Coach K weighs in on Transfers.....no exceptions

[NavinRJohnson]

You make it sound like they just leave and their are no repercussions.  Yes there are.  Different repercussions, but there are still repercussions. 

That's fine, but it brings us right back to the fact that the system as currently constructed is so heavily loaded in favor of the NCAA and member institutions. If you want repercussions, fine. Unfortunatkey, the current repercussions are ridiculous when you compare those of the player to the coach, school, etc. not sure ow anyone could even attempt to argue differently, not to mention the original point ofis bread which is the absurdly arbitrary and random nature in which the NCAA decides who gets exceptions and who doesn't.

[NavinRJohnson]

It's the law

Yes, it is. The law also used to say that Women and Blacks couldn't vote. I assume you'd agree with that too. After all, it was the law.

This discussion wasn't about what the NCAA regulations are, or what the law is, it's about what they should be. the NCAA has the power to try to change the transfer rule today if they wanted to. Of course they won't do that, and the member institutions would squish it because they can, and it would be bad for business - which is after all what it's all about.

[Jay Bee]

Per NCAA research folks, the APR for 4-4 transfers on #NCAA D1 football teams was 913 last year (41 pts lower than for non-transfers)

Similar disparity in MBB. One year in residence requirement isn't about punishing athletics, it's about academics. Cura Personalis.

[TJ]

You have to. They're married together with revenue sports.

No, they aren't.  In fact, student-athletes in non-revenue sports are allowed one transfer without having to sit out a year.

[TJ]

That's the biggest problem with you guys that want to pay student athletes, YOU NEVER factor in non-revenue sports, women's sports, etc.  YET YOU HAVE TO FOR TITLE IX purposes.  That's one of the biggest obstacles you guys have and you NEVER address it....because you can't.

Who the hell is talking about paying student-athletes in this thread?

[TJ]

Similar disparity in MBB. One year in residence requirement isn't about punishing athletics, it's about academics. Cura Personalis.

That might be the funniest thing in this thread so far.

Cura Personalis is not the motto of the NCAA.

[TJ]

In your lifetime, you have dealt with the NCAA as a college athletics administrator or student athlete how often?

Never.  So what.  I also have never dealt with a major TV carrier or content provider, but I know that they are only looking out for their best interests and not mine when they negotiate their contracts.

The NCAA and it's member institutions aren't going to do something that's bad for business.  Even if it's bad for business, but good for student-athletes.  They've proven that with their actions time and time again.  I'm not saying they actively look to hurt the interests of student-athletes, but if it's one or the other they're siding with the money or the member institutions most of the time.

[Jay Bee]

That might be the funniest thing in this thread so far.

Cura Personalis is not the motto of the NCAA.

You don't want these young men to be educated. Shameful! 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, it is. The law also used to say that Women and Blacks couldn't vote. I assume you'd agree with that too. After all, it was the law.

This discussion wasn't about what the NCAA regulations are, or what the law is, it's about what they should be. the NCAA has the power to try to change the transfer rule today if they wanted to. Of course they won't do that, and the member institutions would squish it because they can, and it would be bad for business - which is after all what it's all about.

The Bush administration tried to change some of Title IX 7 or 8 years ago....it went nowhere fast.  The chances of it changing are slim to none.  If the discussion is about what should be, don't you also have to factor in what "Should" be done for all other athletes...women, non revenue, etc?

What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else.  Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue.  Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also?  I'm just asking.

To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently.  Am I wrong in this assumption?

[Jay Bee]

The Bush administration tried to change some of Title IX 7 or 8 years ago....it went nowhere fast.  The chances of it changing are slim to none.  If the discussion is about what should be, don't you also have to factor in what "Should" be done for all other athletes...women, non revenue, etc?

What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else.  Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue.  Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also?  I'm just asking.

To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently.  Am I wrong in this assumption?

You bring up one of the problems - the folks squawking aren't worried about using foresight to understand the challenges. Their thinking is very narrow - "oh the poor kids, we need to free them from the horrors of the current system!"

They don't know WHAT they want to create. Frankly, they don't care to think that far ahead. They just want student-athletes (they'd rather call them "players") to have "the chains removed".

[TJ]

The Bush administration tried to change some of Title IX 7 or 8 years ago....it went nowhere fast.  The chances of it changing are slim to none.  If the discussion is about what should be, don't you also have to factor in what "Should" be done for all other athletes...women, non revenue, etc?

