NCAA Considering Transfer Policy Change
The NCAA is now looking into their current transfer rules, most notably the one that forces students to sit out a year before playing.
http://www.mlive.com/sports/2017/09/ncaa_looking_into_possible_tra.html…
Generally, the NCAA does little to nothing correctly. I'm glad they are looking into this change.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:00 AM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 11:08 AM ^
Know what their reasons are?
Coaches can be very gross, giving false promises, sitting players for stupid reasons, etc... This would give those kids a chance to transfer from large schools to smaller schools outside of the P5 and get an opportunity to play.
Yeah, you'll get dumb transfer reasons. But having them sit an entire year is silly.
September 6th, 2017 at 12:20 PM ^
The sit-out rule is incentive not to transfer because you hate the weather or you don't want to wait your turn or your dorm room isn't bling-y enough. It's an insurance policy against flippancy. This is stupid.
September 6th, 2017 at 12:32 PM ^
Yeah, we shouldn't allow it since they MIGHT abuse it. Who cares if it screws kids with legitimate reasons? Why should we treat student athletes like actual human beings?
September 6th, 2017 at 12:46 PM ^
Hardship waivers exist for student-athletes who have extenuating family or medical circumstances, and allow them to play immediately.
"I don't like my coach" is not an extenuating circumstance, nor is "I think I should be starting." A measure to ensure that isn't abused or rewarded is reasonable.
September 6th, 2017 at 1:03 PM ^
Generally crushes those requests, unless you are walking on 1 leg.
The organization and the coaches have all the power to do whatever the F they want. It's nice that students may actually have a chance for some freedom.
September 6th, 2017 at 1:21 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 2:26 PM ^
And they can do that--but the one-year rule ensures that ability isn't abused.
September 6th, 2017 at 1:58 PM ^
Your examples still do not convince me. For example, the coach that recruited you has left after signing day and you do not like the new coach.
I think there will always be edge cases where the rules are potentially misused. I would rather see these rules swing in the favor of the student than the university.
September 6th, 2017 at 2:09 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 2:27 PM ^
When does "that's life" figure in?
September 6th, 2017 at 12:50 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 12:46 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 4:16 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 5:43 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 11:09 AM ^
Can't wait for schools to start putting together trades.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:21 AM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 12:47 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 12:55 PM ^
After the trade is final, you just transfer back.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:21 AM ^
As a data guy, I find this sort of concern both valid and EASILY FUCKING SOLVEABLE.
Problem: Rule is unfair to students. If their coach leaves during their sophomore year or they are not able to get off the bench, they are forced to sit out a year to better their situation.
Problem: If rule is changed, students can transfer because they don't like the new jersey sponsor, or because their team lost 3 games the previous year and they don't like it.
Solution: Conditional logic. It's not hard. Allow a student to transfer without penalty if either of the conditions is met:
- Head coach, respective coordinator, or position coach leaves the school.
- Student is not played at their listed position in more than 3 games in the previous year.
Any other reasoning is still subject to a one year time-out. Why is this hard? Why is it all or nothing?
The SAME SHIT applies to recruiting.
Problem: Coach leaves after NLI day for a different program.
Problem: Coach promises ON OFFER LETTER that the student will be the only person in that position to be signed in this class.
Problem: Students are not able to 'hard' commit to a school until signing day.
Problem: Schools can remove an offer at any point, for any reason.
Solution: Student can commit at any point, solidifying a position in the class. Student MAY ONLY decommit and rip up NLI if any of the following conditions are met:
- Head coach, respective coordinator, or position coach leaves the school.
- Another student is signed at the position after being promised that this would not happen.
- Once a student signs, they can only be released by the school if they fail to qualify academically, or if they suffer a career ending injury.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:27 AM ^
With your logic and reason bullshit.
/those are all actually good solutions
September 6th, 2017 at 11:28 AM ^
Why?
I could have switched to any school for any reason. Why should that option not be available for anyone without penalty? These are not pros. I don't know why anyone around here should have any say what a person can or cannot do just because it makes their viewing of sports a little less pleasant.
What exactly is wrong with kids switching school for the flimsiest of reasons? This is a free country last time I checked.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:56 AM ^
i'm all for it. Take all the really good players that want to play for Michigan AND are being recruited by Ohio State. Have them all sign with OSU, using up all of their eligible scholarships for the year. After all players are signed to schools, transfer to Michigan and leave OSU reeling.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:57 AM ^
because college football is ascending towards a cliff. This would be one step closer.
Imagine small school stars AND stars on bad power 5 teams joining what would become 10 dynasty teams. It would be all-star football.
Example: Khalil Mack transfering from buffalo to alabama for his SR year.
