[Rumor] NCAA Considering Transfer Rule Change

#1

Jimmy Football

Peaking in March
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
13,144
Likes
76,191
#1
[twitter]https://twitter.com/ESPN_Schick/status/953671983866277888[/twitter]

Anyone besides me think this would be a bad idea?
 
#4
#4
Would be a lot kids transferring esp from the loaded teams like Bama and OSU

Why sit 2 or 3 years if you don’t have to
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
In your opinion, what is broken with respect to the current system? I'm not sure I understand what problems they would be trying to address with this proposal.

Not sure anything is broken necessarily.

My position on this is I’m against the NCAA in regards to restricting where student athletes can/cannot go since they are trying to convince us they are just everyday, normal students. No other college activity restricts such movement for everyday students.

It’s not a huge deal to me but I would like to see young men/women be able to transfer (possibly with some sensible stipulations, I’m not an absolutist or anything) for what they believe will better their future.

I’m not one of those people who’s stuck on one side or the other in this conversation, I just think it’s an interesting situation to look at.

What would you guys think about kids being able to transfer without penalty if they coach who recruited them left for another job/got fired? Pros/cons?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#13
#13
Not sure anything is broken necessarily.

My position on this is I’m against the NCAA in regards to restricting where student athletes can/cannot go since they are trying to convince us they are just everyday, normal students. No other college activity restricts such movement for everyday students.

It’s not a huge deal to me but I would like to see young men/women be able to transfer (possibly with some sensible stipulations, I’m not an absolutist or anything) for what they believe will better their future.

I’m not one of those people who’s stuck on one side or the other in this conversation, I just think it’s an interesting situation to look at.

What would you guys think about kids being able to transfer without penalty if they coach who recruited them left for another job/got fired? Pros/cons?

Against it. They should be committing to the school and not the coach but I understand reality. I'd support a small change such as not allowing a coach to place restrictions on where a kid can transfer to but keep the 1 year sit out rule minus grad students.
 
#14
#14
Against it. They should be committing to the school and not the coach but I understand reality. I'd support a small change such as not allowing a coach to place restrictions on where a kid can transfer to but keep the 1 year sit out rule minus grad students.

Correct its not reality at all that they commit to the school. They commit to a coach who they think can make them the best player they can be and to the next level.

Should coaches have to coach our their contracts they sign and schools have to honor the contracts they sign until the end of it? They actually are committing to the school as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
Correct its not reality at all that they commit to the school. They commit to a coach who they think can make them the best player they can be and to the next level.

Should coaches have to coach our their contracts they sign and schools have to honor the contracts they sign until the end of it? They actually are committing to the school as well.

No, coaches shouldn't have to coach out their contracts. In my perfect world there would be no buyouts either, coach quits he owes nothing, coach gets fired the school owes nothing.

Like I said I'm good with allowing a kid to transfer anywhere that will take them, no restrictions. But keep the 1 year sitout rule, otherwise it will be free agency.
 
#16
#16
No, coaches shouldn't have to coach out their contracts. In my perfect world there would be no buyouts either, coach quits he owes nothing, coach gets fired the school owes nothing.

Like I said I'm good with allowing a kid to transfer anywhere that will take them, no restrictions. But keep the 1 year sitout rule, otherwise it will be free agency.

Interesting.

Is there a reason you hold the student athletes to a higher standard than their coach?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
[twitter]https://twitter.com/ESPN_Schick/status/953671983866277888[/twitter]

Anyone besides me think this would be a bad idea?

not quite. Yes it would get rid of the sit out a year rule, but dont the colleges still have to allow the student out of their scholarship to transfer? So that would eliminate teams like bama from poaching rivals.
 
#22
#22
I think what they need to do is tie to 1 year scholarships. If your school is not renewing your scholarship another school has the option to pick it up without a restriction on playing time.

no contact during the regular season, no recruiting (OVs), one time thing, in good standing at the school (academics & otherwise).

I wouldn't mind it for coaching changes either give some type of grace period, 2 weeks after firing and 2 weeks after hiring. you can't sit on the pot, do your business and get gone. they complete the semester and can then transfer.
 
#23
#23
We're constantly being told that the scholarship is on a year by year basis. Fine. If the coach has the option to not renew a kid's scholarship for whatever reason he chooses to give, then the student should have the same chance to opt out without penalty if he feels that he made a mistake. It should either go both ways or be a guaranteed 4 year scholarship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#24
#24
I think what they need to do is tie to 1 year scholarships. If your school is not renewing your scholarship another school has the option to pick it up without a restriction on playing time.

no contact during the regular season, no recruiting (OVs), one time thing, in good standing at the school (academics & otherwise).

I wouldn't mind it for coaching changes either give some type of grace period, 2 weeks after firing and 2 weeks after hiring. you can't sit on the pot, do your business and get gone. they complete the semester and can then transfer.

I could go with the idea that if a students scholarship isn't renewed they can go wherever and play immediately. That sounds fair.

I think a transfer for any other reason should still require a year sit out. Minus a graduate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
I think what they need to do is tie to 1 year scholarships. If your school is not renewing your scholarship another school has the option to pick it up without a restriction on playing time.

no contact during the regular season, no recruiting (OVs), one time thing, in good standing at the school (academics & otherwise).

I wouldn't mind it for coaching changes either give some type of grace period, 2 weeks after firing and 2 weeks after hiring. you can't sit on the pot, do your business and get gone. they complete the semester and can then transfer.

This is along the lines I was thinking. If a coach is fired, players have 2 weeks to get to know the new coach and decide if they want to stay or leave (I think many less would leave than people think).

My next thought was make scholarships a 2 year contract. So after your sophomore or RS freshman season you have 2 weeks after your last game to figure out what you want to do. Takes out the knee jerk reaction of not playing your freshman year and gives the kids a couple years to settle in and make their college town a home. No official visits or anything and no contact with other schools during the season. After a couple years the writing is on the wall for most players and at that point a clearer decision can be made imo

Leave the grad transfer rule intact as well and if you transfer at any other point besides the 2 weeks after your 2nd season, you have to sit out a year like now.
 

VN Store



Back
Top