NCAA Looks to Adjust Transfer Rules

[MinnwiscowaSker]

7 hours ago, Red Five said:

And in the “how the hell is this not already a rule?” category:

 

 

One other caveat: Any student who plays at the school that voted against this can transfer. No questions. 

[HIHusker]

On 1/17/2018 at 7:17 AM, bugeater17 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. 

This....there needs to be a very specific set of scenarios where immediate play is authorized otherwise NCAA will just be NFL lite.  Some kid has snowflake response to not enough playing time (imagine Lavar Ball type scenario) and next thing you know he is spreading cancer to multiple programs.  Kids need to learn about committment and hard work.  This type of thing doesn't teach those principles. 

On 1/19/2018 at 8:14 AM, Warrior said:

I worry more about the kid on scholarship at the school accepting the transfer losing his scholarship.  Your the 3rd stringer at any given position and a stud wants to move in and the school is at 85 who goes?  I currently like the red shirt for a transfer rule.  Grad transfer are good IMO they have a degree from that school they've held up their end of the bargain so to speak.

Bingo...well said sir

[broganreynik]

On 1/19/2018 at 12:14 PM, Warrior said:

I worry more about the kid on scholarship at the school accepting the transfer losing his scholarship.  Your the 3rd stringer at any given position and a stud wants to move in and the school is at 85 who goes?  I currently like the red shirt for a transfer rule.  Grad transfer are good IMO they have a degree from that school they've held up their end of the bargain so to speak.

 

Mandating all athletic scholarships be four-year scholarships could curb this to some extent. Not completely, obviously.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Edison's Enemy

[Mavric]

 

[sho]

Here's an interesting proposal to the transfer rule, if you graduate from the school you transfer to, you get the year back that you had to sit out.

 

Quote

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- The American Football Coaches Association's board of trustees voted unanimously on Tuesday in favor of an idea to allow athletes who sit out a year per the current NCAA transfer rule to gain that year of eligibility back if they graduate from their new school.

This would open the door for transfers to play for five years instead of the current four and give them six total years to play for five seasons if they redshirt before transferring. The coaches will discuss it throughout their spring meetings, but it couldn't go into effect unless approved by the Division I Council, which wouldn't be any earlier than next spring.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23377767/football-coaches-unanimously-vote-support-new-transfer-rule-concept

[brophog]

2 hours ago, sho said:

Here's an interesting proposal to the transfer rule, if you graduate from the school you transfer to, you get the year back that you had to sit out.

 

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23377767/football-coaches-unanimously-vote-support-new-transfer-rule-concept

 

It's almost a pointless qualifier. The graduation rate for student athletes is almost 90 percent now, and many of those "non-graduates" are athletes that left early to pursue a professional career or transfers. 

 

It's an end around to the question of collegiate free agency, which many coaches (including Frost) have correctly cited as being a chaotic idea. It would essentially amount to free agency for all but the 1% that would seek a transfer and still look to go pro before graduating.

[Old Nebraska Guy]

Yeah but......

The way I read this is athlete still has to sit out a year after transferring.  That should tone down the free-agency aspect.

It would encourage them to really be a student during their transfer year and not bag-it during their "first" senior season.  Also they could red shirt at their first school and check things out more and not rush their transfer decision.

[84HuskerLaw]

Perhaps they should limit transfers to only  players who are academic juniors and have used up no less than two years of their eligibility at their initial LOI signed school.  I see no reason to extend the time period for participation to SIX years ONLY for transfers.  If you are adding a year of participation from 4 to 5, then just eliminate the redshirt rules, etc and allow 5 years for all athletes in all sports - period.   Allow transfers only for third year students in good standing on the team and academically and only ONE transfer (school A to school B) unless going down in division.   

This allows students to stretch out the 4 year degree schedule to 5 years to reduce the academic challenges for any and all.   I would only allow the school to offer 4 year scholarships to apply only to undergraduate degrees unless the student graduates in tradtional 4 years.   I would allow students to transfer only after second semester completion (announce intent to transfer BEFORE any contacts are allowed with any other school or coach and no recruiting permitted.   Student must contact the school first.

[brophog]

44 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

I would allow students to transfer only after second semester completion (announce intent to transfer BEFORE any contacts are allowed with any other school or coach and no recruiting permitted.   Student must contact the school first.

 

It's a nice idea, but it doesn't work for the same reason contact rules in the NCAA/NFL/wherever don't work: they're not enforceable. There are almost an infinite number of ways for two people to make contact with each other and it's extremely difficult to prove/disprove whom contacted whom first. All it takes is a third party whispering in someone's ear....something else that seems to be in nearly boundless supply in collegiate athletics.

[Mavric]

 

[sho]

I like this new rule as well.   Players can compete in up to four games, and still RS that year.   Rule goes into place in October, if I read it correctly.   Meaning we could have true freshman ready to play against the likes of Illinois or Minnesota or Iowa and the Bowl Game and still have 4 years of eligibility left.   I think that's huge for the development of the young players, and can reduce some of the grind on starters later in the year.

 

Quote

The Division I Council also approved a measure that will allow athletes to compete in up to four games without losing a season of competition. The proposal was initially tabled in April over concerns about timing, the number of games and potential application to other sports, according to a release by the NCAA.

Student-athletes have five years to complete four seasons of competition, so the new rule will allow an athlete to use a redshirt, if it hasn't been previously used, in up to four games of competition during the season.

 

[Dagerow]

This opens a Pandora’s box.   There will no doubt be recruiting current players now, and the 85 person limit will become very fluid. (players coming and going).   It seems to be very ill conceived (based upon my limited understanding).  

 

The one caveat is the conferences can make additional rules and mitigate this problem significantly. As I’m sure almost every major conference will, the effect will be largely limited.   But irrespective, it’s a pretty bad change.

[Scarlet Overkill]

6 minutes ago, Dagerow said:

This opens a Pandora’s box.   There will no doubt be recruiting current players now, and the 85 person limit will become very fluid. (players coming and going).   It seems to be very ill conceived (based upon my limited understanding).  

 

The one caveat is the conferences can make additional rules and mitigate this problem significantly. As I’m sure almost every major conference will, the effect will be largely limited.   But irrespective, it’s a pretty bad change.

 

I think they still have to sit out a year.  As I understand it, the same rules apply that apply now, with the exception being that schools can no longer block guys from transferring to specific other teams, like UCF did with Vedral.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[mnhusker]

I wonder how often coaches refuse to give permission, I assume most would rather let a kid move on so perhaps waiving the need for permission wont change things much.  I like the 4 game red shirt rule,  I will be very interesting to see the impact is has.

 

[Moiraine]

If they still have to sit out a year it's fine.

It doesn't seem right that a team can prevent a player from leaving and going where they want.