MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: tower912 on June 30, 2016, 02:16:34 PM
-
Don't muck up the recruiting thread. Grad transfers. I like them. Easing transfer restrictions, I am for it. Now.......go.
-
I am fine with them being restricted in-conference. I think it's very rare that a player couldn't find a good fit outside his current conference when there are at least 335+ other options no matter what conference you are in. Even if the school is comfortable with it, I could see simply banning them unilaterally so as not to create issues like how Bo was made to be a jackass by blocking Uthoff from 263 different schools they might play in the next 3 years.
I do, however, like the graduate transfer rule. However insincere it may be at times, we still live under the auspices that education matters and student athletes are students first. Rewarding those that complete their education in less time than it takes to complete their athletic eligibility seems perfectly fair to me. As it more often than not ends up being a benefit for guys that are transferring down rather than up, it feels that much more suiting that kids that put in the work can go to a school where they can play a larger role.
If it sometimes benefits the bigger schools, so be it. No matter what the rules are, in this game, someone will exploit them and figure out loopholes. At least this one is a loophole that rewards academics.
-
OK ...
Anyone who wants to can take all the crapola I said in the other thread and paste it in here! I'm WAAAAAY too lazy to do it!!!
-
Personally, I think it is silly to allow grad transfers to be immediately eligible but make regular transfers sit out a year. The way things are currently set up, I would give them an extra year on their clock but make them sit the year. If they truly want a grad degree, then they'll appreciate that extra year.
HOWEVER, I think making transfers sit out a year at all is dumb. They are students first and if they want to continue their academic career elsewhere they should be allowed to do so without having to sit. Yes, it will lead to more transfers. Yes it essentially creates a second recruiting season. Yes it would take an adjustment, but I am fine with all that. Basketball has weathered other similar culture shifts and it would weather this one as well.
I do think there is some legitimacy to limiting intraconference transfers. If the mandatory year off for transfers was taken away, I would be comfortable with making intraconference transfers sit a year as a deterrent.
I would also say midseason transfers have to sit out the rest of the season. No playing the fall semester at one schools and the spring semester at another. Even in Jameel McKay type situations.
-
Personally, I think it is silly to allow grad transfers to be immediately eligible but make regular transfers sit out a year. The way things are currently set up, I would give them an extra year on their clock but make them sit the year. If they truly want a grad degree, then they'll appreciate that extra year.
HOWEVER, I think making transfers sit out a year at all is dumb. They are students first and if they want to continue their academic career elsewhere they should be allowed to do so without having to sit. Yes, it will lead to more transfers. Yes it essentially creates a second recruiting season. Yes it would take an adjustment, but I am fine with all that. Basketball has weathered other similar culture shifts and it would weather this one as well.
I do think there is some legitimacy to limiting intraconference transfers. If the mandatory year off for transfers was taken away, I would be comfortable with making intraconference transfers sit a year as a deterrent.
I would also say midseason transfers have to sit out the rest of the season. No playing the fall semester at one schools and the spring semester at another. Even in Jameel McKay type situations.
This.
Those who want to protect the schools and coaches at all cost will conveniently forget that a coach can pull a scholarship for any reason. They are not 4-year contracts.
-
This.
Those who want to protect the schools and coaches at all cost will conveniently forget that a coach can pull a scholarship for any reason. They are not 4-year contracts.
If a student does leave a 2, 3, or 4 year scholarship early, then I would also be ok with making him sit a year as a penalty. But very few D1 programs actually offer multi-year scholarships in basketball. Some have the ability to. Very few actually do it.
-
Personally, I think it is silly to allow grad transfers to be immediately eligible but make regular transfers sit out a year. The way things are currently set up, I would give them an extra year on their clock but make them sit the year. If they truly want a grad degree, then they'll appreciate that extra year.
HOWEVER, I think making transfers sit out a year at all is dumb. They are students first and if they want to continue their academic career elsewhere they should be allowed to do so without having to sit. Yes, it will lead to more transfers. Yes it essentially creates a second recruiting season. Yes it would take an adjustment, but I am fine with all that. Basketball has weathered other similar culture shifts and it would weather this one as well.
Your first paragraph -- that is my view.
Your second paragraph, things really go to crap.
If they are students first, the one-year in residence rule HELPS them. Data shows transfers struggle more in the classroom. A year in residence to get situated will help the STUDENT.
Allowing transfers to compete immediately would cause harm to the STUDENT.
Grad transfers being an exception where they are immediately eligible is ridiculous. Most (Trent being an uncommon example) are guys that graduated in four years. Big flippin deal. If you'd like to attend a different school AND play there for a year, great. We'll add a year on your five-year clock as the reward. Sit out a year and play the next.
-
If a student does leave a 2, 3, or 4 year scholarship early, then I would also be ok with making him sit a year as a penalty. But very few D1 programs actually offer multi-year scholarships in basketball. Some have the ability to. Very few actually do it.
I have never thought of it this way and I find it intriguing. I am not a fan of transfers and it will happen more if you don't make them sit a year. However, if a program is only offering a 1 year scholarship and that player decides to transfer, I think I would be okay for them to be immediately eligible. Fair is fair.
-
OK ...
Anyone who wants to can take all the crapola I said in the other thread and paste it in here! I'm WAAAAAY too lazy to do it!!!
The violin player on full scholarship also gets this. So does the genius.
Either is free to transfer to another school without penalty ... even within the same conference. Either also can graduate early and go to any grad school on scholarship.
The "value of the scholarship" argument is a strawman.
This will be my last comment on this subject in this thread, so anybody else can have the last word here. glow is right ... this thread isn't the right forum for this discussion.
I copied this one over because I wanted to comment on it earlier, but didn't want to contaminate that thread.
I understand your point and to some extents think it is valid. Where I think it is invalid is in regards to the purpose of the transfer.
The violin player or the genius are transferring for academic reasons. The basketball player is more often than not transferring for basketball reasons only.
It is much more difficult (read higher requirements) to transfer into a school than to be admitted to begin with. Few athletes would have sufficient grades to actually compete for transfer spots that are available.
