Major Potential Shift In NCAA Transfer Rules

[anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y]

Transfers may soon be eligible to play immediately

https://kansas.247sports.com/Articl...al-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121/Amp

 

[westerncat]

I bet Kansas will benefit from this if it does pass. While I agree with the change if it passes. IMO I think they may need to limit the # of transfers one team can take in a year.

 

[JoeBeeHall]

Wow the tail really could wag the dog then .

 

[DerekMcPwn]

Lol @ Fran Fraschilla. Of course this would be what he's talking about, the Kansas groupie.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

It would be a terrible idea.

 

[St.PatterSoN-54-]

Free agency.

Surely they'll need to put a total limit on the number of transfers a player can have.

 

[MWes11]

Free agency.

Surely they'll need to put a total limit on the number of transfers a player can have.

Exactly. Talk about tampering. You will see kids jumping all around, even from D1 schools to D1 schools. This could end up very badly.

 

[St.PatterSoN-54-]

Exactly. Talk about tampering. You will see kids jumping all around, even from D1 schools to D1 schools. This could end up very badly.

Let's see....I'll spend my first year in Hawaii, my second year in Tahoe, year three I'll lend my services to a deserving program in the Big 10, and then with my last year maybe I'll help Cal win another title at UK...

 

[JFCats22]

Long discussion on this already -

https://kentucky.forums.rivals.com/...change-transfers-eligible-immediately.241198/

 

[preacherfan]

Let's see....I'll spend my first year in Hawaii, my second year in Tahoe, year three I'll lend my services to a deserving program in the Big 10, and then with my last year maybe I'll help Cal win another title at UK...

The article does say that it would be limited so that can't happen, if I read it right.

 

[Lempface]

Did anyone read it? They said the first transfer allows for immediate playing time but subsequent transfers have the sit-out-a-year penalty, same as now.

 

[LeonThe Camel]

Let's see....I'll spend my first year in Hawaii, my second year in Tahoe, year three I'll lend my services to a deserving program in the Big 10, and then with my last year maybe I'll help Cal win another title at UK...

If i am an average player, not with high NBA expectations, I can see doing that exact thing.

Start my career in an amazing location, and move each year to a new experience. Then I would end my final year at an Ivy League type school and have my degree.

 

[LeonThe Camel]

Did anyone read it? They said the first transfer allows for immediate playing time but subsequent transfers have the sit-out-a-year penalty, same as now.

Basically, you can still do the same thing just one less transfer, and use a redshirt year on the second transfer.

 

[katwest]

If it were to pass it would be the biggest mess, they need to keep it like it is where you can't just hop from school to school if you get pissed off about something. Most of these kids are spoiled anyway and need to learn that things are not that easy if you don't like something. Sitting out a year will make you think about hasty decisions you make.Later in life you will think about things before jumping at the first thing that looks good. I know not all transfers are like that and a lot of them are good kids, but the rule in place now is a good rule. There are some good reasons like sickness in a family or a coach gets fired that was the reason you went to a certain school and others I'm sure. There are some things you can do now with the NCAA that covers some of these.

 

[Old_Red]

Might be the death of the smaller college teams. Prove yourself and then jump to a bigger school. Sets up kind of a farm system for schools willing to participate. That probably wouldn't help the one-and-done schools like Duke and Kentucky. It would help Kansas and Louisville.

 

[preacherfan]

Basically, you can still do the same thing just one less transfer, and use a redshirt year on the second transfer.

If I understand you right, you are saying that a player goes to Murray and can transfer to UK without sitting. Then, he decides to transfer to UNLV and sits a year. That is 3 schools in total for the 5 year overall limitation.

 

[Old_Red]

Could you get 4 schools in with a graduate transfer?

 

[Cindog28]

Might be the death of the smaller college teams. Prove yourself and then jump to a bigger school. Sets up kind of a farm system for schools willing to participate. That probably wouldn't help the one-and-done schools like Duke and Kentucky. It would help Kansas and Louisville.

Or it could help a small school like EKU become a farm system for UK. Load the team up with 4-star players who may need a year or two to develop and if for some reason UK doesn't get the next John Wall, then they have an experienced player 30 minutes away who can step in and play right away.

Personally I think it is a horrible idea, but when you are dealt a hot hand then you don't fold.

 

[Mike_Edwards]

When will free agency begin and end and when is the trade deadline? This would be a mess IMO

 

[LouBoy]

players should have the same freedom of movement as coaches. If coaches are willing to sit out a year to move to a new school . . .

