Should have included a grandfather clause. Players like Love transferred under the old rule. Rules provide consistency so that people can decide how they will act. This change should go into effect next year. Players who acted in reliance to the old rule should get what they bargained for.
Sunday Mashup- 4/26/15
- Thread starter JPFisher
- Start date
That would seem to be a very strong argument in his favor, but then again, it's the NCAA so who knows.
Yes, I think you are correct. I have not seen a definitive statement that the "new" transfer policy was approved but it apparently is in effect now (i.e., "current"). According to this link the NCAA may have approved it as early April 24th of last year. Also not that no legislation was required, only approval by BoD.
As I understand it, Tulsa is arguing that a transfer that happened before the the 2015 fall semester should be adjudicated by the "old" process which requires petitioning for a specific waiver request to the residency requirement based on whatever circumstances are presented by the student athlete.
That approach could really a doubled edged sword. If it is decided the old transfer policy is in effect, the player's appeal would go before a committee that has not been prone to approving such waivers (especially when a more student friendly outcome is available under the new policy being "rejected" by the player. And if they deny the waiver under the "old" policy, I would think they would not be bound to grant a 6th year of eligibility under the new policy.
The upshot here is the "hardship conditions" are addressed as soon as the student transfers. It is not important (to the NCAA) that the transfer be immediately eligible to play, only that the "hardship" necessitating the transfer has been addressed. I strongly believe that thought will dominate any waiver decisions especially with a new policy in place that is very similar to the "medical hardship" waiver.
Peace
I wonder how many players it will effect if the NCAA rules in the favor of Grandfathering in the players seeking to avoid sitting out because of a hardship transfer this season If it is just a few IMO the NCAA will just allow them but if there is a lot there might be a problem.
I would also like to state that I like the new rule. IMO there was a lot of frivolous applications for hardship transfers in the past. It would seem fair to make such players to sit out and get an extra year if they have already redshirted. They would get the transfer and be near their problem and still not lose a years eligibility. Losing a years eligibility has always been the main reason that I have hated it when the NCAA refused these applications. I will also state that if there is a serious problem that the player should welcome having a year off to solve the problem without having to compete in a sport.
I actually think that all players that transfer after using their redshirt should not be docked a year of eligibility. IMO having to sit out a year of competition is punish enough.
I would also like to state that I like the new rule. IMO there was a lot of frivolous applications for hardship transfers in the past. It would seem fair to make such players to sit out and get an extra year if they have already redshirted. They would get the transfer and be near their problem and still not lose a years eligibility. Losing a years eligibility has always been the main reason that I have hated it when the NCAA refused these applications. I will also state that if there is a serious problem that the player should welcome having a year off to solve the problem without having to compete in a sport.
I actually think that all players that transfer after using their redshirt should not be docked a year of eligibility. IMO having to sit out a year of competition is punish enough.
Sorry man, I know you mean well with these posts, but "could get to a bowl"? We should have been in a bowl last year, let alone this year. We were literally two plays away from having 7 wins last year (with a first-year underclassman starting QB, and true freshman and sophomore playmakers across the board).
This mindset drives me crazy. Why are our expectations always so ridiculously low?
Seriously, someone lay it out for me with numbers and facts. Explain to me why Kentucky football fans should be accepting of 4 or 5 wins this year with a team that will have:
1. More experience at head coach (and a better overall staff)
2. A better, more experienced quarterback
3. Better, more experienced wide receivers
4. Better, more experienced running backs
5. Better, more experienced offensive linemen
6. Better tight ends
7. Better, more experienced corners
8. Better safeties
9. Better, more experienced linebackers
10. Better, more experienced special teams
11. Better, more quality depth at almost every position
12. More strength at virtually every position
13. More size at virtually every position
14. More speed at virtually every position
15. A hungrier, more motivated team
This is a serious question. Someone lay it out for me in a serious way taking those factors into consideration why we should be accepting of not improving on last year's disappointing record, because I already see so many of our experts on here seemingly prepping us to be accepting of a 4 or 5-win season, and amazingly seeming to be completely fine with that fact.
While you contemplate a response, keep this fact in mind. This is 2015, not 1960. The "time" "microwave fan" argument doesn't hold much water when a coach is in year three with a significantly more talented team. The 7 or 8 year-timeline that coaches were given in the past isn't what (smart) athletic directors use today. Just imagine if Joker was given the 7 or 8 year timeline that coaches were given in the past.
I see no scenario outside of QB injury where this team doesn't win 6 or 7 games, but someone explain to me why we should be accepting of 4 or 5 wins. Explain to me your mindset of being okay with a team that has improved in virtually every single area not improving on a disappointing win total (which was disappointing for last year's team, let alone this year's stronger, faster, hungrier, more talented, more experienced, more motivated team).
