Transfer rule changes

[GGGG]

Good luck with that.  The back channels will be wide open.

Which is fine. Students should be able to explore their choices.

[bilsu]

The only way I would like this, if it was effective for this year making Froling and Morrow immediately eligible. Otherwise, I see it as a negative for MU.

[MU82]

Me likey.

Give athletes the same rights every other student has, including students who aren't athletes. Many schools give scholarships to theater students, music students, journalism students, etc.

Indeed, when I was at the MU Tribune, many students received scholarships, including a full scholarship for the editor in chief. Any of those students could have transferred without having to sit out a year before being eligible to work at their new school's media outlets.

Once upon a time, freshmen athletes were ineligible. The rule was antiquated and was thrown out. Once upon a time, basketball players weren't allowed to dunk. The rule was antiquated and was thrown out. Same is true of this rule. It's a relic from another era. Dump it!

[dgies9156]

I view it this way:

1) If your coach leaves or is fired, you can transfer immediately and be immediately eligible.

2) If your school is out on probation, you get a one-time chance to immediately transfer.

3) Otherwise, you sit out a year unless your school releases you.

4) If a school gives you a guaranteed four-year scholarship, you have to sit out a year (most schools give a one year renewable scholarship).

[wadesworld]

"Common" student transfers are "penalized." Credits don't transfer, financial aid doesn't transfer, etc.

And student athletes aren't "common students."

[Ellenson Guerrero]

No, that's stupid. Coaches & SA's are not the same.

I'd be interested to hear your actual argument about why coaches should be allowed to switch programs immediately, but players should not.  The departure of a coach is more disruptive by orders of magnitude. 

[forgetful]

Me likey.

Give athletes the same rights every other student has, including students who aren't athletes. Many schools give scholarships to theater students, music students, journalism students, etc.

Indeed, when I was at the MU Tribune, many students received scholarships, including a full scholarship for the editor in chief. Any of those students could have transferred without having to sit out a year before being eligible to work at their new school's media outlets.

Once upon a time, freshmen athletes were ineligible. The rule was antiquated and was thrown out. Once upon a time, basketball players weren't allowed to dunk. The rule was antiquated and was thrown out. Same is true of this rule. It's a relic from another era. Dump it!

With all due respect, many of those students who transfer and are immediately eligible in theatre/media no longer get scholarships.  The big scholarships are for incoming freshman, there are far fewer transfer scholarships.  So it isn't exactly a good comparison.  They also usually have lower priority in getting the acting roles or becoming things like an editor.  So there are massive punishments, albeit not formal punishments.

Add to it, what Wades says, that often many of your credits don't even transfer, and the athletes right now really have the major advantage over a "common student".

How many players would transfer if they could get immediate eligibility, but would only get a half ride at the new school?  Or would have to defer a starting role to players that are already on the roster.  My guess, next to none. 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Why are so many people against the notion of kids changing their mind and transferring? Some of these athletes are 16, sometimes younger, when the commit to a program. 16-18 year olds make rash decisions.

Hell, 21 year olds make rash decisions. Basically with the current transfer rules you are handcuffing kids, yes kids, to a decision they made when they weren't even allowed to drive or vote.

[wadesworld]

Why are so many people against the notion of kids changing their mind and transferring? Some of these athletes are 16, sometimes younger, when the commit to a program. 16-18 year olds make rash decisions.

Hell, 21 year olds make rash decisions. Basically with the current transfer rules you are handcuffing kids, yes kids, to a decision they made when they weren't even allowed to drive or vote.

Poor kids handcuffed into getting a $120K education for free.

They aren't handcuffed. Feel free to transfer. It just adds one extra year of a $30K/year education plus all the free travel, merchandise, exposure, and networking that comes with it.

[GB Warrior]

There would still be restrictions/violations on recruiting players who are already on scholarships at other schools. That will never change.

I'd be the first coach to do away with the end of game handshake because of the obvious tampering temptations.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Poor kids handcuffed into getting a $120K education for free.

They aren't handcuffed. Feel free to transfer. It just adds one extra year of a $30K/year education plus all the free travel, merchandise, exposure, and networking that comes with it.