 

[Mike_Edwards]

I read the article and there is nothing in there about the timing. Can a kid transfer and play for two different schools in the same season? If so good teams keep a spot open for great players on shitty teams. Does anyone think Markell Fultz finishes the season last year at Udub?

 

[LeonThe Camel]

If I understand you right, you are saying that a player goes to Murray and can transfer to UK without sitting. Then, he decides to transfer to UNLV and sits a year. That is 3 schools in total for the 5 year overall limitation.

Basically, yes.

Freshman, sophomore years at Hawaii
Starting junior year transfer to University of Maine (eligible immediately)
Starting senior year, transfers to Pepperdine, sits out a year, then plays as a fifth year senior.
Heck, he may even get a waiver if hurt during one of those years and transfer as a grad student and play elsewhere.

 

[Aike]

players should have the same freedom of movement as coaches. If coaches are willing to sit out a year to move to a new school . . .

Apples and oranges. Coaches are under contract and their movement can be restricted by those contracts if the schools want to do it.

This is a bad idea. No way in the world this wouldn't get ugly.

I love the idea that this is "data driven." I'd like to see the data on transfers when coaches are allowed to recruit players from other schools to play immediately. They have no clue the can of worms they're opening.

The transfer rule now is fine. Players sit out a year but they still get free college, free food, and free coaching/training.

It isn't like they're suffering a hardship. They are actually being put in better shape, since it's more likely they'll be around to graduate or even pursue a Graduate Degree.

There are a lot of tweaks I'd like to see, but this is not one of them.

 

[UKnCincy]

Apples and oranges. Coaches are under contract and their movement can be restricted by those contracts if the schools want to do it.

This is a bad idea. No way in the world this wouldn't get ugly.

I love the idea that this is "data driven." I'd like to see the data on transfers when coaches are allowed to recruit players from other schools to play immmediately. They have no clue the can of worms they're opening.

The transfer rule now is fine. Players sit out a year but they still get free college, free food, and free coaching/training.

It isn't like they're suffering a hardship. They are actually being put in better shape, since it's more likely they'll be around to graduate or even pursue a Graduate Degree.

There are a lot of tweaks I'd like to see, but this is not one of them.

The transfer rule is not fine. If an athlete plays division I soccer, tennis, golf, lacrosse, softball, swimming, etc., then they can transfer and be immediately eligible to compete. But if an athlete plays division I basketball or football, they can't.

The transfer rule is about protecting university money and does not look out for the best interests of student athletes (a fact which contradicts why the NCAA was founded in the first place).

Like any other university student or student athlete, revenue sports athletes should be free to transfer wherever they wish without restrictions.

 

[JC43]

Think the NCAA is doing to adjust to the likelihood of individuals going straight from highschool.Rule will change, that or two yrs NCAA

 

[Aike]

The transfer rule is not fine. If an athlete plays division I soccer, tennis, golf, lacrosse, softball, swimming, etc., then they can transfer and be immediately eligible to compete. But if an athlete plays division I basketball or football, they can't.

The transfer rule is about protecting university money and does not look out for the best interests of student athletes (a fact which contradicts why the NCAA was founded in the first place).

Like any other university student or student athlete, revenue sports athletes should be free to transfer wherever they wish without restrictions.

I would argue that none of those other sports should allow transfers to play immediately.

I would also argue that athletes in good academic standing should not have their scholarships stripped earlier than 4 years (eliminate the annual renewable aspect).

I don't have a problem with hardship exceptions, or allowing athletes to transfer and play immediately if the coach that recruited them leaves (although they shouldn't be able to follow their old coach).

I think "best interest of the student/athlete" is far more complicated than allowing players to freely maneuver at all times. Should they be able to leave UNC at Christmas and enroll and play at Duke in January? Maybe you think they should.

In the real world, actions have consequences. Choice of college has consequences. Sometimes the stability of the system overrides the individual whims of the participants in the system.

I think it goes beyond protecting the economic interests of the schools. It protects the collection of student/athletes that make up the system. And it helps to ward off predatory behavior by unscrupulous schools/coaches (which already exists and would increase exponentially).

 

[Lovebaskelball]

It protects the collection of student/athletes that make up the system.

How does it protect? Please give examples?

And it helps to ward off predatory behavior by unscrupulous schools/coaches (which already exists and would increase exponentially).

