NCAA Looks to Adjust Transfer Rules

[Mavric]

Headlining the list of suggestions would be to no longer require athletes to seek permission from their current schools to contact with prospective new schools in order to keep their scholarships intact. Presently, schools can prevent transferring players from receiving financial aid at new destinations if the school does not approve of that new destination.

 

...

 

To keep kids at their current schools and prevent tampering, the Transfer Working Group suggested increasing education on transfer rules and requirements for all athletes before they arrive in school, and increasing penalties for coaches who recruit players on scholarship at other institutions.

 

...

 

To curb the free agency-level culture of graduate transfers, the Working Group also suggested counting graduate transfers toward the 85-man limit for two years instead of one, and/or tinkering with the APR formula to incentivize graduate transfers to make progress toward an actual graduate degree while on scholarship at their new school.

 

...

 

Finally, the Working Group considered establishing Division I-wide rules for all transfers, abolishing an environment where Conference A has to abide by rules that Conference B doesn’t. The group also considered forwarding the idea of making transfers immediately eligible provided they meet academic benchmarks.

Football Scoop

[wiuhusker]

Didn't read the whole article. But just from the snippet above the only thing I would disagree with is penalizing coaches who recruit the transfers. A possible better solution would be to limit how many transfers each school could take in a 4 year window. This would force coaches to make sure the transfers they are taking are worth adding to the roster.

[BrooklynsFinest]

Didn't read the whole article. But just from the snippet above the only thing I would disagree with is penalizing coaches who recruit the transfers. A possible better solution would be to limit how many transfers each school could take in a 4 year window. This would force coaches to make sure the transfers they are taking are worth adding to the roster.

Serious question, how often do schools get graduate transfers that would make limiting the amount of transfers a better solution. I like the idea, but in the last 4-5 years, the only memorable ones I can remember are Russell Wilson and Vernon Adams.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Didn't read the whole article. But just from the snippet above the only thing I would disagree with is penalizing coaches who recruit the transfers. A possible better solution would be to limit how many transfers each school could take in a 4 year window. This would force coaches to make sure the transfers they are taking are worth adding to the roster.

Serious question, how often do schools get graduate transfers that would make limiting the amount of transfers a better solution. I like the idea, but in the last 4-5 years, the only memorable ones I can remember are Russell Wilson and Vernon Adams.

 

Someone like Wilson, the school would gladly suffer the consequences. There are one hell of a lot of grad transfers that don't come anywhere close to that.

[Mavric]

Quote

The NCAA convention is underway here in Indianapolis. The Division I Council will hear a report today on plans to adjust the rules for transfers. One concept under consideration would eliminate the year that undergraduate football and basketball players are required to sit out after a transfer. It is not yet a formal proposal and will not be up for vote here, but the idea already faces strong opposition in the coaching community. " It's about balance," said Penn State AD Sandy Barbour, who sits on the Football Oversight Committee. "It’s about giving students appropriate freedom and appropriate flexibility -- and yet at the same time, [asks], 'What are students’ obligations to the institutions?'" More to come after the council session this afternoon.

 

ESPN

[Mavric]

 

[bugeater17]

7 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

 

I really don't like this. I think players should be be given more freedom (and allowed to play immediately) if the head coach leaves/is fired or school is placed on a bowl ban. However, we are going to see top programs poaching players with the auspice of championships and playing time - which will lead to even more deception than the recruiting process as is. 

[Undone]

I don't like it. 

I see it being a free-for-all where the Nick Sabans will be actively recruiting freshman who are clearly rising stars from other teams. I see it increasing parity and undermining the concept of the scholarship itself.

[Minnesota_husker]

I like the idea of not allowing a program to tell a kid where he can and cant play. They cant do that for coaches, so why should they be able to for players?

 

The not having to sit out a year thing is a bit concerning because what will stop a kid from trying to transfer mid season? 

 

I saw someone mention that there would be a time table where they could transfer without sitting out in lets say the month of April for College Basketball. If you transfer outside that window then you have to sit out.

 

I do agree that when coaches leave, there should be looser rules to transfer but the problem with that is it only when Head Coaches leave, or is it for all position coaches. Concern there is coach agrees to take new job for more money and part of that is bringing 2-3 players with him.

 

Whole transfer thing is a sticky situation and these changes could make it even more of an issue if they dont think it through. Scum bags(and scum bag conferences) will abuse this.

[Mavric]

 

[Crusader Husker]

I don't like it, but what do I know.  I am getting old and grumpy.  CBB has over 500 transfers a year, it has gotten crazy.  

[Blackshirt316]

That will 100% kill the sport. 

[Crazyhole]

1 hour ago, Undone said:

I don't like it. 

I see it being a free-for-all where the Nick Sabans will be actively recruiting freshman who are clearly rising stars from other teams. I see it increasing parity and undermining the concept of the scholarship itself.

That's why they are talking about increased penalties for coaches who recruit players from other schools.  Under that requirement, a player would have to end his scholarship at his school before making contact with a coach from a different school.   The only issue with it would be 3rd party representatives making contact and being able to investigate those situations.   

 

I would hope that if they do make this change, the punishment for tampering would be at least a 1 year ban for the coaching staff who broke that rule. 

[sho]

If it passes, it'll be 2-3 years of the wild wild west and they will have to reel it back in some.  I think logically it would make sense to allow immediate transfers after coaching changes or university sanctions and leave grad transfer rules the same.  All other transfers sit out one year. 

[sho]

Just now, Crazyhole said:

That's why they are talking about increased penalties for coaches who recruit players from other schools.  Under that requirement, a player would have to end his scholarship at his school before making contact with a coach from a different school.   The only issue with it would be 3rd party representatives making contact and being able to investigate those situations.   

 

I would hope that if they do make this change, the punishment for tampering would be at least a 1 year ban for the coaching staff who broke that rule. 

 

The issue is how soft and slow the NCAA moves with punishment.   It may be worth it to tamper and get a stud because you likely won't face punishment for 5-6 years.  And in the case of UNC and their fake classes, face no punishment at all.   Then that's not even factoring how inconsistent NCAA punishments are.   For a coach with questionable standards (Petrino for example) he'll have no worries about tampering because he knows he'll get away with it for years before anything happens.