Instead they are being admitted solely due to their abilities in athletics.
For the violin player and genius. If they did not meet the competitive academic transfer requirements they would not be admitted, regardless of their intelligence or violin playing abilities.
So these situations can not be compared.
-
They aren't students first, so there's the first problem here.
Graduating in 4 years while also being a full time athlete is a fairly big deal, so good for them, be rewarded.
-
They aren't students first, so there's the first problem here.
Graduating in 4 years while also being a full time athlete is a fairly big deal, so good for them, be rewarded.
If you're going to go with the 'it's a student thing' claim, then you have to stick with it.. I think a lot of people waiver and try to play both sides.
Nonetheless, I'm in favor of rewarding them -- by adding a year onto their eligibility clock. Sit for a year, though.
-
If you're going to go with the 'it's a student thing' claim, then you have to stick with it.. I think a lot of people waiver and try to play both sides.
Nonetheless, I'm in favor of rewarding them -- by adding a year onto their eligibility clock. Sit for a year, though.
They are a student. They aren't a student first.
-
They are a student. They aren't a student first.
We're talking about NCAA rules here. Accordingly to the NCAA, they are students first, athletes second. Very clear.
So, if you're going to play within the confines of this being an NCAA decision, then any rules should be aligned with it.
(http://i.imgur.com/7iyuOm1.png?1)
So, if they're students first.. need to take care of the student part first. Let the transfers sit out a year to get acclimated. It's about being a student first.
-
We're talking about NCAA rules here. Accordingly to the NCAA, they are students first, athletes second. Very clear.
So, if you're going to play within the confines of this being an NCAA decision, then any rules should be aligned with it.
(http://i.imgur.com/7iyuOm1.png?1)
So, if they're students first.. need to take care of the student part first. Let the transfers sit out a year to get acclimated. It's about being a student first.
Are they on scholarship for their academics?
Also, seems to me if they graduated they did take care of the student part. Not sure what they'd need to get acclimated to. They're 22-23 year old adults who have been in college for 4 years already.
-
If they are students first, the one-year in residence rule HELPS them. Data shows transfers struggle more in the classroom. A year in residence to get situated will help the STUDENT.
Allowing transfers to compete immediately would cause harm to the STUDENT.
The NCAA does not currently require transfers to sit out a year because it will help them academically. If that was the case, it would require ALL student athletes to do this (which they actually used to do). The only reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring. Normal students are able to transfer without sacrificing a year of student organizations or internships, why should student athletes?
If schools want to deter students from transferring, the right thing to do would be to offer them multi-year scholarships and make kids who leave early sit out a year for breaking the "contract." To me that would be the just thing.
But why would they when they can keep the status quo? Players can get cut at any time with no repercussions for the school but players are forced to sit out a year.
-
The NCAA does not currently require transfers to sit out a year because it will help them academically. If that was the case, it would require ALL student athletes to do this (which they actually used to do). The only reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring. Normal students are able to transfer without sacrificing a year of student organizations or internships, why should student athletes?
If schools want to deter students from transferring, the right thing to do would be to offer them multi-year scholarships and make kids who leave early sit out a year for breaking the "contract." To me that would be the just thing.
But why would they when they can keep the status quo? Players can get cut at any time with no repercussions for the school but players are forced to sit out a year.
Exactly.
If schools want to kindly give these graduate transfers a year off to "get acclimated," they should go back to making freshmen ineligible. After all, 18-year-olds need acclimation a hell of a lot more than 22-year-olds do.
But that's moot because they aren't turning back the clock on freshman eligibility, so the "acclimation" argument is just for show. As is pretty much any argument that would try to keep somebody who earned his degree in three years from going elsewhere and playing a fourth year without sitting out.
I know why the multimillionaire coaches hate the rule -- because they are control freaks and it's the one thing their multimillionaire arses can't control, the one area in which the athlete actually has the upper hand. They can't stand that!
I'm a little surprised so many Scoopers are against it.
-
I have never felt the system on transfers was fair to the student athlete. Most kids who play D 1 sports are not stars and they should be freely enabled to changes schools if they find a better situation. Coaches are more than willing to cut a kid loose if he or she doesn't meet their needs. They can do so with no repercussion. We have our own recent case of that has been discussed quite a bit on this board.
The grad transfer rule is the one rule that actually can benefit a kid. Sometimes a kid grows as a player and wants one chance to play in a better league. I find nothing wrong with that. As long as everyone involved knows what the deal is going in things should work out. Coaches obviously,have to be aware of the kids who are just trying to showcase themselves . Sometimes the kids themselves grow as players in that grad transfer year. Look at Lockett, he found a role for himself as our glue guy and we had a great year. Carlino came in with a reputation as chucker and used his year with us to reform his reputation to the point where he has actually found his way onto a d league roster.
-
I know why the multimillionaire coaches hate the rule -- because they are control freaks and it's the one thing their multimillionaire arses can't control, the one area in which the athlete actually has the upper hand. They can't stand that!
The only time I can have any sympathy is the argument of the player that works hard for a small school, like the Cleveland State or Drexel kids, then transfer to play for Pitino at Louisville or some other monster program. You put time and effort in, why should someone else get the reward?
However, that's where I think the restricting in-conference transfers does enough. No, that player that you put blood, sweat, and tears into shouldn't come back and kick your ass, but if this is for the good of the future of the students and the players, how could anyone deny them? If it's a kid transferring up, hasn't his hard work to excel in the classroom and on the court earned him that shot? If it's the kid transferring on the same level but closer to home, hasn't he earned the right to play where he wants and play in front of his family as he ends his career? And if it's the kid transferring down (which is most of these), shouldn't they get the chance to start or maybe simply play a bit instead of toiling behind guys that have passed them by moving into their final year?
In every grad transfer case, the kid did the work and being able to have some modicum of control over his destiny is the reward. Not only will I not cry for the multi-millionaire coaches, I have a hard time crying for the hundred-thousandaire coaches that probably just as surely would have cut that player if they were #13 on the bench instead of #1 in the starting lineup. And if you continually produce kids that are wanted by high-majors, that's probably an indicator that some high major will realize you deserve a shot.
