Discussion of proposed changes to transfer rule

Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
510
Likes
706
Age
46
Location
North Carolina
#1
Bash me if you want, but I don’t want the transfer rule to change. I think it will make players more likely to transfer and mess up the game. Anyway my point is that we still need our running backs to all step up with Adams sitting out 2018. I predict Neal as our number one, with Strickland and Pierre also getting reps. I would also love to see Tyrone Perkins have a breakout season (especially with him being NYS Player of the year in high school).
 

W'boro'Cuse315

All Conference
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
2,647
Likes
7,240
#2
Bash me if you want, but I don’t want the transfer rule to change. I think it will make players more likely to transfer and mess up the game. Anyway my point is that we still need our running backs to all step up with Adams sitting out 2018. I predict Neal as our number one, with Strickland and Pierre also getting reps. I would also love to see Tyrone Perkins have a breakout season (especially with him being NYS Player of the year in high school).
I'd also like to see Perkins contribute more as a senior, but it was Fredericks who was NYS POY.
 

orange44

Scout Team
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
254
Likes
176
#3
Bash me if you want, but I don’t want the transfer rule to change. I think it will make players more likely to transfer and mess up the game. Anyway my point is that we still need our running backs to all step up with Adams sitting out 2018. I predict Neal as our number one, with Strickland and Pierre also getting reps. I would also love to see Tyrone Perkins have a breakout season (especially with him being NYS Player of the year in high school).
Agree.
 

PhatOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
15,376
Likes
15,132
#4
Bash me if you want, but I don’t want the transfer rule to change. I think it will make players more likely to transfer and mess up the game. Anyway my point is that we still need our running backs to all step up with Adams sitting out 2018. I predict Neal as our number one, with Strickland and Pierre also getting reps. I would also love to see Tyrone Perkins have a breakout season (especially with him being NYS Player of the year in high school).
I’m with ya on the transfer rule thing. Do not want it to take effect.

However, i would be on board with some sort of allowance for kids whos HC has been fired or who’ve signed an LOI and the HC bails or is terminated.
 

CuseLegacy

Twitter Wizard
Staff member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
51,472
Likes
54,176
Location
Brain of the ACC
#5
I’m with ya on the transfer rule thing. Do not want it to take effect.

However, i would be on board with some sort of allowance for kids whos HC has been fired or who’ve signed an LOI and the HC bails or is terminated.
I agree that would be about the only scenario that makes sense in allowing immediate eligibility.
 

CousCuse

Coach Mac Forever
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
4,563
Likes
2,634
#6
The NCAA is going to make the new rule, and Adams will play this year. I think that's apparent.
 

CuseLegacy

Twitter Wizard
Staff member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
51,472
Likes
54,176
Location
Brain of the ACC
#7
The NCAA is going to make the new rule, and Adams will play this year. I think that's apparent.
Not necessarily. They aren't going to discuss this until June.

"The Council also discussed the work of the Transfer Working Group, and voted to ask the Division I Board of Directors to approve a modified legislative timeline that would allow all transfer-related proposals to be considered as a package in June 2018.

The delay would allow time for the working group and the Committee on Academics to develop and recommend a possible set of academic benchmarks that, if met, would allow students in all sports to play immediately after transfer."
 

CuseLegacy

Twitter Wizard
Staff member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
51,472
Likes
54,176
Location
Brain of the ACC
#8
And I think you will get a lot of this from ADs and Coaches...


"More transfer talk at the NCAA convention. South Dakota State AD Justin Sell, the chair of the transfer working group, faced some hard questions at the DI issues forum about the one-time transfer exception -- which is not yet part of any proposal. NC State AD Debbie Yow suggested that tampering would be rampant if transfers were granted immediate eligibility and estimated that the number of transfers across DI would more than double. She described the scenario as "a free for all, something that we've never seen before." Sell urged patience and promised that his group would use caution as it works to devise a proposal next month.


Probably why they are talking about having transfers input their info into a database to be contacted and making tampering a level II violation.
 

CousCuse

Coach Mac Forever
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
4,563
Likes
2,634
#10
And I think you will get a lot of this from ADs and Coaches...


"More transfer talk at the NCAA convention. South Dakota State AD Justin Sell, the chair of the transfer working group, faced some hard questions at the DI issues forum about the one-time transfer exception -- which is not yet part of any proposal. NC State AD Debbie Yow suggested that tampering would be rampant if transfers were granted immediate eligibility and estimated that the number of transfers across DI would more than double. She described the scenario as "a free for all, something that we've never seen before." Sell urged patience and promised that his group would use caution as it works to devise a proposal next month.


Probably why they are talking about having transfers input their info into a database to be contacted and making tampering a level II violation.
Debbie Yow is arguing to limit opportunities for these athletes and perpetuate the current chattel system. Any person that makes such a huge life decision at 18 years old should get at least 1 chance to change it. She makes upwards of a million dollars a year or more and counsels patience to poor college athletes who are trying make a start in life.
 

PhatOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
15,376
Likes
15,132
#11
And I think you will get a lot of this from ADs and Coaches...


"More transfer talk at the NCAA convention. South Dakota State AD Justin Sell, the chair of the transfer working group, faced some hard questions at the DI issues forum about the one-time transfer exception -- which is not yet part of any proposal. NC State AD Debbie Yow suggested that tampering would be rampant if transfers were granted immediate eligibility and estimated that the number of transfers across DI would more than double. She described the scenario as "a free for all, something that we've never seen before." Sell urged patience and promised that his group would use caution as it works to devise a proposal next month.


Probably why they are talking about having transfers input their info into a database to be contacted and making tampering a level II violation.
I agree with Debbie Yow
 

reedny

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
8,145
Likes
8,932
#12
Debbie Yow is arguing to limit opportunities for these athletes and perpetuate the current chattel system. Any person that makes such a huge life decision at 18 years old should get at least 1 chance to change it. She makes upwards of a million dollars a year or more and counsels patience to poor college athletes who are trying make a start in life.
I don't agree with the "chattel" characterization, but as to your point about 18 year olds making tough decisions: 1) young people that age are entering the military, choosing colleges or employment, getting apartments, in some cases having children, etc...so in the context of all the other life decisions they're making, where they play a sport isn't as earth-shattering as you claim; 2) yes they make mistakes and/or get treated badly and should have an out - which they do under the current system; 3) the one-year sit-out rule may need to be waived in certain situations (coaching changes) but overall, it's a good idea to give kids (and teams) an incentive to tough it out instead of bailing; and 4) for the very reasons you suggest (youthful impressionability), waiving the sit-out rule altogether would invite schools to prey on young people to transfer every time they got yelled at or pulled from a game. That's going too far the other way.
 
Last edited:

sutomcat

Former Iggy Winner. I used to be somebody special
Staff member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
10,018
Likes
34,077
Location
Whereabouts Unknown
#13
I agree with Debbie Yow
I agree with her, Jim Boeheim and you.

We have all seen what has happened with the grad transfer rule. What used to be an obscure occurrence has become commonplace. Schools invest 2 or 3, sometimes 4 years developing players and see them take off to better programs at the drop of a hat, allegedly because they want to major in a field their school doesn't offer. My understanding is most take one course and most drop out as soon as their season ends.

The NCAA has chosen to turn a blind eye to it.

Coaches make long term plans to maximize the scholarships they have available to work with. They are counting on their seniors to show up for their season season and to be key parts of the team. When they leave early, it causes many problems.

But it gets worse; some kids are graduating in 3 seasons, so they can transfer and become eligible immediately with 2 years of eligibility left. This is even more harmful to the programs that developed these players.

There is a cascading effect with these transfers, where the best programs tend to get the best grad transfers, then the schools that lost players look to replace them with grad transfers from other schools, which look to replace their lost players with other grad transfers, etc.

Attendance is down for college football and basketball. I believe TV viewership is down as well. The turnover because of the grad transfer rule has, IMHO, hurt fan interest in many programs. Players fans have become invested in and feel are theirs leave regularly. This is not what you want if you want college athletics to be popular, have strong support (and thus money).

Expanding the grad transfer rule is just going to make a bad situation worse. I believe rules were just changed so scholarships are awarded for a full 4-5 year period; not renewed yearly at the whim of the school. That was a good change and I think it should go the other way as well; if the school has to guarantee the scholarship for 4-5 years, the player should have to stay that time period as well.

Exceptions should be made in the event the school goes on probation or the head coach leaves. In those cases, the players should be allowed to transfer immediately.

I think this is fair to the players, the coaches, the fans and the TV networks that makes big time college athletics possible.
 

upperdeck

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
10,242
Likes
5,828
#14
they could just make it a 2 way street, if the kid and school agree that leaving is for the best then he goes and and can play.. if the 2 sides dont agree then you sit a year.
 

CousCuse

Coach Mac Forever
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
4,563
Likes
2,634
#15
I don't agree with the "chattel" characterization, but as to your point about 18 year olds making tough decisions: 1) young people that age are entering the military, choosing colleges or employment, getting apartments, in some cases having children, etc...so in the context of all the other life decisions they're making, where they play a sport isn't as earth-shattering as you claim; 2) yes they make mistakes and/or get treated badly and should have an out - which they do under the current system; 3) the one-year sit-out rule may need to be waived in certain situations (coaching changes) but overall, it's a good idea to give kids (and teams) an incentive to allow players to tough it out instead of bailing; and 4) for the very reasons you suggest (youthful impressionability), waiving the sit-out rule altogether would invite schools to prey on young people to transfer every time they got yelled at or pulled from a game. That's going too far the other way.

The one thing I do agree with is who cares what Debbie Yow says.
Do you believe that recruiters ever mislead or lie to players and their advisers? What about when coaches force players out, which happens everywhere, the staff has much more power in this relationship and it should be more balanced.
 