Give me your explanation. I'll accept low expectations as a response, because honestly that's the only explanation I can fathom at this point.
Why are so many people okay with winning 4 or 5 games this year and not completely up in arms at just the thought of 4 wins? I don't know about you, but winning 4 games this year would be pretty darn disappointing for me. Maybe it's because I'm a football-first guy, who knows. I just don't understand it whatsoever. I like Coach Stoops..I liked Joker too..but I like this program a whole lot more. I'm not a Joker fan or a Stoops fan, at the end of the day, I'm a Kentucky fan.
Last edited:
jnew, the problem is even though we are getting better, so is the rest of the SEC. If we had this years team playing last year, we probably go bowling. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.
I have no idea how many such waiver requests were submitted. But you must remember many of the "hardships" cited in such waiver requests were somewhat dubious in nature. But it is a very slippery slope for the NCAA to say one "hardship" is more dire than another. The reality is most such waiver requests are driven by a desire to avoid sitting a year rather than a true need that is resolved by the athlete moving "closer to home". In fact, you could make a pretty plausible argument that if you are not going home at least weekly you are not really "needed at home".
There are many valid reasons for a player wanting to transfer that have nothing to do with family health issues. Simple unhappiness for whatever reason is plenty enough. In fact, I would be supportive of ALL (one time only, 4 year to 4 year) transfers to get a 6th year to complete their eligibility IF they have graduated by the end of their 5th year since initial enrollment. Obviously, this would affect only those who transfer after a red shirt year.
Peace
Jnewc, it is the fact that while UK is going to be much better in all facets this year, we are still in the SEC. Just because we improve does not mean the rest of the SEC is taking time off. We will be more talented in depth but experience will be something we sorely lack after our starters. After the first string goes down, we will be young, sporadic, and playing in the toughest league in the country while relying on young RS's without a single down of SEC play (yet) as our depth. Forgive me if I feel as though there is a chance for us to get shafted by the officials again or a couple SEC teams like Vandy or S.Car to finally find their mojo by the time they meet up with us.
I don't agree with that. Mississippi State lost a bundle off of last years team and will not be nearly the team they were in 2014, Missouri will have to reload. They don't figure to be any better than last years team and probably a little off. Florida's offense is a mess and a new coaching staff almost always equates to slow starts. Louisville lost the best receiver they have had there in decades, and 9 other players off of their 2014 team either got drafted or will likely be in NFL camps this summer.
But what we need to remember is that 2 or 3 or 4 years ago while UK was busy cutting their own throats with piss-poor recruiting, poor prep, etc schools like Missouri and Miss St were recruiting, red shirting and developing players. Look at Missouri's roster. Las year they had 70, that's SEVENTY red shirts. UK had maybe 18-20. Both will be good in '15.
Dee, Mississippi State was one I was going to mention then I removed it for some reason, they obviously will not be as good. One big factor is the home/away games. If we played South Carolina away last year, we likely would have lost. If we played Louisville at home, I think we would have won. Same with Florida.
Now we have a few games that are easier at home(Florida, Louisville, Missouri), but some of the games we won or were close in will be away(Vandy, South Carolina, MS State)
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we only won 5 games or if we win 8 games.
Now we have a few games that are easier at home(Florida, Louisville, Missouri), but some of the games we won or were close in will be away(Vandy, South Carolina, MS State)
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we only won 5 games or if we win 8 games.
We have our best schedule in some time, I will say. I think we win our first 5 games, get a nice bye week, and get to play a very tough Auburn team at home (This would be my blackout, for sure). We'll likely lose to Auburn, but who knows. I could see a win against Mississippi State, but it'll be tough. We're lucky to have UT at home, we'll see what we can muster there, likely will lose to UGA (especially at UGA), then should win the next 3. I'm going to predict 8 wins for next season. I'm feeling bold.
Also, is it weird that I want Courtney Miggins to play ILB? At 280#, he's very mobile, and has a very good nose for the ball on the inside, but quick enough to catch somebody on the outside. I'm thinking we should run a 3-4 defense, have C.J. Johnson, Matt Elam (as nose tackle), and Melvin Lewis at the defensive tackle spots, and have Hatcher (S-OLB), Miggins (S-ILB), Forrest (W-ILB), and Ware (W-OLB).
I think that's a solid front seven that gives us size and strength up in the middle to stop the run, and make plays in the backfield, as well as the speed and tackling ability to make plays off the edge.
I think that's a solid front seven that gives us size and strength up in the middle to stop the run, and make plays in the backfield, as well as the speed and tackling ability to make plays off the edge.
