Possible New Transfer Rule

[chapman]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21494783/whywhen-a-new-transfer-rule-could-have-big-effects-on-college-hoops

If this goes through...the already rapidly increasing number of transfers will get even more ridiculous.  I appreciate the rule letting players who graduate transfer without sitting out as a reward, but just having a 2.6 GPA?  And not sure where they're getting that coaches have support for this rule, when so many have complained about the graduation rule and want it closed. 

[MarquetteDano]

The NCAA appears to be solely focusing on academics for a change.  I get the reasoning that transferes, as a whole, are a bad academic event so they only want to let those in good standing transfer.

However, how 'bout athletic fairness and limiting transfers as a whole?  It would seem you would have more tampering and transferring going on as teams would know what weaknesses they have for the upcoming season and try to find willing free agents.  At least before they thought twice as they had to sit out a season.

Don't like this potential new rule.  I know we benefitted from the graduation loophole but I don't like this proposed new rule.

[boyonthedock]

If you are pretending academics are the focus of your organization, and are unwilling to grant 4-year scholarships to players, you have to let them choose where to get their education. This is a free country, yes? Provide an optimum environment for students, most will stay, but some will still transfer because they are kids. I don't see how this is a problem.

[🏀]

2.6? Make it 3.3 and I could get behind the NCAA's reasoning.

Love the negative Bo Ryan jab though.

[hoyasincebirth]

This is horrible. And The only coaches who would be in favor of it would be Cal, K, Self, Williams, and maybe Crean. They would be able to use the rest of the NCAA as a farm league and bring the best players from other teams instead of recruiting freshmen. It would obliterate competitive balance. The rich get richer and the little guys would be unable to compete because their studs would get snatched up. CJ McCollum would be playing for Duke instead of beating them. This idea stinks to high heaven.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not sure the remedy fits the concern.  The two examples they mention (Bo Ryan and Phil Martelli) are examples of two jagoffs not willing to let their players go elsewhere.  Why not fix that aspect but still require the player to sit out a year.  I don't see how not sitting out a year fixes their supposed concerns.

[🏀]

I'm not sure the remedy fits the concern.  The two examples they mention (Bo Ryan and Phil Martelli) are examples of two jagoffs not willing to let their players go elsewhere.  Why not fix that aspect but still require the player to sit out a year.  I don't see how not sitting out a year fixes their supposed concerns.

Don't some coaches put heavy restrictions on players and where they can go due to their grades sometimes? Sort of as their last resort to keep players going to class?

For some reason I remember Crean/Dameon Mason/Grades all factoring into his transfer.

I could also be completely wrong.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Don't some coaches put heavy restrictions on players and where they can go due to their grades sometimes? Sort of as their last resort to keep players going to class?

For some reason I remember Crean/Dameon Mason/Grades all factoring into his transfer.

I could also be completely wrong.

Absolutely, many restrictions.  Part of that, however, is due to what a coach perceives to be tampering.  It's a way to penalize a coach who is tampering.  If that article is correct and they plan on throwing down the gauntlet at coaches who tamper, then perhaps that is somewhat alleviated.

The restrictions are traditionally with rival schools and things of that nature.  If they levee heavy penalties against tampering coaches, then I'd be fine with a kid transferring wherever (though conference rules may still prevent in conference transfers) but I think the one year redshirt is a must.  Otherwise it's free agency, rosters will be blown apart potentially.  The really good schools might not even have to tamper and still get a plug and play guy each year to put them over the top.  Not a good idea in my opinion.

[boyonthedock]

Not a good idea for who? For the student athlete in good standing, this is excellent. Isn't that the person we should be considering in the first place?

[chapman]

Not a good idea for who? For the student athlete in good standing, this is excellent. Isn't that the person we should be considering in the first place?

Encouraging students in good standing to place basketball first and switch institutions before getting a degree isn't doing them any favors.  Transferring usually creates extra hassle; if anything the year sitting out is helpful for them to ensure a successful academic transition to the new school and maintain progress toward their degree.  Reward the students who graduate, not those who get good grades for a year or two and use the school as a community college.

[The Equalizer]

Three changes I'd like to see:

1.  No immedeate releases from LOIs due to coaching change. You either sit out and lose one year of eligibilty.  Or you play one year for the new coach--giving both sides get a chance to get to know each other.  If you really can't stand it after one year, THEN you can leave with immedate eligiblity at a new school the following year--one time opportunity after one seson.  You stay a second year, then you're then subject to sitting out a year.

2.  No more "ailing relative" exceptions for immeate eligibilty. If a player needs to be home to care for an ailing relaive, then take time off from basketball.  You can't care for a parent or relative if you're spending all your time in practice, film sessions, workouts, class and travel for games.

3.  Create a <150 minute/year or similar threshold to allow players to transfer without a year delay to a school that better suits their talents.  This is even more important if it's a transfer due to non-renewal of a scholarship. In such cases, the coaches can re-use the scholarshp immedeately--why should the player be forced to wait? Alternatively, if the player has to wait, the coach should as well--the vacated scholarship can't be used for one season. 