For all those guys, it's a business, yet we're supposed to get all weepy for them when the kids treat it like a business too. Yeah...you put the work in, someone else is reaping the reward. That sucks. But welcome to big time college basketball. You wanted to be a coach, now suck up the difficult parts and go recruit a replacement.
-
I copied this one over because I wanted to comment on it earlier, but didn't want to contaminate that thread.
I understand your point and to some extents think it is valid. Where I think it is invalid is in regards to the purpose of the transfer.
The violin player or the genius are transferring for academic reasons. The basketball player is more often than not transferring for basketball reasons only.
It is much more difficult (read higher requirements) to transfer into a school than to be admitted to begin with. Few athletes would have sufficient grades to actually compete for transfer spots that are available.
Instead they are being admitted solely due to their abilities in athletics.
For the violin player and genius. If they did not meet the competitive academic transfer requirements they would not be admitted, regardless of their intelligence or violin playing abilities.
So these situations can not be compared.
OK. I freely admit I'm not an expert on who does and doesn't get into various schools for various majors.
Again though, as others say, are the athletes "students first" or not? If so, they should have the same freedoms as others. If not, get 'em out of college and let 'em play semi-pro ball somewhere.
-
OK. I freely admit I'm not an expert on who does and doesn't get into various schools for various majors.
Again though, as others say, are the athletes "students first" or not? If so, they should have the same freedoms as others. If not, get 'em out of college and let 'em play semi-pro ball somewhere.
They are not students first in football and basketball. I agree with you largely; if they do not want to focus on academics and be real college students, they shouldn't be on a campus. They should be playing some sort of professional ball somewhere.
For those that do want to go the college route. Hold them to the same standards as normal students. If they want to transfer, fine. They are held to the same standards as other transfer students as far as grades. If their grades are sufficient (and majors sufficient) to compete against other transfer students and be admitted then they do not sit out a year.
If they are transferring and are being granted a waiver (based on transfer admission standards) they sit out a year to focus on academics.
-
[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.
[/quote]
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.
-
The NCAA does not currently require transfers to sit out a year because it will help them academically. If that was the case, it would require ALL student athletes to do this (which they actually used to do). The only reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring. Normal students are able to transfer without sacrificing a year of student organizations or internships, why should student athletes?
Already explained - the NCAA says clearly that it's STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND. That is the order.
In a sport like DI basketball, there is a concern that kids will transfer because they are thinking as an ATHLETE FIRST, STUDENT SECOND (or further down the list).
Indeed, the reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring... FOR REASONS THAT DON'T PUT THE "STUDENT FIRST".
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.
The reason for the year in residence requirement is largely because the NCAA wants this STUDENT FIRST concept, that fits in with amateurism. Fine. I get it. But, why give an exception to grad transfers who usually in DI basketball are motivated NOT by the STUDENT FIRST concept? I can see no compelling reason.
The reward should be an extra year on their eligibility clock. But don't let them be treated so differently just because they graduated in 4 years. Should SA's at School A get different benefits than those at School B, because School A is superior? Or should we treat SA's differently based on "difficulty of major, adjusted for that particular school"?.. or based on GPA?
No.
If you're going to yell "STUDENT FIRST!!!" then do it consistently. An NCAA student-athlete is an NCAA student-athlete. Stop treating them so differently.
ncaa.org:
(http://i.imgur.com/zhMUpdJ.png)
-
The NCAA is slinging around a bunch of bullsh*t with that statement right there. There are so many examples of how the schools don't really treat them as students first so it is hard to take them seriously.
One free transfer per student without sitting. If they are having trouble getting acclimated academically, they can redshirt.
-
Already explained - the NCAA says clearly that it's STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND. That is the order.
In a sport like DI basketball, there is a concern that kids will transfer because they are thinking as an ATHLETE FIRST, STUDENT SECOND (or further down the list).
Indeed, the reason they require the year in residence is to deter students from transferring... FOR REASONS THAT DON'T PUT THE "STUDENT FIRST".
The student-athlete is under no obligation to think of him/herself as a student first/athlete second. They are free to make whatever priorities they want for their student experience. The NCAA is the only one under that obligation. The NCAA does not have a responsibility to make student-athletes think they are students first, they only have a responsibility to treat student-athletes as students first.
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.
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.
We do however, agree on the grad transfer rule. I see no reason why they should be treated differently than regular transfers. Extra year on the clock and a year in residence makes more sense with the current structure. However, rather than changing the grad transfer rule, I would rather change the undergraduate transfer rule.
I will also say that selfishly, I like the required year in residence for transfers. I do think it deters a lot of transfers and without it, we would see the number of transfers grow exponentially. I think the product of college basketball would be diminished because there would be less continuity on the teams. So as a fan, I'm glad the rule is there.
But I can still see that while it helps college basketball, it is a very Fed up system where a player could not have his scholarship renewed, be forced to transfer because he can no longer afford the school, and then he still has to sit out a year, even though he had no choice but to transfer. That's seriously Fed up. The JUST solution, is allowing students to transfer immediately once their scholarship expires. If a player leaves before their scholarship expires, they must sit a year in residence. If the NCAA wants student-athletes to make multi-year commitments to their schools, than the schools should be required to make multi-year commitments to their student-athletes.
But again, what motivation does the NCAA have to change the status quo? None.
-
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. I have zero concern about a program/coach.
The NCAA is criminally laughable with its statement on the amateurism of the athletes who generate billions of dollars for the organization and the schools.
Also, the grad transfer rule is used be so few people that it isn't a problem at all.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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??
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
[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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
Meanwhile, Scoop dips to new lows in this thread... :o
-
nm.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I'm a compromiser, Jay Bee.
If you want to focus on "student first," that's cool. Get rid of all rules requiring student/athletes who transfer to take "a year in academic residence." Then there won't be need for any exceptions.
Problem solved!
Wow, man, we should be in Congress together!