Predatory to whom?

 

[UKnCincy]

I would argue that none of those other sports should allow transfers to play immediately.

I would also argue that athletes in good academic standing should not have their scholarships stripped earlier than 4 years (eliminate the annual renewable aspect).

I don't have a problem with hardship exceptions, or allowing athletes to transfer and play immediately if the coach that recruited them leaves (although they shouldn't be able to follow their old coach).

I think "best interest of the student/athlete" is far more complicated than allowing players to freely maneuver at all times. Should they be able to leave UNC at Christmas and enroll and play at Duke in January? Maybe you think they should.

In the real world, actions have consequences. Choice of college has consequences. Sometimes the stability of the system overrides the individual whims of the participants in the system.

I think it goes beyond protecting the economic interests of the schools. It protects the collection of student/athletes that make up the system. And it helps to ward off predatory behavior by unscrupulous schools/coaches (which already exists and would increase exponentially).

The decision to attend any specific university belongs to the student. Any attempt by the student's current school to restrict a student's ability to leave that school would be viewed as exceedingly unreasonable, and rightly so.

As students first, athletes should not be treated any differently. Particularly when schools are begging them to attend and most coaches are telling them whatever they think the recruit needs to hear to sell them on committing.

If a coach sold them a false narrative during recruitment, then an athlete should be able to leave to go somewhere else and the school should have no right to dictate the terms of that.

Stating "actions have consequences" is a nice cliche, but it's also merely an assertion of fact. It is by no means an argument and it cannot be used as justification for a specific course of action versus alternatives. Particularly when the point of the rule is to eliminate consequences for the coaches and schools.

The only arguments against this are that people are worried it will hurt their team, or make things hard for coaches, or that things will be different. None of which are sufficient justifications to strip from athletes a right that all other students retain.

 

[Aike]

How does it protect? Please give examples?



Predatory to whom?

There are thousands of participants in the system. Allowing athletes to move around willy nilly disrupts the stability of the system.

It impacts other players, coaches, trainers, administrators, etc.

There's already a certain level of disruption built in. Even under current transfer rules, players transfer. But open this door, and imo, it will be more than anyone can keep a handle on.

Predatory to whom? Large programs predatory to small programs.

I've brought up this example before, but the current setup could be compared to non-compete clauses in the business world.

You are a free agent before you take a job. Once you accept that job, there may be certain terms of the agreement that limit your mobility. Your company is willing to invest time and resources into your develop, and thus may not permit you to immediately join a competitor.

You don't have to take the job, or sign the contract. Just like athletes don't have to attend college and play sports. They have other options. If they want to maintain their "free agency," they can go play on the street if they like. If they are savvy enough, they may even figure out how to get paid to do that.

But if they want to attend college and play, they must play by certain rules. If you don't like the system, join some other system, change the system, or do your own thing.

So fine. Some folks are efforting to change the system. If they do, they do. I just believe there will be more negative consequences than positive to such a change.

To boil it all down, if you're going to run any kind of organization, there have to be rules in place. These athletes don't have some divine right to do whatever they choose, without repercussion.

I bet if Jarred Vanderbilt switched locker rooms at halftime of next year's UL game, everyone would have a problem with that.

So where is the line drawn? In game? In season? One season? Or what we have now?

 

[Aike]

The decision to attend any specific university belongs to the student. Any attempt by the student's current school to restrict a student's ability to leave that school would be viewed as exceedingly unreasonable, and rightly so.

As students first, athletes should not be treated any differently. Particularly when schools are begging them to attend and most coaches are telling them whatever they think the recruit needs to hear to sell them on committing.

If a coach sold them a false narrative during recruitment, then an athlete should be able to leave to go somewhere else and the school should have no right to dictate the terms of that.

Stating "actions have consequences" is a nice cliche, but it's also merely an assertion of fact. It is by no means an argument and it cannot be used as justification for a specific course of action versus alternatives. Particularly when the point of the rule is to eliminate consequences for the coaches and schools.

The only arguments against this are that people are worried it will hurt their team, or make things hard for coaches, or that things will be different. None of which are sufficient justifications to strip from athletes a right that all other students retain.

Athletes are free to transfer, just like all other students. They can even practice, and be on scholarship. They just can't play right away.

I don't find this oppressive.

 

[UKnCincy]

Athletes are free to transfer, just like all other students. They can even practice, and be on scholarship. They just can't play right away.