I agree with the stipulations listed above. Great and fair system.
September 6th, 2017 at 12:14 PM ^
And that is different from today with the likes of Alabama and OSU, how?
September 6th, 2017 at 12:41 PM ^
That generally is happening now at a pretty rapid rate.
September 6th, 2017 at 12:12 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 12:16 PM ^
But the current rule is completely arbitrary, with no benefit to student athletes whatsoever. Implement the same rules to coaches then we can talk.
September 6th, 2017 at 12:33 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 1:12 PM ^
Generally makes sense, but I could see a couple getting sticky:
"Student is not played at their listed position in more than 3 games in the previous year". What keeps a coach from playing them only one play? A power house team will likely have multiple blowout wins/games well in hand before the last play or a bad team might have no chance at some point. Also, what keeps the team from listing them at a position they don't want?
"Another student is signed at the position after being promised that this would not happen." I suppose this could be documented, but if the student is not careful, they could easily be caught. Eg, team agrees to sign no more defensive backs, but the adds "athletes" that are really DBs.
September 6th, 2017 at 3:25 PM ^
Agreed. Those were just quick suggestions and would require a bit more thinking.
On the first - that would be something a coach could do to reserve them, but it would look really bad if it were just a play. Maybe a series. Maybe adjust the number of games? Maybe make it 100 plays all year? I don't know. They could also stipulate that the player can leave to pursue a different official position.
On the second - you'd essentially have to do away with 'athlete'. You'd also have to require some percentage of adherence to the original listed position. For instance - a team must maintain 80% position adherence from recruiting or face discipline. They already do it in academics.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:33 AM ^
Who cares? If you don't pay kids let them transfer. Stop penalizing kids for NCAA stupidity, if coaches can leave at will to go anywhere athletes sure as shit should be able to.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:49 AM ^
The players are paid with free education. Most college students in the world would do a lot of things to get free education.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:59 AM ^
tuition, room and board, tutoring, training, etc. Easily six figures if you wanted to pay out of pocket yourself.
September 6th, 2017 at 12:15 PM ^
he should be able to play where he wants w no penalty. I love this rule change - puts the burden on schools to recruit the right kids for their programs, and confirms the players that stay there want to be there. Also puts more burden on the schools and coaches to not "embellish" during the recruiting process.
Yes, the players are rewarded with a free education. But the schools are making millions off the players - they are not giving the free education out of the goodness of their hearts.
Unlike other professional sports, a sophomore or true junior cannot go pro and earn a living at something they excel at. And I dont see the big time head coaches that leave their programs high and dry having to take a year off.
Let the kid play where he wants...
September 6th, 2017 at 12:38 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 1:10 PM ^
Revenue is not the same as profit.
Most D1 schools make millions in revenue but how many actually turn a profit on athletics? I'd guess somewhere around 25. Could be way off though.
September 8th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 12:43 PM ^
That are being taken advantage of by the school to make millions of their likeness.
September 6th, 2017 at 1:12 PM ^
Isn't a standard part of enrolling in college that they can use your likeness as they wish? I remember signing something like that in both high school and at UM.
September 6th, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^
and could open up a very slippery slope of athletes almost becoming free agents. Kids are recruited for a long time and have tons of opportuninties to know everything there is about a school and coach before signing a LOI. I think there are already some good measures in place for kids to transfer for medical or family reasons, but just allow them to start doing it..... No.... don't care for it a commitment is suppose to mean long term, not just until the grass is greener somewhere else.
September 6th, 2017 at 2:39 PM ^
Whether the reason is dumb or not is no concern of yours or mine.
They should have every reason to transfer. They are not pieces of meat.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:01 AM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 11:06 AM ^
September 6th, 2017 at 11:09 AM ^
Has been growing every year. The NCAA is essentially the NFL-lite. Calling them student athletes is silly.
This is why you have these networks creating their own stations and migrating to form mega-conferences.
September 6th, 2017 at 11:11 AM ^
I don't like this for the same reasons. I know it would benefit Michigan but I dont like what it would do for parity
September 6th, 2017 at 11:46 AM ^
OTOH, scholarship limits would mean that those smaller schools would have more to go around and the bigger schools would have fewer to give to top prospects. If anything, I can see this leading to MORE talent going to smaller and mid-tier schools since the OSUs and Alabamas will use more of those scholarships on 3rd and 4th year players.
September 6th, 2017 at 12:09 PM ^
Following this logic, you could get where the smaller programs would be nothing more than "feeder" schools or "community colleges" if you will. Forming a "minor leagues", developing and then being siphoned off of all good athletes as needed by the elite "major leagues" composed mostly of developed upperclassmen players.