-
Don't confuse my argument with others. I agree with you on grad transfer not getting special treatment over other students
Will again ask.. why the special treatment for grad transfers?
That was the only Q.
-
Will again ask.. why the special treatment for grad transfers?
No special treatment. No reason for it. We've agreed from the get go on this.
But my question is why the detrimental treatment for non grad transfers?
-
No special treatment. No reason for it. We've agreed from the get go on this.
But my question is why the detrimental treatment for non grad transfers?
You need the grad transfer rule because of the 6 year rule. It is not a special exemption, it is a thoughtful response to a very bad rule.
-
Ill have to do a google search later on to provide proof but I am convinced I either heard on a radio station or read an article that stated over 85% of grad transfers do not complete a two year masters program. Thats pathetic.
I believe the Ivy League prohibits grad transfers. Once again, they have the eight rule in place. There is not a chance in hell the ivy league schools would allow athletes to muck up their enrollment and graduation statistics.
Furthermore, grad school is for professional development. I find it strange that kids jump from undergrad to grad without experiencing their preferred field of work prior to grad school. Yet, every athlete does this (and plenty of non-athletes too). I but the non athletes that jump straight to grad finish at a higher clip than 15% though...
-
Ill have to do a google search later on to provide proof but I am convinced I either heard on a radio station or read an article that stated over 85% of grad transfers do not complete a two year masters program. Thats pathetic.
I believe the Ivy League prohibits grad transfers. Once again, they have the eight rule in place. There is not a chance in hell the ivy league schools would allow athletes to muck up their enrollment and graduation statistics.
Furthermore, grad school is for professional development. I find it strange that kids jump from undergrad to grad without experiencing their preferred field of work prior to grad school. Yet, every athlete does this (and plenty of non-athletes too). I but the non athletes that jump straight to grad finish at a higher clip than 15% though...
Absolutely ... let's hold every school to every standard required by the Ivies.
You used to like college basketball, right? It used to be a heck of a game. Too bad hardly anybody can play it any more because hardly anybody can qualify.
It was fun while it lasted, though!
-
Will again ask.. why the special treatment for grad transfers?
That was the only Q.
Because they've already graduated. Grad transfers is a misnomer. They've graduated. They are not transferring.
No special treatment it is apples and oranges. The goal of college is to graduate and advance towards further career development.
I'll say it again. Your statements in this thread demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension of academia, athletics and what each requires as far as demands and obligations.
p.s. I was a division 1 athlete until an injury took me out.
-
Because they've already graduated. Grad transfers is a misnomer. They've graduated. They are not transferring.
No special treatment it is apples and oranges. The goal of college is to graduate and advance towards further career development.
I'll say it again. Your statements in this thread demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension of academia, athletics and what each requires as far as demands and obligations.
p.s. I was a division 1 athlete until an injury took me out.
Is the goal of grad school not to graduate? Same thing. Progress toward degree is a top concern. Changing schools is more difficult than not doing so.
If you're in grad school, you HAVE NOT graduated what you are currently in school for. You should be pursuing a degree. The goal of grad school is not to obtain an undergrad degree. So, that the student has an undergrad degree isn't an accomplishment of grad school.
I'm aware of the demands and obligations - I'm also aware of the unprincipled rules and regulations of the NCAA. The right fix is to remove the grad transfer exception.
...or we could go back to your days, a''ina? It was what, only the early 70's and prior when freshmen bballers were not allowed to compete until a year of school.
I think your answer to "why the special treatment for grad transfers" is "because they graduated and that is to be celebrated by letting them transfer for non-academic purposes"... I disagree.
-
Is the goal of grad school not to graduate? Same thing. Progress toward degree is a top concern. Changing schools is more difficult than not doing so.
If you're in grad school, you HAVE NOT graduated what you are currently in school for. You should be pursuing a degree. The goal of grad school is not to obtain an undergrad degree. So, that the student has an undergrad degree isn't an accomplishment of grad school.
You do not understand graduate school. You have to first graduate. The athletes in question have done that.
Then, the vast vast majority (essentially everyone that can), takes their degree and goes to a different school to get more specialized training (graduate school).
There is no "changing schools being more difficult", because that is the norm. That is what is expected. One will almost universally change schools.
Your second paragraph is incomprehensible. A graduate student does not transfer. Upon completion of their undergraduate degree, they are no longer enrolled as an undergraduate or a graduate.
They have completed their entire course of studies at the present institution. To pursue an advanced degree it is the norm to move to a new university as a new student (not a transfer).
So to restate my point; a graduate student does not transfer; they are no longer associated with the University besides athletics. They are not comparable at all to undergraduate transfers.
-
You do not understand graduate school. You have to first graduate. The athletes in question have done that.
Then, the vast vast majority (essentially everyone that can), takes their degree and goes to a different school to get more specialized training (graduate school).
There is no "changing schools being more difficult", because that is the norm. That is what is expected. One will almost universally change schools.
Your second paragraph is incomprehensible. A graduate student does not transfer. Upon completion of their undergraduate degree, they are no longer enrolled as an undergraduate or a graduate.
They have completed their entire course of studies at the present institution. To pursue an advanced degree it is the norm to move to a new university as a new student (not a transfer).
So to restate my point; a graduate student does not transfer; they are no longer associated with the University besides athletics. They are not comparable at all to undergraduate transfers.
+1
Even if one goes to the same school for grad studies he has to apply for admission because grad school is a whole new endeavor. He Just doesn't show up to class the next semester.
-
You do not understand graduate school. You have to first graduate. The athletes in question have done that.
Then, the vast vast majority (essentially everyone that can), takes their degree and goes to a different school to get more specialized training (graduate school).
There is no "changing schools being more difficult", because that is the norm. That is what is expected. One will almost universally change schools.
Your second paragraph is incomprehensible. A graduate student does not transfer. Upon completion of their undergraduate degree, they are no longer enrolled as an undergraduate or a graduate.
They have completed their entire course of studies at the present institution. To pursue an advanced degree it is the norm to move to a new university as a new student (not a transfer).
So to restate my point; a graduate student does not transfer; they are no longer associated with the University besides athletics. They are not comparable at all to undergraduate transfers.
