Graduate Transfer Options?

[Jay Bee]

Yeah but the point is that Pitt has a choice too.  And IMO they are being unreasonable.

It's like a cop giving you a ticket for jaywalking on a street with no cars in sight.  Yeah, it's a rule.  But is the choice to enforce that rule reasonable given the circumstances?

In this situation, yes. "Hey, we could object to every D1 school in the nation... but we won't. We only will object to teams in our conference."

Very reasonable. And kind. #Pitt2NobelPeacePrize

[MU82]

In this situation, yes. "Hey, we could object to every D1 school in the nation... but we won't. We only will object to teams in our conference."

Very reasonable. And kind. #Pitt2NobelPeacePrize

Serious, JB, I'm curious: Why do you always side with the institutions over the individuals?

[Jay Bee]

Serious, JB, I'm curious: Why do you always side with the institutions over the individuals?

I'm not sure I do. I side with the rules.

In this situation, Pitt was following the rules. I do not find it compelling that the SA was a good student. That's not relevant to me.

I'm not a fan of the grad transfer exception. There are a few things that enable an institution to deal with it (for example, not OK'ing the immediate eligibility of Johnson in this case)... but if they do, they're still screwed because of the court of public opinion. In essence, they were unable to simply follow the rules because of the crapstorm started by whiners. Unfortunate.

As for the grad transfer exception, I continue to believe the immediate eligibility is inconsistent with other rules. If the one-year in residence requirement truly has a lot to do with letting kids get acclimated to their new school to help them in their academic life, then why do it differently for grad transfers?

The reality is many bball grad transfer start a grad program, but don't wind up getting very far. With a one-year in residence requirement for grad transfers, not only would there be consistency in theory, but it would mean two years of grad school and the ability to actually get an advanced degree.

I am agreeable to adding a year to the five-year clock for grad transfers.

[GGGG]

I'm not sure I do. I side with the rules.

In this situation, Pitt was following the rules. I do not find it compelling that the SA was a good student. That's not relevant to me.

I'm not a fan of the grad transfer exception. There are a few things that enable an institution to deal with it (for example, not OK'ing the immediate eligibility of Johnson in this case)... but if they do, they're still screwed because of the court of public opinion. In essence, they were unable to simply follow the rules because of the crapstorm started by whiners. Unfortunate.

As for the grad transfer exception, I continue to believe the immediate eligibility is inconsistent with other rules. If the one-year in residence requirement truly has a lot to do with letting kids get acclimated to their new school to help them in their academic life, then why do it differently for grad transfers?

The reality is many bball grad transfer start a grad program, but don't wind up getting very far. With a one-year in residence requirement for grad transfers, not only would there be consistency in theory, but it would mean two years of grad school and the ability to actually get an advanced degree.

I am agreeable to adding a year to the five-year clock for grad transfers.

You "side with the rules."

Then list a bunch of reasons why you don't like the rules.

[Jay Bee]

You "side with the rules."

Then list a bunch of reasons why you don't like the rules.

Yes. There are many rules in life that I don't like but side with / follow.

The issue here is that people were outraged at Pitt for following the rules. That's ridiculous.

[GGGG]

Yes. There are many rules in life that I don't like but side with / follow.

The issue here is that people were outraged at Pitt for following the rules. That's ridiculous.

Because in this case "following the rule" was optional. They chose to be more restrictive.

[GGGG]

As for the grad transfer exception, I continue to believe the immediate eligibility is inconsistent with other rules. If the one-year in residence requirement truly has a lot to do with letting kids get acclimated to their new school to help them in their academic life, then why do it differently for grad transfers?

Because it has nothing to do with getting kids acclimated to a new school.  It is simply an excuse to try to prevent transfers.  Kids outside of athletics transfer schools all the time.  They don't need a year to get acclimated. 

They don't have this rule with other sports or in other NCAA divisions.  They should get rid of it at D1 too.

[Jay Bee]

Because it has nothing to do with getting kids acclimated to a new school.  It is simply an excuse to try to prevent transfers.  Kids outside of athletics transfer schools all the time.  They don't need a year to get acclimated. 

They don't have this rule with other sports or in other NCAA divisions.  They should get rid of it at D1 too.

Fewer transfers is a good thing from academic perspective. Too bad you don't care about these students.

[forgetful]

Because it has nothing to do with getting kids acclimated to a new school.  It is simply an excuse to try to prevent transfers.  Kids outside of athletics transfer schools all the time.  They don't need a year to get acclimated. 

They don't have this rule with other sports or in other NCAA divisions.  They should get rid of it at D1 too.

As someone that has advised students on transfers and followed up with them on how they progress, I can verify that transferring is difficult and takes an adjustment.  Usually students struggle in their first semester of courses after transferring, as it takes time to adapt to the new situation (and often teaching styles and methods).


That is for students that are also not adjusting to a new coach, team and the stresses of being a D1 athlete.  I know a pre-med student in a non-revenue sport that transferred to my university that I have chatted with extensively, they flat out said they were lucky not to flunk out their first semester as they were not ready for all the changes. 


In revenue sports this is often mitigated by students taking the easiest courses and lets say, kind of fake-majors, even then it is non-trivial to adjust.  That is really unfair to the student and shouldn't be being done to begin with. 


