Grad transfer thread

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Student First unless you are the worst scholorship player on the roster. 

Of all the 'injustices' this one doesn't seem to need 'fixing'

I would be more worried about the large and increasing number of standard transfers.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

A kid who busts his hump and graduates and has eligibility left has put the student before athlete.  The kid has earned the right to showcase their hoops talents where they want.

See, I've never really bought this argument. I would say a majority of grad transfers transferred once before, so they had a required year in residence. They didn't work extra hard, they just had a year off forced upon them.

[Jay Bee]

If the NCAA feels that an extra year of residence is important for student-athletes to be successful students, why are we limiting it to just transfers? Lets make all athletes take a year in residence to make sure they are given that opportunity to be successful. Just limiting it to transfer shows what the true purpose is.

Completely disagree. Students who transfer have a lower success rate in the classroom. That is a valid reason to require a year in academic residence. The transfer, on average, is in a more difficult academic situation.

Trying to say the NCAA is motivated to require a year in residence for transfers by concerns that student-athletes aren't seeing themselves as students first is complete bull crap and you know it. Their motivation is purely to deter athletes from transferring.

To deter athletes from transferring.... AND DEN? Continue. That's an incomplete thought. Here's a complete one: "...to deter athletes from transferring for non-academic reasons, putting their academics at a greater risk."

WHY do you believe the NCAA wants to deter athletes from transferring? You've indicated it has zero to do with academics.. so, what's the NCAA's grave concern, in your mind?

[MU82]

You're trying to compare the major time commitments of a DI basketball player, who is receiving value in exchange for athletic performance, to a nerd that wants to join science club because it's fun.. no binding agreement... ??? That's silly.

No, I was comparing a D1 athlete to a violin prodigy or an academic genius.

I am no expert on how many hours a week a violin prodigy practices and plays, but if I just had to hazard a guess, I would say it is somewhere in the range of ... I don't know ... a bazillion? And in his or her own way, he or she probably faces a similar amount of pressure, if not more.

A young man or woman studying ballet ... a gifted actor ... a true academic genius, who aspires to cure diseases or solve age-old mathematical riddles? Do you know if basketball players put in more hours than those kids do? I admit I don't, but I'm pretty sure they put in serious hours.

It's a perfectly valid comparison. Hell, at many institutions, those young men and women bring more fame and glory and "brand recognition" to the school than athletes do.

And yet, the ultra-talented violinist on full scholarship at the Rice University Shepherd School of Music can transfer to the Northwestern University Bienen School of Music without sitting out a year to or facing any other kind of penalty.

Go figure.

[Jay Bee]

No, I was comparing a D1 athlete to a violin prodigy or an academic genius.

I am no expert on how many hours a week a violin prodigy practices and plays, but if I just had to hazard a guess, I would say it is somewhere in the range of ... I don't know ... a bazillion? And in his or her own way, he or she probably faces a similar amount of pressure, if not more.

A young man or woman studying ballet ... a gifted actor ... a true academic genius, who aspires to cure diseases or solve age-old mathematical riddles? Do you know if basketball players put in more hours than those kids do? I admit I don't, but I'm pretty sure they put in serious hours.

It's a perfectly valid comparison. Hell, at many institutions, those young men and women bring more fame and glory and "brand recognition" to the school than athletes do.

And yet, the ultra-talented violinist on full scholarship at the Rice University Shepherd School of Music can transfer to the Northwestern University Bienen School of Music without sitting out a year to or facing any other kind of penalty.

Go figure.

WTH, bud? Look back at the post you quoted. I wasn't talking to you.

[MU82]

WTH, bud? Look back at the post you quoted. I wasn't talking to you.

Oops.

Still, I stand by what I said, and it is valid to the discussion.

[Badgerhater]

Completely disagree. Students who transfer have a lower success rate in the classroom. That is a valid reason to require a year in academic residence. The transfer, on average, is in a more difficult academic situation.