No. You do not understand the point. Changing schools is more difficult than not changing schools, period.
You can cry about the language if you wish, but the fact of the matter is graduate transfers are subject to the requirements of the one-time transfer exception in the NCAA Bylaws. Transfer, transfer, transfer!
What does requiring a year in residence do for schools who bring in graduate TRANSFERS? Holds them accountable for the academic progress of grad students (under the APR, etc... e.g., retention point is earned just for remaining eligible). The majority of DI bballers who transfer as graduates don't obtain an advanced degree and many take a bunch of undergrad classes.
The issue is kids are transferring for athletic first reasons. If you're going to say you're all about students first, athletes second, then eliminate the exception.
-
Of course they are transferring for athletics first. Good for them!
-
The notion that academics are first is noble, but generally laughable. The NCAA is not there as an athletic driver and we all know it. Anyone asserting otherwise is selling something.
That said, if they will continue to prop up the academic aspect, then grad transfers should be allowed to freely and immediately go elsewhere. First, it rewards the academic achievement, and as forgetful accurately states, most graduates get their post-bachelor degree elsewhere. They have completed their academic pursuit at that school.
Further, how inane is it to suggest a year in residence when some graduate programs can be completed in a year? "Come here, get your graduate degree, then twiddle your thumbs for a year when you are finally allowed to play."
Seems pretty clear that forgetful is spot on, both in argument and experience.
-
No. You do not understand the point. Changing schools is more difficult than not changing schools, period.
You can cry about the language if you wish, but the fact of the matter is graduate transfers are subject to the requirements of the one-time transfer exception in the NCAA Bylaws. Transfer, transfer, transfer!
You have no basis for the first claim in regards to graduate students. They almost all change schools so you have nothing to compare to.
The language the NCAA uses says they only care about athletics and are not "academics first". If they were academics first they wouldn't even have a graduate exemption, as their shouldn't be one. There is no transfer except in terms of athletics.
The reason they use that language and have the rule is because the Universities are dictating these bylaws and want to protect their athletics program. The very existence of a graduate "transfer" rule illustrates the NCAA doesn't give a damn about academics.
-
Why does it matter that students transfer for athletic reasons first? They are under no obligation to see themselves as students first. Only the NCAA is under that obligation.
-
If you're going to say you're all about students first, athletes second, then eliminate the exception.
Are you all about students first? If so, gotta get rid of any transfers having to sit out any time.
If not, if you're all about the athletes first ... same thing.
If you're not for either of them, that means you're all about those in power being first. Which is your prerogative.
-
Why does it matter that students transfer for athletic reasons first? They are under no obligation to see themselves as students first. Only the NCAA is under that obligation.
Hello. The topic is NCAA rules.
You folks are so off track.
-
Hello. The topic is NCAA rules.
You folks are so off track.
You keep bringing up that players are transferring for athlete first reasons. Why does that matter? Who cares what their priorities are?
-
You keep bringing up that players are transferring for athlete first reasons. Why does that matter? Who cares what their priorities are?
Because if the NCAA is OK with that, all amateurism arguments go south and collegiate sports today as we know them are dramatically changed (for the worse, IMO).
-
Amateurism arguments have been going south for years.
-
Amateurism arguments have been going south for years.
Yep. Time to firm things up. Eliminate the grad transfer exception.
-
Yep. Time to firm things up. Eliminate the grad transfer exception.
Nope. Amateurism is foolish. Loosen the rules even more.
-
While I absolutely see JB's point, I'm personally a an of the current grad transfer rule for many of the reasons articulated but largely centered on the fact that encourages kids to get their degree. But it does seem true that many of the rules surrounding the treatment of NCAA athletes could stand some upgrading and I'm wondering if the multiple year scholarship commitment might be part of the solution. I also selfishly wish that the NBA would tweak its rules and get a few kids straight out of HS (LeBron) and, if not then, wait a minimum of 2 years after that before allowing them to become draft eligible. I personally hate One and Done. Not sure any of that would pass legal muster but it would improve the college game.
-
Because if the NCAA is OK with that, all amateurism arguments go south and collegiate sports today as we know them are dramatically changed (for the worse, IMO).
Where in the NCAA rules does it require players to make student first decisions? It only requires that the nccas policies be student first
-
Where in the NCAA rules does it require players to make student first decisions? It only requires that the nccas policies be student first
That's the topic - NCAA policy.
-
That's the topic - NCAA policy.
I'm asking, what NCAA policy requires students to make student first decisions? Since that's one of your justifications for supporting requiring a year on residence. And what NCAA policy punishes schools for not renewing a scholarship forcing them to transfer thereby damaging their academic career?
-
I'm asking, what NCAA policy requires students to make student first decisions? Since that's one of your justifications for supporting requiring a year on residence. And what NCAA policy punishes schools for not renewing a scholarship forcing them to transfer thereby damaging their academic career?
Students are students. NCAA can make policies that are designed to have student-athletes not look at schools from an athletics-first lens (for example, one year in residence rules).
No schools force anyone to transfer or ruin their academic career. There is no punishment for schools who don't renew a one-year agreement - why would there be?
If a student doesn't like the arrangement, they certainly need not enter into it.
-
There is no punishment for schools who don't renew a one-year agreement - why would there be?
That's funny, I mentioned earlier that there was no punishment for that and your response was
most schools would be publicly punished harshly if they didn't renew a scholarship. Get real.
And that's what is so backwards about this whole arrangement. Students can essentially be dismissed at the end of their scholarship if the school chooses not to renew. Sure you can say "no one is forcing them to transfer" but that's bs. A significant number of students cannot afford the education without the scholarship so they are in practice forced to transfer or drop out. Plus, basketball is many of their chosen craft so if they want to pursue it, they need to transfer.
So if it is so bad from a student perspective to transfer, why are schools allowed to in practice force student athletes to transfer with no repercussions?
If a student doesn't like the arrangement, they certainly need not enter into it.
And that's what it always comes down to.
