Discussion of proposed changes to transfer rule | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

Discussion of proposed changes to transfer rule

Some kids are forced out. For these kids, there should be a waiver.


The current system is based on protecting the schools assets, and profitability(the athlete). At the same time, they argue the athlete is there for the education, and therefore, should not be able to profit.

Which one is it?
 
I celebrate any scholarship athlete graduating from college, especially the ones that play revenue sports that have enormous time commitments.

We differ in that I care about the future of college athletes. I want to see kids have a path to get a 'free' education by utilizing their talents as athletes.

What you are embracing hurts fan interest. What you are embracing affects the bottom line for budgets for college athletic departments. I think a future where transferring is commonplace and rosters turn off dramatically every year is going to disallusion most fans and spur further drops in fan attendance and viewership of games.

These proposed changes are going to help the richest schools and hurt all the other schools. You are going to end up with less competitiveness in college sports, less interest and less support from the fans, the ones that make it all possible.

It is great you care about the athletes. I do too. But you have to consider the interests and desires of the people that pay for everything as well. If the fans stop caring about college sports, the scholarships dry up and the athletes are left with nothing.

I hope the NCAA has the foresight to reject this proposal.
To clarify - I'm not advocating for the immediate eligibility of transfers. I think that makes most of the supposed disagreement go posted about go away.

I was specifically disagreeing with the idea that more student-athletes graduating after 3 years and taking their remaining eligibility to a new school and new educational opportunity creates meaningful problems. If anything we should encourage it, since the goal for students enrolling is to get students to graduate. If that student has athletic eligibility remaining and has the opportunity to gain additional educational opportunities because of it, more power to them.
 
I think you've got this backwards. Student-athletes graduating in 3 years should be celebrated and absolutely should be free to move on with all of their eligibility remaining.
Exactly. I admire that Troy Henderson was able to graduate in 3 years. He does not fit in the scheme here so it is great that he is able to transfer to a school that better fits his skills without losing a year of eligibility. It probably was not his choice to redshirt his first year anyways. Why should he be penalized for being a great student? The NCAA actually has this one right
 
To clarify - I'm not advocating for the immediate eligibility of transfers. I think that makes most of the supposed disagreement go posted about go away.

I was specifically disagreeing with the idea that more student-athletes graduating after 3 years and taking their remaining eligibility to a new school and new educational opportunity creates meaningful problems. If anything we should encourage it, since the goal for students enrolling is to get students to graduate. If that student has athletic eligibility remaining and has the opportunity to gain additional educational opportunities because of it, more power to them.
Completely agree.

Many of the meaningful problems are profit based, on the schools "employees", that are not employees.

As far as competition, $$$ for schools, I don't see any reason why a non-employee, shouldn't be allowed to transfer to a lower ranked team. Say, once, after a set # of years? May actually promote parity, while eliminating, to some extent, the indentured servant model.
 
To clarify - I'm not advocating for the immediate eligibility of transfers. I think that makes most of the supposed disagreement go posted about go away.

I was specifically disagreeing with the idea that more student-athletes graduating after 3 years and taking their remaining eligibility to a new school and new educational opportunity creates meaningful problems. If anything we should encourage it, since the goal for students enrolling is to get students to graduate. If that student has athletic eligibility remaining and has the opportunity to gain additional educational opportunities because of it, more power to them.
I don't think there are ever going to be a lot of kids who graduate in 3 years, so I don't think this is a big deal.

IMO, any football or basketball player who graduates in 3 years is either really really smart or got an education that isn't very challenging/helpful in the workplace. The limits on their time with training and practice, the extensive traveling required, make this kind of accomplishment close to impossible.

Again, this whole notion that graduate transfers are actually going to another school and getting a post graduate degree is, based on what I have read and heard in investigative stories, simply not true. Kids are taking advantage of a loophole in the NCAA rules; they aren't, by and large anyway, transferring to further their education.

In any event, I don't have a big issue letting athletes who graduate in 3 years transfer elsewhere and be eligible immediately. There are so few of them, the impact on the sports they play will be negligible.
 
An athlete there for the summer session, taking a full course load, should finish his degree at the end of the fall semester, his third year. Should be the norm, not the exception.
 
Seems a lot of people like the idea of a kid transferring due to a head coaching change. But what happens when 20 guys decide to transfer? And another 20 were seniors and are gone? How does a team ever make up for that gap when they can only recruit 25?

Would like to hear some thoughts on this. I personally see both sides to free transfers and think it was a stupid rule to begin with but at this point would wreak havoc on the system in place.
 