Great, even better. They can get out of school a year early so save the programs some money. What is the downside? "Free agency" Please, it's already like that as it is. May as well stop pretending to care about the "students well being" and let them be.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I am a fan of consistency. If you make regular transfers sit out a year, than make graduate and juco transfers sit out a year as well. If it is truly about helping the student acclimate and not about discouraging transfers then grad student and juco transfers statistically need even more help acclimating than traditional transfers do.

[wadesworld]

Great, even better. They can get out of school a year early so save the programs some money. What is the downside? "Free agency" Please, it's already like that as it is. May as well stop pretending to care about the "students well being" and let them be.

1) It's never been about the "students well being."  It's always been about one thing.  $$$$$$$$$.

2) Again, the narrative that these student athletes are starving and/or slaves is a joke.  They're getting $100K+ worth of free education.  Leaving school with no debt is a VERY BIG DEAL!  Even if the student athlete makes $0.00 through athletics and the endorsement those things bring, they are given every opportunity to be set up for life with a free education.  Their "well being" is just fine.

[Dawson Rental]

1) It's never been about the "students well being."  It's always been about one thing.  $$$$$$$$$.

2) Again, the narrative that these student athletes are starving and/or slaves is a joke.  They're getting $100K+ worth of free education.  Leaving school with no debt is a VERY BIG DEAL!  Even if the student athlete makes $0.00 through athletics and the endorsement those things bring, they are given every opportunity to be set up for life with a free education.  Their "well being" is just fine.

Revenue generating college sports have been professionalized.  Transfer restrictions are in place to make these businesses easier to manage.  The restrictions penalize the players and benefit the majority of schools and thereby their fans.  We're fans, we don't want to see our ox get gored, so we want them, and we rationalize why restrictions are good.

Hell, the State of Kentucky waited until 1973 to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment.

[brewcity77]

I am a fan of consistency. If you make regular transfers sit out a year, than make graduate and juco transfers sit out a year as well. If it is truly about helping the student acclimate and not about discouraging transfers then grad student and juco transfers statistically need even more help acclimating than traditional transfers do.

The student acclimation year is clearly a lie. Otherwise it would apply to all sports, all transfer types, and freshmen.

The coach vs SA argument is also a fallacy. As mentioned, a coach's departure is far more disruptive. Both coaches and SAs are adults under the law, so restricting one and not the other, especially when the departure of the unpunished so blatantly impacts the circumstance of the punished, is hypocrisy of the highest order.

All that said, I don't want this unilaterally applied, but only for selfish reasons. I do think we'd see a transfer uptick. I do think it would become more like free agency and I don't want that. I'm also not sure that it will prove good for graduation rates, as it's easier to graduate in 5 years than 4. I would love to see the graduation rates nationally on 4-year SAs vs 5-year SAs.

When a coach leaves, program goes on probation, those should definitely void the year in residence. Who will really suffer are the low-majors. Schools like Cleveland State and Mount St Mary's that have already become farm systems for high major programs will see all their best players leaving asap without any return of comparable talent.

[Jay Bee]

I'd be interested to hear your actual argument about why coaches should be allowed to switch programs immediately, but players should not.  The departure of a coach is more disruptive by orders of magnitude.

One is a coach, one is a student-athlete. Completely different. "Players" commit to institutions up front and agree to these rules.

Student-athletes are allowed to switch schools and immediately be given a full ride at the new institution - what an amazing gift!

Coaches on the other hand are often not allowed to leave one school and immediately work at a new one (e.g.,. see Crean this year)... the penalties (e.g., offsetting buyouts) are so severe that there is a major disincentive to get another coaching job immediately, even if it's what you desire. But again, the coach agreed to it up front so I have no beef with it.

Now, if student-athletes couldn't receive financial aid at a new place immediately, I'd be concerned. That's simply no the case. They are able to practice, be a part of the program, get great benefits...

A coach's departure is more disruptive to a PROGRAM. A student changing schools is more disruptive to his personal academics. Stop putting $ and sports ahead of the student, folks!