I don't find this oppressive.

If it's not oppressive, then why even have it?

The fact that you argue for the need to have a residence requirement as an effective check on transfers speaks to its oppressiveness.

 

[Lovebaskelball]

There are thousands of participants in the system. Allowing athletes to move around willy nilly disrupts the stability of the system.

It impacts other players, coaches, trainers, administrators, etc.

There's already a certain level of disruption built in. Even under current transfer rules, players transfer. But open this door, and imo, it will be more than anyone can keep a handle on.

Predatory to whom? Large programs predatory to small programs.

I've brought up this example before, but the current setup could be compared to non-compete clauses in the business world.

You are a free agent before you take a job. Once you accept that job, there may be certain terms of the agreement that limit your mobility. Your company is willing to invest time and resources into your develop, and thus may not permit you to immediately join a competitor.

You don't have to take the job, or sign the contract. Just like athletes don't have to attend college and play sports. They have other options. If they want to maintain their "free agency," they can go play on the street if they like. If they are savvy enough, they may even figure out how to get paid to do that.

But if they want to attend college and play, they must play by certain rules. If you don't like the system, join some other system, change the system, or do your own thing.

So fine. Some folks are efforting to change the system. If they do, they do. I just believe there will be more negative consequences than positive to such a change.

To boil it all down, if you're going to run any kind of organization, there have to be rules in place. These athletes don't have some divine right to do whatever they choose, without repercussion.

I bet if Jarred Vanderbilt switched locker rooms at halftime of next year's UL game, everyone would have a problem with that.

So where is the line drawn? In game? In season? One season? Or what we have now?

Please list examples how it would be predatory? Just saying big schools bad is not examples. Mobility will cause disruptions but pro sports tried to use that argument and they still survived. A player would have to follow the college enrollment guidelines, so they would be unable to change at halftime and would be by quarter or semester, or season

High achieving players at a lower school could transfer to a stronger program to showcase their talents. Conversely, highly recruited players with disappointing careers could transfer down to a school to become a starter. What is more American than that?

Rules change and evolve all the time. The early 1900's work rules are not the same as today's work rules.

 

[Aike]

If it's not oppressive, then why even have it?

The fact that you argue for the need to have a residence requirement as an effective check on transfers speaks to its oppressiveness.

Are all deterrents oppressive?

And I may just be slow (beg pardon), but what do you mean that I "argue for the need to have a residence requirement?"

But no, I don't find it oppressive.

1. Choice 1: stay put

2. Choice 2: transfer and sit for a year, all the while enjoying free room and board, education, coaching and training. (I still don't find this oppressive).

3. Choice 3: Transfer to some other level that allows immediate play.

4. Choice 4: Do something different with your life.

I'm just not buying it. I am persuadable. But I've yet to be persuaded.

 

[Aike]

Please list examples how it would be predatory? Just saying big schools bad is not examples. Mobility will cause disruptions but pro sports tried to use that argument and they still survived. A player would have to follow the college enrollment guidelines, so they would be unable to change at halftime and would be by quarter or semester, or season

High achieving players at a lower school could transfer to a stronger program to showcase their talents. Conversely, highly recruited players with disappointing careers could transfer down to a school to become a starter. What is more American than that?

Rules change and evolve all the time. The early 1900's work rules are not the same as today's work rules.

How can I list examples for something that hasn't happened yet?

I believe schools would recruit and poach in an unscrupulous manner. I can't prove it, but I think it would happen.

Pro sports has locked in contracts for a period of years. Pretty bad example. Unless you think every roster has the potential to roll over every season at the choice of the players?

And what exactly do you mean by "a player would have to follow the college enrollment guidelines?" You mean like Duke follows their guidelines to enroll Duval and Bagley? Schools make exceptions for athletes all the time.

It's an interesting argument that high and low achievers can find better homes for their talents. They can already do that of course. They just have to wait a year to play.

I don't really have a problem with exceptions being made. Hardship. Coach leaving, etc. But I would rather see exceptions made than rules change. I don't like the idea of players (and coaches) colluding in the summer to form super teams.

There's nothing un-American about honoring a committment, or dealing with the consequences when you change your mind.

There are things about the NCAA that I find draconian, but this isn't one of them.

Yes, rules change. And if this one changes, so be it. But if it does, I expect things to get even uglier and dirtier than they are already. And that's a lot of ugly.