[boyonthedock]

Encouraging students in good standing to place basketball first and switch institutions before getting a degree isn't doing them any favors.  Transferring usually creates extra hassle; if anything the year sitting out is helpful for them to ensure a successful academic transition to the new school and maintain progress toward their degree.  Reward the students who graduate, not those who get good grades for a year or two and use the school as a community college.

You are assuming the worst of a student athlete, and forcing them to make a de facto commitment to a school that is unwilling to reciprocate. These restrictions don't apply to regular students,  and the freedom and care of the student should be paramount. Giving students more options should be the goal, not building a team out of people you force to be there. I don't understand why there seems to be such a desire to punish students.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not a good idea for who? For the student athlete in good standing, this is excellent. Isn't that the person we should be considering in the first place?

In my opinion there is a contract in place here.  I sign to play for your school and I get a free education and you get my services.  There should be a repercussion for breaking that contract.  We're still letting you leave and to go wherever you like, but you will have to sit out a year before doing it.  If anything, gives you a year to adjust to your new surroundings, continue your studies, etc.

The pandora's box that will be opened with this, in my opinion, is potentially gigantic.  Players will jump their junior and senior years to try to get a ring, whereas in the past they would stick it out because the penalty wasn't worth it.  You're a stud player that just finished your junior year at MU and Duke is graduating 3 seniors.  You can play another year for Marquette and do pretty well, get your degree, etc...or you can skip town, play one year at Duke and try to win it all.

Basically if you are a really good player as a junior or senior at a school that isn't Duke, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky and a few others, you are now coveted player with all the incentives to leave.  Is it for academic purposes?  Highly unlikely.

[MarquetteDano]

You are assuming the worst of a student athlete, and forcing them to make a de facto commitment to a school that is unwilling to reciprocate. These restrictions don't apply to regular students,  and the freedom and care of the student should be paramount. Giving students more options should be the goal, not building a team out of people you force to be there. I don't understand why there seems to be such a desire to punish students.

Who is punishing students?  They get to transfer to the school and get all of their academic related costs paid for.  You act like after the transfer they have to pay for all of their expenses.  They just can't play basketball for a year.  I don't see how those "restrictions" apply to regular students.

[boyonthedock]

They transfer to another team willing to offer the same deal, in addition to numerous ancillary benefits (location, playing time, winning potential, whatever). The schools exist in perpetuity. The students have five years to make the most of their career. The school is ONLY WILLING TO COMMIT TO THEM FOR ONE YEAR, BY RULE. Why should the student be subject to more restrictions than the institution? I side with students in every step of the way, because the institutions have been against them since the inception of the NCAA.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They transfer to another team willing to offer the same deal, in addition to numerous ancillary benefits (location, playing time, winning potential, whatever). The schools exist in perpetuity. The students have five years to make the most of their career. The school is ONLY WILLING TO COMMIT TO THEM FOR ONE YEAR, BY RULE. Why should the student be subject to more restrictions than the institution? I side with students in every step of the way, because the institutions have been against them since the inception of the NCAA.

The institutions giving a free education to a kid that normally wouldn't even be admitted to the cafeteria, let alone a classroom at some of these places, is against the kid?  Sorry, don't agree.  Athletics has been an avenue for many kids to get a degree from a prestigious university that normally they would have no shot at.  It has also led to them honing their skills and sometimes making the pros, earning a ton of money, etc.

And schools do not exist in perpetuity, just as athletic programs don't.

The new legislation by the NCAA, by the way, allows for 4 year scholarships, not 1 year scholarships.  That was approved last year by the NCAA.

[boyonthedock]

205 of 330 schools voted against 4-year schollies. To be clear, this new NCAA measure doesn't require any school to give four-year scholarships—it merely gives them the option to do so. I'm sure those teams that thought nobody should even be allowed to offer the option are going to chose to do so themselves. College athletes are unpaid workers whose movements are strictly controlled by their employers. That's not amateur sports. That's something close to indentured athletic servitude.

[chapman]

Three changes I'd like to see:

These make way too much sense for the NCAA to adopt. 

[TJ]

In my opinion there is a contract in place here.  I sign to play for your school and I get a free education and you get my services.  There should be a repercussion for breaking that contract.  We're still letting you leave and to go wherever you like, but you will have to sit out a year before doing it.  If anything, gives you a year to adjust to your new surroundings, continue your studies, etc.

I would agree if it were a fair contract, but the "contract" is way lopsided in favor of the school.   First, its not a 4 year contract for the school, only for the player.  The school has an opportunity to not renew the scholarship every year, but the student is not free to do so.  They face restrictions on where they can go and a punishment of sitting out a year.  LOIs are basically binding only to the students - why would you ever sign a document that says "I agree to be stuck with you no matter what, but you can leave me if you want".

Yeah, they get an education out of it, but the contract is very one-sided and not fair at all to student athletes.  It really needs to be changed.  This proposal might not be the right answer, but something should be done.