The student acclimation year is clearly a lie. Otherwise it would apply to all sports, all transfer types, and freshmen.

No, this is silly talk. You can draw the line somewhere -- it's not crazy to do so. Happens all the time in all areas of life.

Not all sports have equal rigor/requirements.. not all sports have similar transfer stats (e.g., how well they do at new school, graduation rates, demographics, etc.). There are reasonable arguments why it makes sense to treat some sports differently.

Surely you hate the idea of foreign tours allowed to basketball teams. Why can't football teams do this? Why not baseball? Or swimming? It's such B.S.!!!! UGH!!!!!!! Summer workouts allowed in bball... why do they get different rules!?!?!?!?!? Ughhh!!! All sports should be treated equal, right?

[brewcity77]

One is a coach, one is a student-athlete. Completely different. "Players" commit to institutions up front and agree to these rules.

Hypocrisy. Coaches sign contracts to institutions up front and routinely break them.

Coaches on the other hand are often not allowed to leave one school and immediately work at a new one (e.g.,. see Crean this year)... the penalties (e.g., offsetting buyouts) are so severe that there is a major disincentive to get another coaching job immediately, even if it's what you desire. But again, the coach agreed to it up front so I have no beef with it.

Crean could certainly coach this year if he really wanted to. He is choosing not to because it is more lucrative to not coach.

No, this is silly talk. You can draw the line somewhere -- it's not crazy to do so. Happens all the time in all areas of life.

Not all sports have equal rigor/requirements.. not all sports have similar transfer stats (e.g., how well they do at new school, graduation rates, demographics, etc.). There are reasonable arguments why it makes sense to treat some sports differently.

Amazing that it just happens to only impact the revenue sports, and only certain transfers within the revenue sports.  It's pure horsecrap. Selfishly, yes, I want the year in residence because I think it lessens the free agency aspect. I do believe this rule would wreak havoc on the low-major programs, making March less entertaining when the best players from the bottom 2/3 of leagues have either already left or are just auditioning for high-major programs. But to act like it's for the student's benefit...this has never been the case and insisting otherwise is simply disingenuous. They are drawing arbitrary lines around the places where universities make money. That's all it is, and any "study" showing otherwise likely had the intent of showing exactly that from the start.

Surely you hate the idea of foreign tours allowed to basketball teams. Why can't football teams do this? Why not baseball? Or swimming? It's such B.S.!!!! UGH!!!!!!! Summer workouts allowed in bball... why do they get different rules!?!?!?!?!? Ughhh!!! All sports should be treated equal, right?

Yay, completely irrelevant hyperbole.

[Bocephys]

Surely you hate the idea of foreign tours allowed to basketball teams. Why can't football teams do this? Why not baseball? Or swimming? It's such B.S.!!!! UGH!!!!!!! Summer workouts allowed in bball... why do they get different rules!?!?!?!?!? Ughhh!!! All sports should be treated equal, right?

Football teams can do foreign trips: https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/06/14/michigan-italy-trip-cost

[Galway Eagle]

One is a coach, one is a student-athlete. Completely different. "Players" commit to institutions up front and agree to these rules.

Student-athletes are allowed to switch schools and immediately be given a full ride at the new institution - what an amazing gift!

Coaches on the other hand are often not allowed to leave one school and immediately work at a new one (e.g.,. see Crean this year)... the penalties (e.g., offsetting buyouts) are so severe that there is a major disincentive to get another coaching job immediately, even if it's what you desire. But again, the coach agreed to it up front so I have no beef with it.

Now, if student-athletes couldn't receive financial aid at a new place immediately, I'd be concerned. That's simply no the case. They are able to practice, be a part of the program, get great benefits...

A coach's departure is more disruptive to a PROGRAM. A student changing schools is more disruptive to his personal academics. Stop putting $ and sports ahead of the student, folks!

No, this is silly talk. You can draw the line somewhere -- it's not crazy to do so. Happens all the time in all areas of life.

Not all sports have equal rigor/requirements.. not all sports have similar transfer stats (e.g., how well they do at new school, graduation rates, demographics, etc.). There are reasonable arguments why it makes sense to treat some sports differently.