CuseLegacy

Twitter Wizard
Staff member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
51,472
Likes
54,176
Location
Brain of the ACC
#17
Debbie Yow is arguing to limit opportunities for these athletes and perpetuate the current chattel system. Any person that makes such a huge life decision at 18 years old should get at least 1 chance to change it. She makes upwards of a million dollars a year or more and counsels patience to poor college athletes who are trying make a start in life.
Why because they don't receive immediate eligibility? They are still receiving an education whether or not they can play right away. The vast majority of players are never going to go any farther than college athletics. Having to sit a year and focus on academics isn't a bad thing.

And even if they do pass the change it doesn't mean that it will be retroactive so don't count on the transfers who are now on campus being able to play this season.
 

CousCuse

Coach Mac Forever
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
4,563
Likes
2,634
#18
Why because they don't receive immediate eligibility? They are still receiving an education whether or not they can play right away. The vast majority of players are never going to go any farther than college athletics. Having to sit a year and focus on academics isn't a bad thing.

And even if they do pass the change it doesn't mean that it will be retroactive so don't count on the transfers who are now on campus being able to play this season.
If they do make the change, it would seem that it would have to be implemented as of that date. I'm not counting on it, but I'm thinking Dino is a sly fox.
 

CuseLegacy

Twitter Wizard
Staff member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
51,472
Likes
54,176
Location
Brain of the ACC
#19
If they do make the change, it would seem that it would have to be implemented as of that date. I'm not counting on it, but I'm thinking Dino is a sly fox.
They are already on campus and enrolled. They are not going to discuss what the working group has come up with until June. Since these kids have already transferred it isn't likely that the new rule, if passed, will apply to them.
 

reedny

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
8,145
Likes
8,932
#20
Do you believe that recruiters ever mislead or lie to players and their advisers? What about when coaches force players out, which happens everywhere, the staff has much more power in this relationship and it should be more balanced.
Sure that happens. If it's bad enough, the player can transfer. The one-year sit-out rule makes teams/players think twice - as they should - and transfer occurs only if the problem is serious. Otherwise (with no rule), it would be open season for tampering and we'd have a far worse situation.
 
Last edited:

CousCuse

Coach Mac Forever
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
4,563
Likes
2,634
#21
They are already on campus and enrolled. They are not going to discuss what the working group has come up with until June. Since these kids have already transferred it isn't likely that the new rule, if passed, will apply to them.
What would be the rationale for excluding the current year players?
 

CuseLegacy

Twitter Wizard
Staff member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
51,472
Likes
54,176
Location
Brain of the ACC
#22
What would be the rationale for excluding the current year players?
Because they have already transferred prior to any rule change being made and most rules are not retroactive. Additionally, if the rule is changed, there will be stipulations/benchmarks/requirements that will have to be met to allow immediate eligibility with a transfer.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,971
Likes
2,518
Location
Vienna, VA
#23
They are already on campus and enrolled. They are not going to discuss what the working group has come up with until June. Since these kids have already transferred it isn't likely that the new rule, if passed, will apply to them.
I wouldn't say "it's not likely". While I do think the collective IQ of the NCAA falls somewhere below the guy from Making a Murderer on Netflix (70 for those whom haven't watched), retroactively applying the rule would cause zero detriment to anyone involved, yet would have a positive impact to the players involved.

That said, I'm actually an opponent of the rule change. The P5 will turn into the NFL D-League and all other conferences will be feeders of that D-League. Effectively this analogizes to the MLB farm system, only instead of NFL teams footing the bill, the taxpayers will.
 

CousCuse

Coach Mac Forever
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
4,563
Likes
2,634
#24
I wouldn't say "it's not likely". While I do think the collective IQ of the NCAA falls somewhere below the guy from Making a Murderer on Netflix (70 for those whom haven't watched), retroactively applying the rule would cause zero detriment to anyone involved, yet would have a positive impact to the players involved.

That said, I'm actually an opponent of the rule change. The P5 will turn into the NFL D-League and all other conferences will be feeders of that D-League. Effectively this analogizes to the MLB farm system, only instead of NFL teams footing the bill, the taxpayers will.
I don't know how long the graduate transfer rule has been in place but I'm going to use it as an example regardless. Amba transferred to Syracuse because his opportunity at Maryland was lost for various reasons. He came here, had a great year and is now in the NFL at some capacity. I imagine there are many other players who could have similar results. I can't for any reason imagine why their hopes should be thwarted by an arcane system that fits better in the 19th century than the 21st. They should at least have 1 chance to make a change without sitting out for a season.
 

sufandu

All American
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,883
Likes
4,944
#25
I don't know how long the graduate transfer rule has been in place but I'm going to use it as an example regardless. Amba transferred to Syracuse because his opportunity at Maryland was lost for various reasons. He came here, had a great year and is now in the NFL at some capacity. I imagine there are many other players who could have similar results. I can't for any reason imagine why their hopes should be thwarted by an arcane system that fits better in the 19th century than the 21st. They should at least have 1 chance to make a change without sitting out for a season.
He graduated from Maryland first.
 
Top