If you have earned a degree, how does that "lower your success rate" when you transfer to start a new academic program?  The athlete already has a degree and no one should care if they finish a grad degree or not.  Plenty of regular grad students leave after a year or take years to finish that degree.

[Jay Bee]

If you have earned a degree, how does that "lower your success rate" when you transfer to start a new academic program?  The athlete already has a degree and no one should care if they finish a grad degree or not.  Plenty of regular grad students leave after a year or take years to finish that degree.

STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND. Is a grad student not a student?

[Badgerhater]

See, I've never really bought this argument. I would say a majority of grad transfers transferred once before, so they had a required year in residence. They didn't work extra hard, they just had a year off forced upon them.

Just how many non-athletes graduate in four years anymore?  4.5 and 5 years is very common for a variety of reasons.  You play three, sit for one and still graduate in four you are still putting in the work according the way the system is set up.

Extra years also come from regular redshirts and injury redshirts.  Not just a person who is college hopping.

[warriorchick]

And yet, the ultra-talented violinist on full scholarship at the Rice University Shepherd School of Music can transfer to the Northwestern University Bienen School of Music without sitting out a year to or facing any other kind of penalty.

Go figure.

Does Northwestern have a financial incentive to lure said violinist away from the other school? Do Northwestern orchestra concerts draw tens thousands of extra concertgoers a year if they are really, really good?

[Badgerhater]

STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND. Is a grad student not a student?

I go right back to the just how criminally laughable that is on the NCAA's part.

I was a grad student at MU who had athletes (no men's hoops) in the classes I taught there as part of my grad student assistantship.  (Actually, grad students have way more flexibility with their time than undergrads because much of the work is self-directed -- it is a ton of work, but you aren't sitting in class for hours a day).   These kids were only in class half the time during the season because of travel.  What sort of an STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND organization regularly puts students on a plane to play a game at 9:00 at night on the other side of the country during the school week simply so it can match with an ESPN time slot?  20 years ago, the hoops season started after Thanksgiving and now teams of 5 or 6 games in by that time and can play over 33-35 games a year -- Villanova played 40 games last season.

Spend a whole week away from school because of the conference tournament and more weeks away for each level of success in the NCAA.

All so coaches can make 7 figures, the athletic departments millions more and hundreds of millions to the NCAA because STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND.

And somehow a student who graduates and transfers in a situation beneficial to him is a problem that requires fixing??

[Jay Bee]

I go right back to the just how criminally laughable that is on the NCAA's part.

I was a grad student at MU who had athletes (no men's hoops) in the classes I taught there as part of my grad student assistantship.  (Actually, grad students have way more flexibility with their time than undergrads because much of the work is self-directed -- it is a ton of work, but you aren't sitting in class for hours a day).   These kids were only in class half the time during the season because of travel.  What sort of an STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND organization regularly puts students on a plane to play a game at 9:00 at night on the other side of the country during the school week simply so it can match with an ESPN time slot?  20 years ago, the hoops season started after Thanksgiving and now teams of 5 or 6 games in by that time and can play over 33-35 games a year -- Villanova played 40 games last season.

Spend a whole week away from school because of the conference tournament and more weeks away for each level of success in the NCAA.

All so coaches can make 7 figures, the athletic departments millions more and hundreds of millions to the NCAA because STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND.

And somehow a student who graduates and transfers in a situation beneficial to him is a problem that requires fixing??

That's all fine & good, but your post includes a number of topics. Can you address why the grad transfer should be treated differently?

[Badgerhater]

That's all fine & good, but your post includes a number of topics. Can you address why the grad transfer should be treated differently?

Addressed earlier.

Because by an objective standard and the supposed holy grail of the NCCA's STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND "philosophy" they earned it.

[Jay Bee]

Addressed earlier.

Because by an objective standard and the supposed holy grail of the NCCA STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND philosophy for undergraduates they earned it.

What did they earn? The achieved being a student who got an undergrad degree, therefore if they want to continue to be a student, they no longer need to be a student first?

