Only if there are special circumstances should they be allowed to play right away.

 

[iamcbs]

I strongly disagree.... college coaches spend lots of time and money recruiting, allowing student athletes to transfer with immediate eligibility on a whim would be a major mistake.

When a coach leaves the NCAA frequently grants a wavier to the red-shirt year for transfers.

That is patently and demonstrably false, coaches leave programs for new ones every year and the athletes they recruit at their former institutions are stuck. There is no granting of a waiver of a player transfers after a coach leaves. If Geno resigned today and then went to coach at another school, none of the current players on his roster would be immediately eligible to play next season at another institution and what's even worse the 4 commits that he signed last week would be bound to UConn for at least one season, unless the university decided to release them from their NLOI.

 

[CocoHusky]

You dont think there isnt corruption in the womens game and yes the mens game is the money maker but dont think recruiting stops after the LOI is signed, after they started playing for that school or being coached by a different head coach either at USA Basketball or working a summer camp somewhere. IMO if someone transfers they should sit out a year and lose a year eligibility unless they graduate in 4 years and only then they get that year back. Recruits should concentrate more on what they need to be successful as a student-athlete instead of wanting to be successful but not sure if I will at this school but I can always try it somewhere else.

I was mainly speaking of corruption that involves money, like under table payments and this is why I said "more" corruption.
If a non-athlete on scholarship thinks can be more successful somewhere else they transfer without penalty. Why shouldn't athletic scholarships, which is significantly less than the amount of $ awarded for regular scholarships not be given the consideration?

 

[Gus Mahler]

I think there are two semi-valid reasons for the rule -
1. Level playing field - while Uconn uses a fair amount of charters, and has a high budget anyway, there are a lot of schools whose budgets are stretched and who do not use charters - the added expense for them is significant and so the NCAA rule is designed to level out the advantages richer programs might have.

2. NCAA athletics is supposed to be about education and competition - the rule is in place so players that are not going to be playing in games do not get pressured by their coaches to miss classes and study time to travel to away games. As soon as it becomes 'optional' for athletes, there will be some pressure to attend the way games, overt, implied, or imagined. You just need to look at the quandary that Polly was in for some road trips last year to understand the issue - Geno and CD were the ones that were helping her balance her team desire vs. her academic realities and suggesting she stay home on some of the trips.

I thought the reason had to do with insurance. Leaving them behind lowers the insurance liability.