The bottom line is comparing this to non-athletes is not a fair comparison, and even then there is evidence-based merit to support sitting out a season.  You can believe that this evidence-based merit is not the reason for the rule, but even if its not the reason the NCAA really has the rule, it is still provides meaningful benefit and protection to the student-athlete.

[GGGG]

Fewer transfers is a good thing from academic perspective. Too bad you don't care about these students.

Not necessarily.  I think students are savvy enough to understand what is in their best interests.  Too bad you'd rather be patronizing.

[GGGG]

As someone that has advised students on transfers and followed up with them on how they progress, I can verify that transferring is difficult and takes an adjustment.  Usually students struggle in their first semester of courses after transferring, as it takes time to adapt to the new situation (and often teaching styles and methods).


That is for students that are also not adjusting to a new coach, team and the stresses of being a D1 athlete.  I know a pre-med student in a non-revenue sport that transferred to my university that I have chatted with extensively, they flat out said they were lucky not to flunk out their first semester as they were not ready for all the changes. 


In revenue sports this is often mitigated by students taking the easiest courses and lets say, kind of fake-majors, even then it is non-trivial to adjust.  That is really unfair to the student and shouldn't be being done to begin with. 


The bottom line is comparing this to non-athletes is not a fair comparison, and even then there is evidence-based merit to support sitting out a season.  You can believe that this evidence-based merit is not the reason for the rule, but even if its not the reason the NCAA really has the rule, it is still provides meaningful benefit and protection to the student-athlete.

The point is that it isn't about acclimation, or they would require it at all levels and with all sports.  They don't.  Their excuse rings hollow.

[Jay Bee]

The point is that it isn't about acclimation, or they would require it at all levels and with all sports.  They don't.  Their excuse rings hollow.

The data suggests those transfers in certain sports at certain levels have more difficulty. It doesn't ring hollow. It's reasonable and should apply to grad transfers as well.

[GGGG]

The data suggests those transfers in certain sports at certain levels have more difficulty. It doesn't ring hollow. It's reasonable and should apply to grad transfers as well.

It rings definitely hollow when you wish to include transfers that have already proved capable of college level work.

[Jay Bee]

It rings definitely hollow when you wish to include transfers that have already proved capable of college level work.

....many of them having never transferred before. Protect our students.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I agree that transfers could use a year to get acclimated. You know who could use it more? Freshmen.  You know who needs it even more than freshmen? JUCO transfers.  If it's about getting acclimated, why isn't this a requirement for them?

Don't get me wrong,  I support making it consistent.  But JUCOs should be included too.

[wadesworld]

Get acclimated? Are we serious? These kids are told exactly where to be and when to be there, exactly what classes to take and when to take them, etc. I'm not trying to take anything away from them as being a full time athlete along with a student is a ton of hard work, but come on. A year to get acclimated to the school? They'll get a tour of everything they will need the day they arrive on campus, have 2-3 months as some of the only people on campus over the summer, and it will be next to impossible for them to not have everything in order. Even non-revenue student athletes on partial scholarships will have the best tutors making sure they are doing plenty well not only so they are eligible to help their sports team on the court, but also for graduation rates and academic success purposes. These programs all make it so that you have to go out of your way to not be successful in the classroom because they need you to be for their own purposes.

[brewcity77]

I think it's just a matter of consistency. Do you need a year to get acclimated? Traditional transfers indicate yes, while JUCOs, grad transfers, and freshmen indicate no. Makes no sense having different rules depending on how you enroll.

[Benny B]

Has the thought crossed anyone else's mind that the NCAA transfer rules are what they are predominantly to prevent the AAU powerbrokers from taking over the collegiate game entirely?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Has the thought crossed anyone else's mind that the NCAA transfer rules are what they are predominantly to prevent the AAU powerbrokers from taking over the collegiate game entirely?

I would imagine it is this + it prevents the free-for-all that free-agency would create in the game.  IMO both would be terrible for the sustainability/product of College BB which everyone benefits from.

I wish though that people wouldn't pretend like it is some sort of good for the player type thing (i.e. gives them time to adjust). 

Things game be good for the system but bad for a discrete individual and still be OK.

[Herman Cain]

I would imagine it is this + it prevents the free-for-all that free-agency would create in the game.  IMO both would be terrible for the sustrightbility/product of College BB which everyone benefits from.

I wish though that people wouldn't pretend like it is some sort of good for the player type thing (i.e. gives them time to adjust). 

Things game be good for the system but bad for a discrete individual and still be OK.

The transfer restrictions are helpful to existing players in that it provides a sense of institutional loyalty to players who put the time in and make the sacrifices for the program .

The rule I don't like is the 5 to play 4 rule. That screwed over guys like Wally.

[Dr. Blackheart]

The transfer restrictions are helpful to existing players in that it provides a sense of institutional loyalty to players who put the time in and make the sacrifices for the program .

The rule I don't like is the 5 to play 4 rule. That screwed over guys like Wally.

Or Wally screwed over Wally. Your pick.

[GGGG]

Regardless, Wally could have grad. transferred this year anyway.  He chose not to.

[brewcity77]

The rule I don't like is the 5 to play 4 rule. That screwed over guys like Wally.

That's not true at all. I didn't like how Wally's situation was handled, mostly from an optics standpoint, but he could've graduated and played another year. It wasn't the "5 to play 4" rule, it was the "I wanna go pro when Marquette determines they've moved on from me" conscious decision.