Seems a lot of people like the idea of a kid transferring due to a head coaching change. But what happens when 20 guys decide to transfer? And another 20 were seniors and are gone? How does a team ever make up for that gap when they can only recruit 25?

Would like to hear some thoughts on this. I personally see both sides to free transfers and think it was a stupid rule to begin with but at this point would wreak havoc on the system in place.
I'm with you.

Letting kids out of LOIs makes sense.

Removing the "wait a year" clause in the event of coaching changes seems really weird.

Again, you can make this all a lot easier if you just make every student athlete 5 to play 5. No redshirts. Transfers still sit a year. But 5 to play 5.

It can work.
 
I'm with you.

Letting kids out of LOIs makes sense.

Removing the "wait a year" clause in the event of coaching changes seems really weird.

Again, you can make this all a lot easier if you just make every student athlete 5 to play 5. No redshirts. Transfers still sit a year. But 5 to play 5.

It can work.

"I thought you were supposed to stay in school for four years." - C. Anthony
 
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.

"I haven't heard one person against [doing away with] the notification," Ohio State AD Gene Smith said.

The NCAA board of directors has basically mandated Division I to change its transfer rules in the next year.

An ongoing Division I Transfer Working Group is expected to push forward one or two proposals for legislation by June. The question then would be the effective date -- in time for either the 2018 or 2019 football seasons.

A source close to that situation stressed the preliminary nature of any proposals at the moment. The Big 12 proposal was finalized last month when conference officials met at the NCAA Convention in Indianapolis.

"Either try to accept [the process or] try to change it," Pollard said. "But quit bitching about it."

The Big 12 is in the process of distributing and talking up the proposal with other conferences. You can see the proposal here.

"I think it's a phenomenal idea," Pollard said. "There's holes in it. There will always be, but it's the best thing I've seen out there so far. It's a lot better than where we are heading."

Recent real-world examples show how sweeping such a rule change could be.

For example, players could have transferred from Florida State without restriction when Jimbo Fisher departed for Texas A&M in early December 2017 or when Rich Rodriguez was fired at Arizona on Jan. 2.

Those transferring players could not immediately follow the coach to their new school.

Rising seniors were allowed to transfer when the NCAA slapped Ole Miss with a second year of a postseason ban on Dec. 1, 2017. (The school had already self-imposed a one-year ban.) Under the proposal, any and all Ole Miss players could have departed for a new school without sitting out a year.

Currently, several transferring Ole Miss underclassmen are seeking waivers for immediate eligibility. There have been reports some of those players are basing their appeals on feeling they were misled by the school about the severity of the penalties.

Pollard admitted adjustments would have to be made in football recruiting limitations (25 scholarships per year) if a school lost transfers in any of the above scenarios.

Also, the subsequent impact on a departure to a school's Academic Progress Rate would have to be considered. Mass transfers could potentially put a program's postseason eligibility at risk.

Football and basketball coaches are currently concerned about possible "free agency," allowing athletes across the board to transfer without any restriction for any reason.

Men's basketball is arguably in crisis with a current transfer rate of 40 percent.

"It's a broken sport," a current Pac-12 AD told CBS Sports.

Anything still seems possible. The words "panic" and "wild, Wild West" we're tossed about by other AD types this weekend at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) mid-winter meeting in Sanibel Island, Florida.

"I hear it's all over the board right now," Smith said.

The Big 12 proposal at least contains academic components that legitimize it.

Part of the proposal's credibility comes from its authors and their obvious research. Jeremy Counseller is a law professor at Baylor. Tim Day is an Iowa State professor of molecular pharmacology and member of the NCAA Council.

Part of the proposal calls for uniformity. In the traditional transfer setting, athletes are required to sit out a year in only five sports: baseball, hockey, football and men's and women's basketball. Under the proposal, transfers in all sports would be required to sit out a year in the event of a traditional transfer. That means volleyball, softball, wrestling athletes and others used to immediate transfers would now have to sit out.

"That's not why we're dealing with this issue," Pollard said. "We're dealing with it because of football and basketball. Can you name me one high-profile athlete that's been blocked in another sport? Now we're going to treat everybody equally. Empower the student-athlete but help them make a sound academic decision."

The possibility could suddenly exist that, in the same college career, a player could redshirt, transfer, sit out a year and transfer immediately. That player would not lose any of their four years of eligibility.

Yes, it could also create the possibility -- though not likely -- of a six- or seven-year player, the former of which we rarely see today usually due to injury.