Doesn't work for me, but I think I understand your argument.

[forgetful]

[quote author=forgetful link=topic=52071.msg848810#msg848810 date=1467333227

The violin player or the genius are transferring for academic reasons.  The basketball player is more often than not transferring for basketball reasons only.



Instead they are being admitted solely due to their abilities in athletics.




Wrong. The violin player is not transferring for academic reasons. He or she is transferring for artistic reasons. Many "geniuses" (actors, artists, etc.) also fit this profile. An athlete is also an artist. There's certainly a parallel.

As someone that knows people that transferred for music and/or "geniuses", they transferred for academic reasons.

Regardless, they also had the requisite grades to transfer in and were not given special considerations for their abilities.  Basketball/football players are. 

[forgetful]

You're trying to compare the major time commitments of a DI basketball player, who is receiving value in exchange for athletic performance, to a nerd that wants to join science club because it's fun.. no binding agreement... ??? That's silly.

This is one of the dumbest and most ignorant comments I've seen on these boards.  It proves you have zero understanding of what someone, who is focused on science/engineering/medicine, or other disciplines commits to.

I'll take your science example.

A "genius" who is focused on science/engineering takes an absurdly difficult course load.  For many of the science courses they estimate you need to put in 3 hours of work for each hour of class time.  So for a 15 hour course load, between class and studying you are putting in 45-60 hours a week.

Now on top of that your are often volunteering to work in research labs (internships/scribes).  These are often unpaid.  They are rigorous and difficult (scribes often work overnight shifts).  There are binding agreements between the student and the advisor/employer.  In some cases (I had to do this) you have to sign binding agreements with the government, I had background checks done and had to get security clearance and sign my life away. 

These research/internships/scribes can easily amount to 30-40 hours a week. 

That puts a student at 75-100 hours of time dedicated to science/engineering/medicine. 

On the science side, I sign non-disclosure/do not compete agreements and also sign away my writes to any patents or profits generated as a result of my research.  If I transfer I can no longer work on those same ideas/projects. 

Now, the number of students who fit into the above category are small...but so are the number of students that excel at any discipline or sport. 

[Jay Bee]

This is one of the dumbest and most ignorant comments I've seen on these boards.  It proves you have zero understanding of what someone, who is focused on science/engineering/medicine, or other disciplines commits to.

I'll take your science example.

A "genius" who is focused on science/engineering takes an absurdly difficult course load.  For many of the science courses they estimate you need to put in 3 hours of work for each hour of class time.  So for a 15 hour course load, between class and studying you are putting in 45-60 hours a week.

Now on top of that your are often volunteering to work in research labs (internships/scribes).  These are often unpaid.  They are rigorous and difficult (scribes often work overnight shifts).  There are binding agreements between the student and the advisor/employer.  In some cases (I had to do this) you have to sign binding agreements with the government, I had background checks done and had to get security clearance and sign my life away. 

These research/internships/scribes can easily amount to 30-40 hours a week. 

That puts a student at 75-100 hours of time dedicated to science/engineering/medicine. 

On the science side, I sign non-disclosure/do not compete agreements and also sign away my writes to any patents or profits generated as a result of my research.  If I transfer I can no longer work on those same ideas/projects. 

Now, the number of students who fit into the above category are small...but so are the number of students that excel at any discipline or sport.

No, you're an idiot. You're comparing DI athletic scholarships to something incredibly different.

You're wonderfully off base and wrong. Very sad.

Understand what a basketball scholarship requires - from both sides - then come back to me (and let me know you understand what a dumbass you're being).

[Nukem2]

Meanwhile, Scoop dips to new lows in this thread... 

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

nm.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Completely disagree. Students who transfer have a lower success rate in the classroom. That is a valid reason to require a year in academic residence. The transfer, on average, is in a more difficult academic situation.

