CuseLegacy
Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 93,486
- Like
- 143,744
New rules on transfers may be coming in 2018
- Thread starter CuseLegacy
- Start date
CuseLegacy
Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 93,486
- Like
- 143,744
Sources: Major Potential Shift In NCAA Transfer Rules
In a potentially paradigm-shifting proposal, the NCAA members may vote to allow all Division-I transfers to be eligible to play immediately.
In a potentially paradigm-shifting proposal, the NCAA members may vote to allow all Division-I transfers to be eligible to play immediately. The only potential restrictions are that student-athletes would be asked to meet a minimum GPA, in order to transfer immediately, and that any additional transfer would require the student-athletes to sit out a full year. The proposal, which is being solicited among members for feedback, is gaining increased traction in recent weeks, a source confirms.
In April, a 19-person task force comprised of commissioners, athletic directors, coaches, and student-athletes initially assembled under the name of Division I Transfer Working Group. Their mission was to bring a fresh approach to the often publicly maligned transfer process. Although earlier groups had been formed in prior years under similar missions, the Transfer Working Group was given more data, while also tasked with the goal of trying to create uniformity within the transfer process.
By late June, the Transfer Working Group made progress on creating uniformity in transfer rules. They contemplated two polar-opposite options: the first was to require every student-athlete to sit out a year, while the second option was to enable every student-athlete to be immediately eligible upon transferring to a new school, as long as they achieved a minimum GPA designed to lead the student-athlete ultimately to graduate.
TWG Chairman Justin Sell, Athletic Director of South Dakota State, told NCAA Associate Director of Public and Media Relations Michelle Brutlag Hosick at the time, “I am thrilled with the great progress made this week, and I’m confident we can move forward with some initial concepts for consideration in this year’s legislative cycle. We are working toward academics-based, data-driven decisions that benefit student-athletes, teams and schools.
Within recent weeks, it has become more clear that the latter option of immediate eligibility for transfers who achieve a minimum GPA is the one gaining traction amongst members. The proposal must be completed by Nov. 1. The members of the Transfer Working Group will continue to seek feedback from fellow coaches, directors, commissioners and student-athletes in the days ahead, but it is becoming more likely that the proposal will be voted upon next April with the possibility of this going into effect as early as the 2018-19 calendar. The uniformity of applying the same rules across all sports would potentially streamline the transfer process.
Proponents of student-athletes being permitted to change schools as freely as coaches will undoubtedly laud this potential new development. The concern from some detractors may be the further encouragement of raiding smaller programs as well as the likelihood that the number of annual transfers will grow exponentially. The challenge of tracking potential tampering in pending transfers may also be a potential hazard of the new development.
In a potentially paradigm-shifting proposal, the NCAA members may vote to allow all Division-I transfers to be eligible to play immediately.
In a potentially paradigm-shifting proposal, the NCAA members may vote to allow all Division-I transfers to be eligible to play immediately. The only potential restrictions are that student-athletes would be asked to meet a minimum GPA, in order to transfer immediately, and that any additional transfer would require the student-athletes to sit out a full year. The proposal, which is being solicited among members for feedback, is gaining increased traction in recent weeks, a source confirms.
In April, a 19-person task force comprised of commissioners, athletic directors, coaches, and student-athletes initially assembled under the name of Division I Transfer Working Group. Their mission was to bring a fresh approach to the often publicly maligned transfer process. Although earlier groups had been formed in prior years under similar missions, the Transfer Working Group was given more data, while also tasked with the goal of trying to create uniformity within the transfer process.
By late June, the Transfer Working Group made progress on creating uniformity in transfer rules. They contemplated two polar-opposite options: the first was to require every student-athlete to sit out a year, while the second option was to enable every student-athlete to be immediately eligible upon transferring to a new school, as long as they achieved a minimum GPA designed to lead the student-athlete ultimately to graduate.
TWG Chairman Justin Sell, Athletic Director of South Dakota State, told NCAA Associate Director of Public and Media Relations Michelle Brutlag Hosick at the time, “I am thrilled with the great progress made this week, and I’m confident we can move forward with some initial concepts for consideration in this year’s legislative cycle. We are working toward academics-based, data-driven decisions that benefit student-athletes, teams and schools.