What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else.  Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue.  Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also?  I'm just asking.

To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently.  Am I wrong in this assumption?

Yes you are wrong.  We aren't talking about compensation at all.  Quit trying to change the subject.

This thread is about transfer rules, an area in which there is already a discriminatory policy based on revenue... against the student-athlete.  Football and basketball players have to sit out a year if they want to transfer.  Non-revenue sports athletes do not.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No, they aren't.  In fact, student-athletes in non-revenue sports (including baseball) are allowed one transfer without having to sit out a year.

Not according to this entity called the NCAA....from their website......


The bulk of student-athletes who transfer and do not need to sit out do so because they qualify for the one-time transfer exception. To qualify for the one-time transfer exception, a student-athlete must meet all of the following requirements:

Play a sport other than baseball, basketball, FBS football, or men's ice hockey;[5]
Have never previously transferred from a four-year institution;
Be academically eligible at the first institution, assuming the student-athlete had stayed; and
Get written notice from the first school that it does not object to the use of the one-time transfer exception.

The final requirement is the second of the four releases that can occur during a transfer. Permission to use the one-time transfer exception is often granted on a "tracer." That is a form that compliance officers send each other when a student-athlete transfers which asks for this permission along with other information needed to determine if a student-athlete can use one of the transfer exceptions. If permission to use the one-time transfer exception is not granted, the student-athlete has a right to the same written notice and appeal process used when permission to contact is not granted.

[NavinRJohnson]

The Bush administration tried to change some of Title IX 7 or 8 years ago....it went nowhere fast.  The chances of it changing are slim to none.  If the discussion is about what should be, don't you also have to factor in what "Should" be done for all other athletes...women, non revenue, etc?

What you really seem to be saying is that you want one set of rules for football and basketball players, a different set of rules for everyone else.  Bascially you want a discriminatory policy based on revenue.  Ok, that's fine. The next question is what do you do with all the football and basketball programs that don't make money....are you further carving up those guys also?  I'm just asking.

To me it seems you want to create basically a super division in college sports where those that make money are compensated, those that don't are treated diferently.  Am I wrong in this assumption?

Yet again you have attempted to change this to a discussion about compensating players (Something tells me if you looked hard enough, you could probably fine a thread or two about paying players.   ) as opposed to the transfer rule, which is what the rest of us are talking about. Your defense of the transfer rule, has gone from negative impact on the programs, living up to commitments, to the negative impact of paying players.  Your good with the status quo, because it os best for you. we get it.

As I said, the NCAA could change the transfer rule today, if they so chose without any Title IX implications.

[TJ]

Not according to this entity called the NCAA....from their website......


The bulk of student-athletes who transfer and do not need to sit out do so because they qualify for the one-time transfer exception. To qualify for the one-time transfer exception, a student-athlete must meet all of the following requirements:

Play a sport other than baseball, basketball, FBS football, or men's ice hockey;[5]
Have never previously transferred from a four-year institution;
Be academically eligible at the first institution, assuming the student-athlete had stayed; and
Get written notice from the first school that it does not object to the use of the one-time transfer exception.

The final requirement is the second of the four releases that can occur during a transfer. Permission to use the one-time transfer exception is often granted on a "tracer." That is a form that compliance officers send each other when a student-athlete transfers which asks for this permission along with other information needed to determine if a student-athlete can use one of the transfer exceptions. If permission to use the one-time transfer exception is not granted, the student-athlete has a right to the same written notice and appeal process used when permission to contact is not granted.

Semantics.  I was wrong about baseball.  I will go and edit my post and then yours can stand as proof of my statement that non-revenue sports athletes are able to get a one-time transfer exception.  Thanks!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Never.  So what.  I also have never dealt with a major TV carrier or content provider, but I know that they are only looking out for their best interests and not mine when they negotiate their contracts.

The NCAA and it's member institutions aren't going to do something that's bad for business.  Even if it's bad for business, but good for student-athletes.  They've proven that with their actions time and time again.  I'm not saying they actively look to hurt the interests of student-athletes, but if it's one or the other they're siding with the money or the member institutions most of the time.

I ask because usually when people say this stuff they don't totally know what they are talking about or have a herd mentality and go with it.  Or, as is the case here, they lock into the Manziel cases and the like, but ignore everything else...the 450,000 student athletes that are helped through college, etc, etc, by the NCAA.  The attempted leveling of the playing field, etc, etc.