I could hear an argument about how it is more difficult for transfers but that only tells a small part of the story. Yes, research says that students who transfer have more difficulty than students who don't. However, it will also tell you that freshman struggle to acclimate more than transfer sophomores, juniors, or seniors. So again, if this is really about helping the students who need it, then all freshman should be forced to take a year in residence, not transfers. Along those same lines, you know who struggles even more than freshman and transfers? JUCO transfers. Their persistence rates are abysmal compared to students who start at four year institutions. Yet JUCO transfers are allowed to play right away. Where is their year in residence?

To deter athletes from transferring.... AND DEN? Continue. That's an incomplete thought. Here's a complete one: "...to deter athletes from transferring for non-academic reasons, putting their academics at a greater risk."

WHY do you believe the NCAA wants to deter athletes from transferring? You've indicated it has zero to do with academics.. so, what's the NCAA's grave concern, in your mind?

The NCAA is made up of member institutions, every one of whom has a vested interest in keeping players that they recruit from transferring to another institution. It helps keep them from losing players that could help their team succeed on the court thereby helping the university as a whole. The current structure allows them to dismiss a player via not renewing their scholarship and essentially forcing the player to transfer without any repercussions to the school. Players are not afforded that same freedom as they are forced to take a year in residence.

If the NCAA is so concerned about these players' academics, they would put more pressure on schools to offer multi-year scholarships or would penalize schools who force students to transfer by not renewing their scholarship. Because what you are suggesting is that it is NOT ok for a student to jeopardize his/her academics by transferring, but it IS ok for a school to jeopardize a student's academics by forcing the student to transfer. Which is arse-backwards because the NCAA is the only one with an obligation to treat student-athletes as students first. Student-athletes are free to prioritize however they please!

If a school is only willing to make a 1 year commitment to a student-athlete, than no one should have sh*t to say when a student-athlete only wants to make a 1 year commitment to that school.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Just how many non-athletes graduate in four years anymore?  4.5 and 5 years is very common for a variety of reasons.  You play three, sit for one and still graduate in four you are still putting in the work according the way the system is set up.

Extra years also come from regular redshirts and injury redshirts.  Not just a person who is college hopping.

A vast majority still graduate in four years or less. Your right that 4.5 and 5 has become more common, but the rate of that actually went down last year (assumingly) due to rising cost of tuition.

I misspoke earlier. I said most have transferred, I should have said most graduated in 4 years. Regardless of what caused the redshirt, they still graduated in 4 years, which is the basic expectation for all student-athletes. I don't think meeting a basic expectation is worthy of special treatment. If you are going to make undergrad transfers sit a year, I think the fair thing to do is to make grad transfers sit a year as well. HOWEVER, I think the right thing to do, would actually be to make no one sit a year.

[Jay Bee]

Yes, research says that students who transfer have more difficulty than students who don't.

Now we're getting somewhere.

But, the question was, "why does the NCAA want to deter transfers?"... I say the NCAA simply wants to put the student first... you say... well, I'm not sure. I think you ranted on about several different topics.

The NCAA is made up of member institutions, every one of whom has a vested interest in keeping players that they recruit from transferring to another institution. It helps keep them from losing players that could help their team succeed on the court thereby helping the university as a whole.

So.. if this was true, why is the grad transfer rule in place? What is different? Isn't even more important to them?

Multi-year scholarships are effectively provided. In DI basketball, the topic at hand, most schools would be publicly punished harshly if they didn't renew a scholarship. Get real.

It all goes back to the question of why give special treatment to grad transfers? If you're going to say STUDENT FIRST, then stay principled.

[MU82]

Does Northwestern have a financial incentive to lure said violinist away from the other school? Do Northwestern orchestra concerts draw tens thousands of extra concertgoers a year if they are really, really good?

I don't know. I'd guess not. But I don't think that's the point, at least not in my mind.

Did Southern Mississippi "lure" Newbill away from Marquette? No, Newbill had to find somewhere else to go after Buzz cut him. But if Newbill had wanted to get out of his commitment (and had MU still wanted him), Buzz would have made him sit out a year. Funny ... Buzz didn't have to sit out a year after forcing a recruit to go elsewhere; he probably got a nice raise after doing so.