"If you don't do that, people will just make the emotional decision that it's all about athletics," Pollard said. "This makes you actually stop and think about academics but doesn't stop you from making an athletic decision."

 
the only thing i worry about is technically all 85 kids could transfer so your team is decimated. there would have to be some sort of restriction put in place but what? maybe just current class signees?
 
Good. If the coach can change, then the player should be able to change. Schools are still limited to 85 scholarships, so unless all those players are leaving to Division II or III, 85 players aren't transferring.
 
This really amounts to an additional punishment for those Given a post season NCAA ban. If your hoops team can't play in the ncaas next year, your whole team could transfer.

For Syracuse, as many as five players could be impacted
 
Good. If the coach can change, then the player should be able to change. Schools are still limited to 85 scholarships, so unless all those players are leaving to Division II or III, 85 players aren't transferring.

if they don't have to sit out you could have a mass exodus.
 
the only thing i worry about is technically all 85 kids could transfer so your team is decimated. there would have to be some sort of restriction put in place but what? maybe just current class signees?

No restrictions.

Jimbo left FSU for aTm. Not all 85 kids would leave if Jimbo is coming. Not all 85 FSU kids will leave knowing Taggart is coming in.

What I think needs to happen is there be a period for hires.

No OUTSIDE hires can happen after January 15th. No transfers can happen after January 31st.
 
It wouldn't even have to be a huge number of transfers to kill a program, can you imagine 15 of our best players transferring out on the same year of a large senior class graduating? It could be almost half the team, and your better half at that. Even if they allowed a larger recruiting class then you'd be getting a bunch of bottom guys and what happens in 4 years when you have 35 seniors?
 
I read that quote 3 times, and I still am not sure I know what he was saying.
upload_2018-2-7_18-32-32.gif
 
I don't think there are ever going to be a lot of kids who graduate in 3 years, so I don't think this is a big deal.

IMO, any football or basketball player who graduates in 3 years is either really really smart or got an education that isn't very challenging/helpful in the workplace. The limits on their time with training and practice, the extensive traveling required, make this kind of accomplishment close to impossible.

Again, this whole notion that graduate transfers are actually going to another school and getting a post graduate degree is, based on what I have read and heard in investigative stories, simply not true. Kids are taking advantage of a loophole in the NCAA rules; they aren't, by and large anyway, transferring to further their education.

In any event, I don't have a big issue letting athletes who graduate in 3 years transfer elsewhere and be eligible immediately. There are so few of them, the impact on the sports they play will be negligible.


You're forgetting that they can take summer courses in 2 sessions each year. I think graduating in 3 years does not mean the kid got a sham education or took an easy major.
 
You're forgetting that they can take summer courses in 2 sessions each year. I think graduating in 3 years does not mean the kid got a sham education or took an easy major.
I am not forgetting that. The problem is you don't know how summer sessions work.

The courses offered for summer sessions are a small subset of what is offered during the normal school year; you are severely limited in what you can take. There are for example a total of 4 computer science courses offered at SU during summer sessions, one only during the 2nd semester. Because of this, you can't graduate in 3 years in a field of study like that unless you take 18 or 21 credits during the normal semesters. With all time requirements football and basketball players have with travel, practice and training, that is just about impossible.

And for the record, I also included the possibly that the kid was really smart. If a kid loaded up on credits in high school, didn't need to study at all, knew subject matter from informal study and was great at taking tests, it might be doable in some fairly challenging fields of study.
 

Dabo... it's best to just not say anything on the matter. Consequences? In what world are there any consequences for coaches who leave? Buyouts are paid school to school.
 
Dabo... it's best to just not say anything on the matter. Consequences? In what world are there any consequences for coaches who leave? Buyouts are paid school to school.
Did you watch Babers Signing Day presser yesterday. He was asked about a change to the transfer rule to allow kids to play immediately. He said he doesn't think it will pass this year. And I don't think it will pass at all unless there are strict restrictions because the coaches won't vote for it.
 
Did you watch Babers Signing Day presser yesterday. He was asked about a change to the transfer rule to allow kids to play immediately. He said he doesn't think it will pass this year. And I don't think it will pass at all unless there are strict restrictions because the coaches won't vote for it.

Yeah I should have worded my response better. Dino's comments were perfect. Just speaking to the actual rule. Dabo is speaking as if it's some crazy idea to give kids any kind of power. Comes off as old man yelling at cloud
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,603
Messages
4,714,768
Members
5,909
Latest member
jc824

Online statistics

Members online
229
Guests online
2,669
Total visitors
2,898


Top Bottom