-
That's funny, I mentioned earlier that there was no punishment for that and your response was
Nothing funny & nothing has changed in what I said. The most recent reply was to your question of "WHAT NCAA POLICY PUNISHES...?"
Being punished by public outcry & negative attention is very different from punishment by written policy.
-
Nothing funny & nothing has changed in what I said. The most recent reply was to your question of "WHAT NCAA POLICY PUNISHES...?"
Being punished by public outcry & negative attention is very different from punishment by written policy.
I agree it is very different. One has teeth and the other doesn't.
-
Are you all about students first? If so, gotta get rid of any transfers having to sit out any time.
If not, if you're all about the athletes first ... same thing.
If you're not for either of them, that means you're all about those in power being first. Which is your prerogative.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but what I would say the best policy should be is:
All basketball/football scholarships are guaranteed for 4 years.
If the basketball portion of the scholarship is terminated by the coach, the athlete can either stay at the university on scholarship, or transfer without any penalty (no sitting out for one year).
If the athlete decides to transfer (aka, the coach and team want them to stay). They can transfer, but with a one year penalty (they will sit out one year).
Schlorarship obligations on both parties terminate upon graduation, meaning, graduates can enroll in and play basketball immediately for any institution they choose.
-
I know this wasn't directed at me, but what I would say the best policy should be is:
All basketball/football scholarships are guaranteed for 4 years.
If the basketball portion of the scholarship is terminated by the coach, the athlete can either stay at the university on scholarship, or transfer without any penalty (no sitting out for one year).
If the athlete decides to transfer (aka, the coach and team want them to stay). They can transfer, but with a one year penalty (they will sit out one year).
Schlorarship obligations on both parties terminate upon graduation, meaning, graduates can enroll in and play basketball immediately for any institution they choose.
This is effectively how things are operating today. So, congrats.
-
I know this wasn't directed at me, but what I would say the best policy should be is:
All basketball/football scholarships are guaranteed for 4 years.
If the basketball portion of the scholarship is terminated by the coach, the athlete can either stay at the university on scholarship, or transfer without any penalty (no sitting out for one year).
If the athlete decides to transfer (aka, the coach and team want them to stay). They can transfer, but with a one year penalty (they will sit out one year).
But it's often not clear or obvious who initiated a transfer.
If Coach A calls Player B into his office and says, "Look, Player B, based on your current skill level and the other players we have coming in, I think it's very unlikely you'll see much, if any, playing time here at the University of X."
Now, the coach isn't pulling the kid's scholie, or even explicitly telling him to leave. But under those circumstances, is it fair to say it was completely, or even primarily, the player's decision to transfer?
-
This is effectively how things are operating today. So, congrats.
Ummm, not at all. Transfers minus a hardship waiver are expected to sit out a year, regardless of who initiated the transfer.
Also, for graduates, they can only be exempt if they are enrolling in a program that their undergraduate university doesn't have. That forces students to enroll in manufactured programs.
-
But it's often not clear or obvious who initiated a transfer.
If Coach A calls Player B into his office and says, "Look, Player B, based on your current skill level and the other players we have coming in, I think it's very unlikely you'll see much, if any, playing time here at the University of X."
Now, the coach isn't pulling the kid's scholie, or even explicitly telling him to leave. But under those circumstances, is it fair to say it was completely, or even primarily, the player's decision to transfer?
In most cases this is the polite way of saying don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
If the rules as I outlined it were instilled, I think you would see more coaches being honest and saying, it is best for you to transfer. We will honor your scholarship only at the level of academics (doesn't count towards basketball count). You will no longer be eligible to play basketball at school x.
That would allow the players to seek out a new team if they want to play, and be able to play immediately.
-
Ummm, not at all. Transfers minus a hardship waiver are expected to sit out a year, regardless of who initiated the transfer.
Also, for graduates, they can only be exempt if they are enrolling in a program that their undergraduate university doesn't have. That forces students to enroll in manufactured programs.
First paragraph: Yes, at all. First, the hardship waivers are generally gone now. Nonetheless, who are these DI players that have had their scholarship "terminated by the coach"? (Poor language.. you mean not renewed... but, the question remains). It's a non-issue.
Second paragraph: No, you are wrong. That is NOT true and hasn't been for a long time. You are misinformed/lying.
Again, 'your way' is effectively what we have today. Congrats.
-
First paragraph: Yes, at all. First, the hardship waivers are generally gone now. Nonetheless, who are these DI players that have had their scholarship "terminated by the coach"? (Poor language.. you mean not renewed... but, the question remains). It's a non-issue.
Second paragraph: No, you are wrong. That is NOT true and hasn't been for a long time. You are misinformed/lying.
Again, 'your way' is effectively what we have today. Congrats.
If you are not aware that athletes are essentially having their scholarships terminated by the coach, then you are delusional. They are not formally terminated, but are given clear indications that they will not step foot on the court so if they want to ever play basketball again they must transfer.
It is most definitely not a non-issue. I question how many college athletes you have talked to that have transferred if you believe this issue is a non-issue.
As for the second paragraph. Again, you are delusional and apparently know little of how things work for graduate students. There are two possible scenarios.
The athlete has not transferred before, has a year of eligibility left and ****the university notified the graduate student that they will not renew the scholarship****. For this circumstance, they can enroll anywhere with the one time graduate exception. Note, if the university offers to renew the scholarship, they are ineligible for this exception. Unless...they are enrolling in a program not offered by the current institution (they then fall into the waiver category below).
For all other students who have graduated, they must apply for a graduate waiver. For a graduate waiver the NCAA is explicitly looking for whether the University they are transferring to offers a graduate degree not offered by the current institution.
So in no way are the current rules in line with what I propose.
-
If you are not aware that athletes are essentially having their scholarships terminated by the coach, then you are delusional. They are not formally terminated, but are given clear indications that they will not step foot on the court so if they want to ever play basketball again they must transfer.
It is most definitely not a non-issue. I question how many college athletes you have talked to that have transferred if you believe this issue is a non-issue.
As for the second paragraph. Again, you are delusional and apparently know little of how things work for graduate students. There are two possible scenarios.