The coach and the institution have every advantage except one. The kid who works hard and earns a degree with eligibility still remaining has this one little loophole that gives him/her a teeny bit of control ... and yet so many want to take that away from him or her.

I get why the entitled millionaire coaches who get their arses kissed by Dickie V are against the rule. I don't really get why Scoopers are against it.

As for my belief that even regular undergrad transfers shouldn't have to sit out a year, it's just my opinion of something I think is fair: A school doesn't give a jock a multiple-year contract, so why should a jock have to commit for multiple years to the school? A ballet prodigy doesn't have to sit out for a year, so why should a scholarship lacrosse player?

Believe me, I realize that the undergrad transfer rule probably will never change in our lifetimes, so I'm not "outraged" by the rule. I just happen to think it's unfair. Life's unfair.

[Jay Bee]

I don't know. I'd guess not. But I don't think that's the point, at least not in my mind.

Did Southern Mississippi "lure" Newbill away from Marquette? No, Newbill had to find somewhere else to go after Buzz cut him. But if Newbill had wanted to get out of his commitment (and had MU still wanted him), Buzz would have made him sit out a year. Funny ... Buzz didn't have to sit out a year after forcing a recruit to go elsewhere; he probably got a nice raise after doing so.

The coach and the institution have every advantage except one. The kid who works hard and earns a degree with eligibility still remaining has this one little loophole that gives him/her a teeny bit of control ... and yet so many want to take that away from him or her.

I get why the entitled millionaire coaches who get their arses kissed by Dickie V are against the rule. I don't really get why Scoopers are against it.

As for my belief that even regular undergrad transfers shouldn't have to sit out a year, it's just my opinion of something I think is fair: A school doesn't give a jock a multiple-year contract, so why should a jock have to commit for multiple years to the school? A ballet prodigy doesn't have to sit out for a year, so why should a scholarship lacrosse player?

Believe me, I realize that the undergrad transfer rule probably will never change in our lifetimes, so I'm not "outraged" by the rule. I just happen to think it's unfair. Life's unfair.

I believe people who enter into contracts for pay are very diff than kids who get their higher ed paid for in exchanged for free school.

You seem to think it's the same.

I'm principled when it comes to the grad transfer rule. If you're going to tell me that the principle is student first, and that's why a year in academic residence is required, then I find nothing compelling to excuse the idea that grad transfers should receive an exception to the year in academic residence.

I think it's simple and straightforward. All the talk of violinists, teachers, etc. is stupid.

If you want to praise graduating with *any* degree in 4 years time such that you don't praise education and add a year to their eligibility, but instead give them special treatment? Seems dangerous and I don't get it. But, if that's the stance, I want to understand that.. for most, they don't state that as their stance... they start whining about other things. Good luck.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Now we're getting somewhere.

But, the question was, "why does the NCAA want to deter transfers?"... I say the NCAA simply wants to put the student first... you say... well, I'm not sure. I think you ranted on about several different topics.

So.. if this was true, why is the grad transfer rule in place? What is different? Isn't even more important to them?

Multi-year scholarships are effectively provided. In DI basketball, the topic at hand, most schools would be publicly punished harshly if they didn't renew a scholarship. Get real.

It all goes back to the question of why give special treatment to grad transfers? If you're going to say STUDENT FIRST, then stay principled.

Don't confuse my argument with others. I agree with you on grad transfer not getting special treatment over other students. But I look at it differently, why do undergrads get punished when grads don't?

You are really going to quote the one line where I agree with you and not touch any of the other lines that went with it? Really?

And please enlighten me on what punishment there is for schools who don't renew players' scholarships? What happens to them? Because as far as I know, some dopes on a message board might make a stink about it not be the right thing to do and then nothing.

And yes, multi-year scholarships are offered in theory but not in practice. They are available, yet you don't see a lot of coaches handing them out. Because one year scholarships give them a lot more flexibility to get rid of a kid if he doesn't pan out.