New transfer rules on the horizon

#1

Boston Vol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
15,522
Likes
29,421
#1
Their intentions are good, but hard to see how this doesn't hurt non-power 5 schools.

quote:
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.
 
#3
#3
I would suspect the intent is level the playing field... meaning the bigger schools have an easier time with attrition i.e. they want players to be gone. If they are more players in a position to force a school/s to give them longer contracts say 4-years then the schools are more locked into the players they sign, instead of a one year deal.

So, what looks like an intent to make players jump around is really meant to lock players into particular schools with 4-year contracts. I am not sure that is how it will play out though.

College sports is just one big criminal enterprise. What is the consideration given by the player in the contract? Haha.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...tract-between-a-college-athlete-and-a-school/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4
#4
Hubbs said on the radio this morning that he doesn't see this passing.
 
#6
#6
rich would only get richer. Big schools would 'free agent sign' an experienced player at position of need instead of developing their own.

How many schools would be recruiting the Indiana Wr that O$U couldn't stop?
 
#8
#8
rich would only get richer. Big schools would 'free agent sign' an experienced player at position of need instead of developing their own.

How many schools would be recruiting the Indiana Wr that O$U couldn't stop?

If its just a school student activity than I fail to see why its a big deal, of course, we know in reality its big business.
 
#9
#9
If this happens recruiting is not just for HS kids any more. Every non-senior will be taking "unofficial visits" during their bye week.
 
#10
#10
If this happens recruiting is not just for HS kids any more. Every non-senior will be taking "unofficial visits" during their bye week.

Maybe.
I would suspect, if they have a 4-year scholarship they would have to be granted their release, or whatever the time length is specified. If they only have a 1-year scholarship than I would think they could probably go talk to whoever they want. idk
 
#11
#11
rich would only get richer. Big schools would 'free agent sign' an experienced player at position of need instead of developing their own.

How many schools would be recruiting the Indiana Wr that O$U couldn't stop?

You can do like the NFL, and have a no tampering rule.
 
#12
#12
1. It proposed 1 free transfer.
2. Subsequent transfers would require to sit out a year.
(This part is OK with me. Sometimes the fit isn't right and you have a gimme).
3. Proposal states a minimum GPA to transfer w/o restriction. I would assume that is after the school releases them from their scholly.
(This will negate 98% of those wanting to transfer).
 
#13
#13
DL3X7M3X4AYgMt-.jpg
 
#14
#14
There are already a LOT of transfers and the numbers seem to be growing. If the NCAA allowed immediate eligibility, the number of transfers would surely skyrocket. You don't really want to encourage transfers--and that is why sitting out a year is a good thing, IMO; it discourages some from transferring (though, admittedly, not many). Not a good idea.
 
#15
#15
There are already a LOT of transfers and the numbers seem to be growing. If the NCAA allowed immediate eligibility, the number of transfers would surely skyrocket. You don't really want to encourage transfers--and that is why sitting out a year is a good thing, IMO; it discourages some from transferring (though, admittedly, not many). Not a good idea.

So a student not being to go to the school of their choice when they don't no longer have a contract is bad? I don't remember any school I attended being terribly upset when students went to other schools.

Hm. Its almost like this is a big business.
 
#16
#16
If they are more players in a position to force a school/s to give them longer contracts say 4-years then the schools are more locked into the players they sign, instead of a one year deal.

Scholarships are already 1 year agreements... not 4 years.
 
#18
#18
Scholarships are already 1 year agreements... not 4 years.

The vast majority of scholarships are 1 year but they actually can give multi-year scholarships. However, I think my point was more like, why can't a player go from school to school, if he is on a one year deal? If its not a business, the schools shouldn't care - of course, we all know the truth.
 
#19
#19
The vast majority of scholarships are 1 year but they actually can give multi-year scholarships. However, I think my point was more like, why can't a player go from school to school, if he is on a one year deal? If its not a business, the schools shouldn't care - of course, we all know the truth.

uh, you know there is the whole academic side of things too. class credits, etc etc.

I know the scholarships the college of architecture provided didn't apply to transfers unless they had 3 semesters continuously somewhere.
 

VN Store



Back
Top