Within recent weeks, it has become more clear that the latter option of immediate eligibility for transfers who achieve a minimum GPA is the one gaining traction amongst members. The proposal must be completed by Nov. 1. The members of the Transfer Working Group will continue to seek feedback from fellow coaches, directors, commissioners and student-athletes in the days ahead, but it is becoming more likely that the proposal will be voted upon next April with the possibility of this going into effect as early as the 2018-19 calendar. The uniformity of applying the same rules across all sports would potentially streamline the transfer process.
Proponents of student-athletes being permitted to change schools as freely as coaches will undoubtedly laud this potential new development. The concern from some detractors may be the further encouragement of raiding smaller programs as well as the likelihood that the number of annual transfers will grow exponentially. The challenge of tracking potential tampering in pending transfers may also be a potential hazard of the new development.
CuseLegacy
Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 93,486
- Like
- 143,744
The Division I Transfer Working Group wants to hear from others in the membership about a comprehensive package of concepts intended to improve the transfer environment for college athletes, coaches and teams in Division I. The group will survey presidents, athletics administrators, faculty and coaches on a variety of ideas, including eliminating permission-to-contact rules and replacing them with a model that involves a college athlete-initiated notification of intent to transfer, stressing ethical recruiting practices and new rules for postgraduate student-athletes.
Capt. Tuttle
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 25,573
- Like
- 35,942
It's about time. Also, if they don't like where they are drafted, they should be able to go back to school, and they should be able to have an agent guide them.
reedny
Flame Resistant
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,614
- Like
- 15,211
Anything they do, and I mean anything, has to come with deadlines. No way schools can deal with the nonsense we saw with TT on the first day of class -- unless they completely revamp the recruiting cycle (not likely). Kids should be able to play where they want, but the players and coaches left behind need to be prepared to carry on. And no one wants to see teams with big holes because a kid played games until the last minute. Tampering rules should also be enhanced to prevent abuses.
Capt. Tuttle
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 25,573
- Like
- 35,942
If there are no scholarships, they can transfer, or pay for school.
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 214,993
- Like
- 374,673
Toga
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,234
- Like
- 70,226
Exactly
C Bomb
Underwhelming Motivational Speaker
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,134
- Like
- 1,814
Personally, I love the notion that there can be unlimited (less the Gus Edward situation w/ the U) free agency upon the condition that you have graduated. My only fix would be to prevent schools like Miami from placing limitations, especially if a go getter graduates early
PhatOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 28,812
- Like
- 47,143
I don't like this at all.
Capt. Tuttle
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 25,573
- Like
- 35,942
Yup. Let's keep down on the farm. Why shouldn't they be able to change jobs/schools like anyone else. Oh, right, because they entertain us.
Capt. Tuttle
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 25,573
- Like
- 35,942
Good. It's the only leverage they have. The 2nd violin can move schools to be 1st violin, why not a running back or point guard?
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 214,993
- Like
- 374,673
Can't wait for Dino to snag a legit 5 star recruit, and the kid bolts after 1 year for a better offer.
Shark58
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2014
- Messages
- 5,485
- Like
- 11,957
now he can come back and play next year
The thing I'm most worried about are kids bouncing around and never graduating because they'll always be recruited. This could get very interesting and it's good that they can have the same freedom as a coach that signs at 5 years deal has.
PhatOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 28,812
- Like
- 47,143
Because it's not a job and kids are still free to transfer now. There is such a thing as noncompete clauses in the real world, and coaches have buyouts.
I fear that our best players would bolt. Oh hey Dungey would like nice suiting up for FSU his senior year wouldn't he. This rule could be a disaster frankly.
It's starting to get out of control in the lacrosse world. The best players from the worst teams move around.
All it does is further separate the haves for the have nots.
Last edited:
PhatOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 28,812
- Like
- 47,143
Can't wait for Dino to snag a legit 5 star recruit, and the kid bolts after 1 year for a better offer.
How about players like Slayton ?
PAcuse
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 8,139
- Like
- 17,141
I like the idea that kids don't have to wait a year, BUT man does this open all kinds of issues. So much tampering will go on that the NCAA will never be able to keep up with all of it, recruiting will be a nightmare with trying to figure out if any of your kids might move on each year, and this is just the tip of what can go wrong.
CuseLegacy
Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 93,486
- Like
- 143,744
If/when Babers turns this program around and we are winning kids that are getting playing time probably aren't going be looking around to transfer...unless they are playing for the BB team and their name is Taurean.