They are far from perfect....they are far from the devil as well.  They do more good than harm, but that would require people to look outside of they hyper cases.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Semantics.  I was wrong about baseball.  I will go and edit my post and then yours can stand as proof of my statement that non-revenue sports athletes are able to get a one-time transfer exception.  Thanks!

I'd re-read the entire post by the NCAA, not just about baseball, they still need to get written permission, which is not always granted.

[NavinRJohnson]

Not according to this entity called the NCAA....from their website......


The bulk of student-athletes who transfer and do not need to sit out do so because they qualify for the one-time transfer exception. To qualify for the one-time transfer exception, a student-athlete must meet all of the following requirements:

Play a sport other than baseball, basketball, FBS football, or men's ice hockey;[5]
Have never previously transferred from a four-year institution;
Be academically eligible at the first institution, assuming the student-athlete had stayed; and
Get written notice from the first school that it does not object to the use of the one-time transfer exception.

The final requirement is the second of the four releases that can occur during a transfer. Permission to use the one-time transfer exception is often granted on a "tracer." That is a form that compliance officers send each other when a student-athlete transfers which asks for this permission along with other information needed to determine if a student-athlete can use one of the transfer exceptions. If permission to use the one-time transfer exception is not granted, the student-athlete has a right to the same written notice and appeal process used when permission to contact is not granted.

Wow, he missed baseball and hockey. Wonder why they're included but volleyball and gymnastics aren't. That's a good job making his argument for him though.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yet again you have attempted to change this to a discussion about compensating players (Something tells me if you looked hard enough, you could probably fine a thread or two about paying players.   ) as opposed to the transfer rule, which is what the rest of us are talking about. Your defense of the transfer rule, has gone from negative impact on the programs, living up to commitments, to the negative impact of paying players.  Your good with the status quo, because it os best for you. we get it.

As I said, the NCAA could change the transfer rule today, if they so chose without any Title IX implications.

There are transfer restrictions in place for non revenue sports as well.  I just directly copied them to this thread.  Feel free to opine.

[TJ]

I ask because usually when people say this stuff they don't totally know what they are talking about or have a herd mentality and go with it.  Or, as is the case here, they lock into the Manziel cases and the like, but ignore everything else...the 450,000 student athletes that are helped through college, etc, etc, by the NCAA.  The attempted leveling of the playing field, etc, etc.

They are far from perfect....they are far from the devil as well.  They do more good than harm, but that would require people to look outside of they hyper cases.

I generally agree with this.  But that doesn't mean I shouldn't voice my opinion in areas where I think they should be better.

[TJ]

There are transfer restrictions in place for non revenue sports as well.  I just directly copied them to this thread.  Feel free to opine.

Why are they different than those in place for revenue sports?

[TJ]

I'd re-read the entire post by the NCAA, not just about baseball, they still need to get written permission, which is not always granted.

That's a thin argument - that it's ok to have different rules because some jerk coaches will deny permission for some athletes to use the rule.

[NavinRJohnson]

There are transfer restrictions in place for non revenue sports as well.  I just directly copied them to this thread.  Feel free to opine.

They're just as stupid, but also not as prohibitive as those for the revenue sports. Not sure why this is hard for you to comprehend. Maybe they aren't always granted, as you stated as fact. so how often are they? I assume you know. the point is, at least they have the option. A revenue player does not, without an act of God, which in this case is the monopolistic NCAA.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why are they different than those in place for revenue sports?

The answer seems pretty obvious, doesn't?

[NavinRJohnson]

I ask because usually when people say this stuff they don't totally know what they are talking about or have a herd mentality and go with it.  Or, as is the case here, they lock into the Manziel cases and the like, but ignore everything else...the 450,000 student athletes that are helped through college, etc, etc, by the NCAA.  The attempted leveling of the playing field, etc, etc.

Speaking as someone with a child who has a reasonable opportunity to get an athletic scholarship in a non-revenue sport in a couple years, this may well be true, but it still doesn't provide any justification for football, BBall players to have to sit out a year, when they want to change schools. That's what this discussion is about, not Manziel.

[NavinRJohnson]

The answer seems pretty obvious, doesn't?

It is to most of us here. My guess is he is looking for you to try to justify it, since you clearly support the rule.