Surely you hate the idea of foreign tours allowed to basketball teams. Why can't football teams do this? Why not baseball? Or swimming? It's such B.S.!!!! UGH!!!!!!! Summer workouts allowed in bball... why do they get different rules!?!?!?!?!? Ughhh!!! All sports should be treated equal, right?

It would seem that other sports are allowed to do foreign tours. I don't claim to be the rule expert you are but this seems like a situation where if the roles were reversed you'd condescendingly tell a person they're wrong and then stroke your own ego because of your knowledge of the rules.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/DI_Playing_and_Practice_Seasons%20_Foreign_Tours_and_Outside_Competition-SEMINAR_06302016.pptx

[brewcity77]

It would seem that other sports are allowed to do foreign tours. I don't claim to be the rule expert you are but this seems like a situation where if the roles were reversed you'd condescendingly tell a person they're wrong and then stroke your own ego because of your knowledge of the rules.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/DI_Playing_and_Practice_Seasons%20_Foreign_Tours_and_Outside_Competition-SEMINAR_06302016.pptx

Quoted for truth.

[GGGG]

With all due respect, many of those students who transfer and are immediately eligible in theatre/media no longer get scholarships.  The big scholarships are for incoming freshman, there are far fewer transfer scholarships.  So it isn't exactly a good comparison.  They also usually have lower priority in getting the acting roles or becoming things like an editor.  So there are massive punishments, albeit not formal punishments.

Add to it, what Wades says, that often many of your credits don't even transfer, and the athletes right now really have the major advantage over a "common student".

How many players would transfer if they could get immediate eligibility, but would only get a half ride at the new school?  Or would have to defer a starting role to players that are already on the roster.  My guess, next to none. 

Aren't student athletes given a lifetime scholarship to finish their degree?  So why does it matter if credits won't transfer and they don't finish in four years?

[MUBurrow]

Ultimately, this, like all similar debates, boils down to whether or not you think adult SAs in revenue-generating sports should be grateful to be given a full ride, e.g., paid in kind, by the institutions that profit greatly off not having to pay them in cash. Also - claiming that its just a coincidence that the toughest transfer restrictions are in the revenue-positive sports is offensive and transparently self-serving.

One caveat that I worry about here though - we all talked about Buzz cutting, etc., and when that happens, the NCAA apologists are quick to remind us that scholarships are one year renewable pacts. Under this rule, what's to stop coaches from cutting the second half of their bench every season to bring in the top guys from the mid-major conferences? Right now, its at least somewhat difficult to tell kids to take a hike.

[Jay Bee]

Football teams can do foreign trips: https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/06/14/michigan-italy-trip-cost

Yes, Michigan did a foreign TRIP, but there is a HUGE restriction on foreign TOURS for football teams. Bylaw 17.29.1.8 "Football Postseason Opportunity" says that a football foreign tour shall be considered that institution's postseason opportunity for that season.

Football is flat out treated differently. OH, THE OUTRAGE!!!!

[StillAWarrior]

Poor kids handcuffed into getting a $120K education for free.

They aren't handcuffed. Feel free to transfer. It just adds one extra year of a $30K/year education plus all the free travel, merchandise, exposure, and networking that comes with it.

While I'm in favor of allowing players to play without sitting out a year if they get a release (the rule that exists in some other sports), I really don't understand all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to sit out a year.  Does it suck to have to sit out a year?  Yeah, I suppose it might.  Is it pretty nice to get another year of free college, which will allow a student-athlete to either carry a bit lighter of a load or -- even better -- get started on a masters?  Definitely.

[Jay Bee]

Quoted for truth.

No, it's a lie. Congrats on believing that dimwit.

"Additionally, Harbaugh believes Michigan will be able to make this an annual event because there is not going to be any competition taking place. Basketball teams, for example, are allowed to take one foreign trip every four years. But those trips feature exhibition games.

Michigan will not be playing any football exhibitions. Therefore, as of now, they'll be able to do this every year."

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2017/02/jim_harbaugh_plans_to_take_mic.html

There is a difference b/w a trip and a tour. A football tour was essentially unavailable to Michigan this summer.