 

[Lovebaskelball]

How can I list examples for something that hasn't happened yet?

I believe schools would recruit and poach in an unscrupulous manner. I can't prove it, but I think it would happen.

Pro sports has locked in contracts for a period of years. Pretty bad example. Unless you think every roster has the potential to roll over every season at the choice of the players?

No, it is a great example. Free Agency is new to pro sports (last 50 years) and they resisted movement of players because of the disruption and costs. It has not been the demise of the leagues that was predicted by the owners but has actually grown the games. If the whole roster is rolled over then something must be wrong and the players do not want to play there.

And what exactly do you mean by "a player would have to follow the college enrollment guidelines?" You mean like Duke follows their guidelines to enroll Duval and Bagley? Schools make exceptions for athletes all the time.

What guidelines were not followed in admitting those players? They still have time frames. You can't enroll in November for the Fall semester at Duke.

It's an interesting argument that high and low achievers can find better homes for their talents. They can already do that of course. They just have to wait a year to play.

Why not 2 years?

There's nothing un-American about honoring a committment, or dealing with the consequences when you change your mind.

So we have a lot of un-American universities and coaches who have not honored their commitment to each other and the student athletes.

There are things about the NCAA that I find draconian, but this isn't one of them.

Yes, rules change. And if this one changes, so be it. But if it does, I expect things to get even uglier and dirtier than they are already. And that's a lot of ugly.

Why does if have to be draconian or oppressive? For me, it only has to be the right thing for the athletes.

 

[crestcat]

Apples and oranges. Coaches are under contract and their movement can be restricted by those contracts if the schools want to do it.

This is a bad idea. No way in the world this wouldn't get ugly.

I love the idea that this is "data driven." I'd like to see the data on transfers when coaches are allowed to recruit players from other schools to play immediately. They have no clue the can of worms they're opening.

The transfer rule now is fine. Players sit out a year but they still get free college, free food, and free coaching/training.

It isn't like they're suffering a hardship. They are actually being put in better shape, since it's more likely they'll be around to graduate or even pursue a Graduate Degree.

There are a lot of tweaks I'd like to see, but this is not one of them.

Coaches are already monitoring all players that have graduated and recruiting the hell out of them, I hate to think what would happen if they could recruit them all. And of course every graduate transfer is to the detriment of the school that spent the time and the money to develop them.

 

[Aike]

No, it is a great example. Free Agency is new to pro sports (last 50 years) and they resisted movement of players because of the disruption and costs. It has not been the demise of the leagues that was predicted by the owners but has actually grown the games. If the whole roster is rolled over then something must be wrong and the players do not want to play there.



What guidelines were not followed in admitting those players? They still have time frames. You can't enroll in November for the Fall semester at Duke.



Why not 2 years?


So we have a lot of un-American universities and coaches who have not honored their commitment to each other and the student athletes.



Why does if have to be draconian or oppressive? For me, it only has to be the right thing for the athletes.

It isn't a good example, because professional players are not free agents every season. Their movement is still highly restricted. The roster can't roll over every offseason by the players' choice, because rosters are composed of players with various length contracts. For stability.

Why not 2 years? Because 1 has been seen as enough of a deterrent (to coaches cherry picking from the rosters of competitors).

Are you kidding re: Duke? They have relaxed academic standards for enrollment. Why couldn't they adjust dates?

Some classes are shortened to 8 weeks or a month. Some can be picked up at any time.

But just so we're clear, you're fine with players switching teams midsession, correct?

You're the one with the goofy appeal to patriotism. I only interjected that honoring committments has its own virtues. Coaches leaving or staying is a different situation, which I've already addressed. 1. Schools can restrict the movement of coaches if they see fit. 2. I personally have no problem with transfers when coaching changes occur.

So yeah, I still don't think it's in the best interest of the student/athletes to let them leave at any time and play immediately anywhere. Nice thought, I guess. But a Pandora's box, imo.

But that's all I'll say on the subject. They'll do what they do.

 

[UKWildcatT]

People think an athlete is going to leave a team on January 21 and be eligible for a new team January 22?!

Come on folks. You're smarter than that.

I've advocated for this rule for years. Have zero issue with it

 

[Rupp'sRunt]

I like turtles

 

[TM2013]

This will only help UK and Duke....makes it easier to fill holes when a surprise player goes pro. Essentially allows for a monster team every year. Count me in.