Proposed NCAA Rules Changes—More Immediately Eligible Transfers
I can't see how this wouldn't lead to even more transfers—particularly in men's and women's basketball—but John Infante reports here on a proposed new transfer model, with the most important change being that student-athletes could transfer to a new school and be immediately eligible if they have a GPA of at least 2.6. Infante outlines this new model this way:
- Athletes would still need to get permission to contact another school before transferring. But permission would be tied to practice and competition, not athletics aid. So even if permission was denied, the student-athlete would still be able to receive a scholarship.
- Athletes who qualify for the transfer exemption in the APR would be permitted to play immediately at the new school. That would make a 2.600 GPA the magic number to play immediately.
- Athletes who do not qualify to play immediately at the next school would still receive an extension of their five-year clock so they can use all their eligibility.
- Tampering with an athlete by another school would be considered a severe breach of conduct, a Level I violation, the highest in the NCAA’s new enforcement structure.
January 4th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^
This might do more harm than good. This would devestate small schools with good players that want to play at a bigger school on the national stage. If this goes through I think football and any sports would become VERY top heavy (not like it isn't already but it'd become worse).
January 4th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
It got brought up, but there would have to be a limit on this kind of transfer. You get one (or two I guess) 2.6 GPA transfer, but if you want to leave again, you gotta do it the normal way
January 4th, 2013 at 1:01 PM ^
Think of the strange situation this new proposal would introduce with grades. Instead of trying to make sure players had good grades, there might be instances when just getting by would be the desired result.
The whole thing sounds like a bad idea to me as it introduces more problems than it solves.
January 4th, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^
The thing about these changes is that apparently the NCAA isn't trying to rein in the number of transfers but rather address the fact that a transfer often negatively affects the athlete academically and can lead to them not graduating. Here's a bit more from Infante from a cbssports.com item:
"The short answer, more important answer: The NCAA isn't so much concerned with the rate of transfers," Infante said. "But if 100 percent of transfers graduated, I don't think the NCAA would care about it. The NCAA is primarily concerned with the fact that transferring is generally a negative event academically."
The NCAA is seeking a compromise of not having full-blown free agency in transfers yet still wants students to have some equity. Also, transferring tends to be a harmful thing for a student's academics. The idea is to reward transfers who excel in the classroom.
January 4th, 2013 at 6:26 PM ^
What evidence is there that transferring causes poor academic performance? I don't see the causation. I would guess that poor students tend to transfer more (think Tate Forcier) but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest transfers have anything to do with anything. I would rather see the NCAA allow all transfers between seasons for any reason because...you know...its actually in the interest of the athlete to do whatever they want.
January 4th, 2013 at 12:59 PM ^
January 4th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
What about the All American on a Eastern Michigan that says hey I'm good I can go play at Michigan my senior year and not have to worry about anything. That would devestate Eastern Michigan as well as any player that HAD stuck it out and waited his time at Michigan to start and then gets over looked by an outsider.
I just don't see how this does any good for college sports. Yes it could help with players at top schools going to lower schools but it has just as bad of an effect the other way around.
January 4th, 2013 at 1:50 PM ^
January 4th, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^
January 4th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^
But, the school of transfer couldn't iniate anything, or even ask the kid to come. The kid could ask if they'd take him, and they can say yes or no.
January 4th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
What is the reasoning behind this?
And 2.6 GPA??? I know thats not god awful and you can get a degree with a 2.6, but I think they should up that to at least 2.75 or 3.0. Its splitting hairs, but at least it makes it more difficult for a player to transfer.
January 4th, 2013 at 4:11 PM ^
Here's an explanation for the 2.6 GPA minimum from the cbssports.com item I linked to above:
One more question to answer: Why the 2.6 dividing line? Why not, say, an even 3.0 average? Because the 2.6 is based in NCAA research; it's the line where teams are docked APR points, should a player transfer. And that stems from research showing that, in the past, when players at a 2.6 or above transferred, there is a much closer graduation rate compared to all athletes as well as athletes who don't transfer. Make sense? Think of it as college sports' Mendoza Line.
January 4th, 2013 at 1:07 PM ^
"Tampering with an athlete by another school would be considered a severe breach of conduct, a Level I violation, the highest in the NCAA’s new enforcement structure."
If adopted say hello to rampant number of Level I violations. Current non-BCS schools will become minor league feeder programs for the big boys.
January 4th, 2013 at 1:15 PM ^
Lesser schools stars would be contacted via the old hs coach, his friends someone...we know how that works... This would become first an sec and big12 loop hole and other conferences would have to do it to keep up......
Stronger limits would have to be put in place imho.......first I think 3.0 gpa would have to be the level to transfer without sitting.....And schools should be able to block a set number of schools and particular if they feel those schools have tampered by contacting the athletes.
January 4th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^
Don't think I really like it, unless this somehow makes it easier for UM to accept transfers (which I don't think it will considering UM's lack of transfers has to do with UM policy and not NCAA). It would just make it easier for UM players to transfer out and we still wouldn't get much transfered in. In every rule change the most important thing is how it positively affects UM.
January 4th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^
Coaches can leave at almost any time with no repurcussions. If you're a player (especially an upperclassmen) and your coach and his staff leave, you are have to pray that your abilities and skills fit the philosophy of the new coach. I'm not opposed to the new rules if there is a coaching change.
However, if the coach hasn't changed I'm not sure this is a good idea.
January 4th, 2013 at 3:27 PM ^
...is really an apples & oranges thing.
Besides, students commit to a school, not coach. Granted non-athlete students can transfer quite freely but it does seem that some restrictions on athletes is necessary. Sitting out a year actually seems like a pretty reasonable trade-off in order to keep kids from jumping teams every year.
January 4th, 2013 at 5:13 PM ^
While that sounds warm and fuzzy, who the coach is at a school plays a huge role in an athlete's decision on which college they are going to attend.
January 4th, 2013 at 2:40 PM ^
If you read the transfer manual (here), if one were transferring, one would currently have to be academically eligible at their current institution in order to use the so-called "one-time exception", and I believe this is tied into the rule in Division I that an athlete has to meet 90% of the minimum GPA for eligibility by year two, 95% in the third year and 100% by the fourth. So, if this is the imposition of a "flat rate", if you will, then this portion of the transfer exception rule would be history basically. Minimum requirements are here- (MGoBlue link).
I suppose I see the potential for a problem if the requirements on degree progress and credit load requirements are being removed as well, because then I can see what others are touching on, where smaller schools and junior colleges start becoming feeder institutions provided the GPA requirements (which I assume would be the same across all divisions) are met. This change would definitely affect schools that typically take JUCO transfers in that regard since right now a student has to have a minimum credit load as well as a minimum GPA in order to be immediately eligibile in that scenario.
I wonder also if this would mean the end of the "qualifier" and "non-qualifier" rules on transfers as well, or if this is essentiallya simplified version of that aspect of the rules.
January 4th, 2013 at 4:46 PM ^
January 4th, 2013 at 5:08 PM ^
January 4th, 2013 at 7:46 PM ^
This is something that is in the individual athletes best interests. Limits vendettas against the good kid who wants to leave, and no reason to make transferring only be a negative.
January 5th, 2013 at 7:41 AM ^