The athlete has not transferred before, has a year of eligibility left and ****the university notified the graduate student that they will not renew the scholarship****. For this circumstance, they can enroll anywhere with the one time graduate exception. Note, if the university offers to renew the scholarship, they are ineligible for this exception. Unless...they are enrolling in a program not offered by the current institution (they then fall into the waiver category below).
For all other students who have graduated, they must apply for a graduate waiver. For a graduate waiver the NCAA is explicitly looking for whether the University they are transferring to offers a graduate degree not offered by the current institution.
So in no way are the current rules in line with what I propose.
This is an accurate description of the facts.
-
If you are not aware that athletes are essentially having their scholarships terminated by the coach, then you are delusional. They are not formally terminated, but are given clear indications that they will not step foot on the court so if they want to ever play basketball again they must transfer.
It is most definitely not a non-issue. I question how many college athletes you have talked to that have transferred if you believe this issue is a non-issue.
Academic scholarships being pulled, forcing a bball student-athlete to transfer is a non-issue. Even you are admitting this. Again, the NCAA’s stance is STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND. Absolutely, kids do CHOOSE to transfer due to playing time concerns. That is what you’re truly describing above.
The one-year in residence rule is one way to make kids think twice about what may be far more (or completely) absolute the ATHLETE instead of the STUDENT.
The renewal or nonrenewal decision must be made before July 1 (per DI Manual Section 15.3.7). Do kids get frustrated with playing time and decide to transfer? Of course. What is a non-issue is this idea that coaches are telling kids that their scholarship will not be renewed and the kid is S.O.L.
As for the second paragraph. Again, you are delusional and apparently know little of how things work for graduate students. There are two possible scenarios.
The athlete has not transferred before, has a year of eligibility left and ****the university notified the graduate student that they will not renew the scholarship****. For this circumstance, they can enroll anywhere with the one time graduate exception. Note, if the university offers to renew the scholarship, they are ineligible for this exception. Unless...they are enrolling in a program not offered by the current institution (they then fall into the waiver category below).
You’re simply wrong. Do better, pal. That’s just awful. “****the university notified the graduate student that they will not renew the scholarship****” is not true. The rule (2015-16 DI Manual April Update Section 14.6.1(c) “The student’s previous institution did not renew his or her athletically related financial aid for the following academic year”) is that a renewal has not yet taken place. Again, the school has until July 1 to renew. Most grad transfers are making it known they plan to transfer loooong before the renewal papers would be presented. This provision is essentially a non-issue and would only come into play if a grad had signed scholarship papers in the summer for the upcoming year, then late in the summer decided he wanted to transfer.
For all other students who have graduated, they must apply for a graduate waiver. For a graduate waiver the NCAA is explicitly looking for whether the University they are transferring to offers a graduate degree not offered by the current institution.
So in no way are the current rules in line with what I propose.
This is absolutely false. You are dead wrong. Look up the (one-year) history of Proposal 2005-54. That’s where you’re getting this idea. Hasn’t been around for a decade and was short lived. Your claim is categorically false.
The current rules effectively result in what your wishes are. Congrats.
It's clear you haven't got a clue what the current rules are. If you're going to debate rules and regulations, get up to speed first. Very sad.
-
Academic scholarships being pulled, forcing a bball student-athlete to transfer is a non-issue. Even you are admitting this. Again, the NCAA’s stance is STUDENT FIRST, ATHLETE SECOND. Absolutely, kids do CHOOSE to transfer due to playing time concerns. That is what you’re truly describing above.
The one-year in residence rule is one way to make kids think twice about what may be far more (or completely) absolute the ATHLETE instead of the STUDENT.
The renewal or nonrenewal decision must be made before July 1 (per DI Manual Section 15.3.7). Do kids get frustrated with playing time and decide to transfer? Of course. What is a non-issue is this idea that coaches are telling kids that their scholarship will not be renewed and the kid is S.O.L.
You’re simply wrong. Do better, pal. That’s just awful. “****the university notified the graduate student that they will not renew the scholarship****” is not true. The rule (2015-16 DI Manual April Update Section 14.6.1(c) “The student’s previous institution did not renew his or her athletically related financial aid for the following academic year”) is that a renewal has not yet taken place. Again, the school has until July 1 to renew. Most grad transfers are making it known they plan to transfer loooong before the renewal papers would be presented. This provision is essentially a non-issue and would only come into play if a grad had signed scholarship papers in the summer for the upcoming year, then late in the summer decided he wanted to transfer.
This is absolutely false. You are dead wrong. Look up the (one-year) history of Proposal 2005-54. That’s where you’re getting this idea. Hasn’t been around for a decade and was short lived. Your claim is categorically false.
The current rules effectively result in what your wishes are. Congrats.
It's clear you haven't got a clue what the current rules are. If you're going to debate rules and regulations, get up to speed first. Very sad.
Again, you are flat out wrong. Yes proposal 2005-54 was overturned. But the NCAA turned it into a special waiver (as I outlined above). That also didn't work well as everyone was applying for this waiver and enrolling into manufactured programs.
As a result they passed 2010-52, which formally separated a transfer exception and a transfer waiver.
The transfer exception requires all of what I wrote in my post; it requires that the University does not renew the scholarship. The non-renewal does not need to occur prior to the notification to transfer. So the University could on June 30th, renew the scholarship and the athlete would not be allowed to transfer with the exception. Your dancing around the semantics is frankly inane.
They then created the transfer waiver as separate, which is still the over-riding rule and is focused on the key issue of the athlete enrolling in a program not offered by the current institution.
You can go one stating otherwise, but frankly you are ill-informed and completely incorrect. Read up on the history of 2005-54 and the subsequent changes by Myles Brand and then implementation of 2010-52.
-
Again, you are flat out wrong. Yes proposal 2005-54 was overturned. But the NCAA turned it into a special waiver (as I outlined above). That also didn't work well as everyone was applying for this waiver and enrolling into manufactured programs.
As a result they passed 2010-52, which formally separated a transfer exception and a transfer waiver.
