Grad transfer thread

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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?

[Jay Bee]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.

[Pakuni]

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?

[forgetful]

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.

[forgetful]

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. 

[Jay Bee]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[Herman Cain]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[Jay Bee]

Well, the NCAA rules disagree with you.

No they don't, dipcrap.

Try to cite the rules. You cant, because they don't exist.

[forgetful]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.

[forgetful]

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


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.

[Jay Bee]

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"