The transfer exception requires all of what I wrote in my post; it requires that the University does not renew the scholarship. The non-renewal does not need to occur prior to the notification to transfer. So the University could on June 30th, renew the scholarship and the athlete would not be allowed to transfer with the exception. Your dancing around the semantics is frankly inane.
They then created the transfer waiver as separate, which is still the over-riding rule and is focused on the key issue of the athlete enrolling in a program not offered by the current institution.
You can go one stating otherwise, but frankly you are ill-informed and completely incorrect. Read up on the history of 2005-54 and the subsequent changes by Myles Brand and then implementation of 2010-52.
You're so wrong. Read the rules. How sad.
The transfers rules do not require what you wrote. You said, "****the university notified the graduate student that they will not renew the scholarship****" is a requirement -- that is not true. Completely false.
You said, "For a graduate waiver the NCAA is explicitly looking for whether the University they are transferring to offers a graduate degree not offered by the current institution." This is not true. It's completely false.
"For a graduate waiver the NCAA is explicitly looking for whether the University they are transferring to offers a graduate degree not offered by the current institution." is what you claim. The NCAA is looking for this - they don't care. You're wrong.
You don't know the rules and are talking complete nonsense and lies.
There is a one-time graduate exception and a graduate waiver. That is true. The requirements and how they are applied is where you're completely lost.
Good luck.
-
You're so wrong. Read the rules. How sad.
The transfers rules do not require what you wrote. You said, "****the university notified the graduate student that they will not renew the scholarship****" is a requirement -- that is not true. Completely false.
You said, "For a graduate waiver the NCAA is explicitly looking for whether the University they are transferring to offers a graduate degree not offered by the current institution." This is not true. It's completely false.
"For a graduate waiver the NCAA is explicitly looking for whether the University they are transferring to offers a graduate degree not offered by the current institution." is what you claim. The NCAA is looking for this - they don't care. You're wrong.
You don't know the rules and are talking complete nonsense and lies.
There is a one-time graduate exception and a graduate waiver. That is true. The requirements and how they are applied is where you're completely lost.
Good luck.
Well, the NCAA rules disagree with you.
-
Well, the NCAA rules disagree with you.
No they don't, dipcrap.
Try to cite the rules. You cant, because they don't exist.
-
No they don't, dipcrap.
Try to cite the rules. You cant, because they don't exist.
The NCAA, who determines whether a waiver is granted or not, disagrees with you, as does Myles Brand.
You have zero evidence to support your assertion, yet immediately go to name calling.
I provided the history of the proposals leading to the break between the 1-time exception and the graduate waiver. You've provided nothing but an illogical argument without any supporting documentation.
Stick to evaluating high-school prospects; its your strength, stay out of areas you are ill-informed on.
-
The NCAA, who determines whether a waiver is granted or not, disagrees with you, as does Myles Brand.
You have zero evidence to support your assertion, yet immediately go to name calling.
I provided the history of the proposals leading to the break between the 1-time exception and the graduate waiver. You've provided nothing but an illogical argument without any supporting documentation.
Stick to evaluating high-school prospects; its your strength, stay out of areas you are ill-informed on.
No, you dingbat. NCAA rules are readily available, as are interpretations and discussions. My evidence that the NCAA isn't concerned that grad transfers enter into a program not offered by their undergrad institution is proved by the ABSENCE of such rule.
You're an idiot.
Show the rule in effect -- you cannot. It doesn't exist.
What do you want me to show? Look at the Bylaws. They are readily available.
Are you the teacher who is upset Brady don't get paid well?
Migy be profession, but migy have some to do with your lack of intelligence. Sad.
Forgetful in his world: THE NCAA ALLOWS GIRAFFES TO GET A $3,000/YR STIPEND!!!!
Non-idiots: No, they do not.
Forgetful: Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lol. Clown.
Stick to getting back to 3rd grade and learning the difference between its and it's.
Your 'history' is wrong. Congrats on making me engage with a likely legally 'slow' person.
-
No, you dingbat. NCAA rules are readily available, as are interpretations and discussions. My evidence that the NCAA isn't concerned that grad transfers enter into a program not offered by their undergrad institution is proved by the ABSENCE of such rule.
You're an idiot.
Show the rule in effect -- you cannot. It doesn't exist.
What do you want me to show? Look at the Bylaws. They are readily available.
Are you the teacher who is upset Brady don't get paid well?
Migy be profession, but migy have some to do with your lack of intelligence. Sad.
Forgetful in his world: THE NCAA ALLOWS GIRAFFES TO GET A $3,000/YR STIPEND!!!!
Non-idiots: No, they do not.
Forgetful: Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lol. Clown.
Stick to getting back to 3rd grade and learning the difference between its and it's.
Your 'history' is wrong. Congrats on making me engage with a likely legally 'slow' person.
See this tutorial released by the NCAA for individuals involved in compliance.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Division_I_4-4_Transfers_(Advanced).pdf
(https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Division_I_4-4_Transfers_(Advanced).pdf)
Pay careful attention to the CLR specific to the graduate transfer directive where it stipulates:
There is no change in the current directive for granting waivers to the one-time exception.
The guidelines remain that require five elements:
1. Documentation that the student-athlete has been accepted into a specific graduate degree program.
2. Documentation indicating the specific graduate degree program is not available at the previous institution.
3. A statement from the student-athlete detailing the reasons for the transfer.
4. A statement from documenting the student-athletes status on the team for the previous institution.
5. A statement from the administration at the previous institution with its position on the waiver.
Ps. Work on your spelling.
pps. Work on your understanding of rules and regulations governing NCAA member institutions and the athletes. Bylaws never contain all the requisite elements. They always will retain the core elements that legally trump everything else. Other emphases and directives can be instituted as CLR's or similar documents.
No need to apologize for all the name calling and absurd statements. I'm well aware that some have a poor grasp of material and have a hard time learning and in those instances when they are struggling lash out instead of working on growing as an individual.
-
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.
Hope you don't have to sign away your "writes" to the above research? Shameful.
I understand why you haven't been paid like those unworthy "bank tellers"