NCAA changes rule, players will now be allowed to transfer without permission from their coach/school

[Gene Parmesan 4016]

5 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

It sucks for us fans but I believe players should not only be able to transfer without permission but they should not have to sit out a year. Yet, I still believe the transfer portal should be closed for the first two years. When a person signs a contract in the real world they have to honor it. So these players make a commitment, regardless of promises they know they have to compete for a job. They should at least honor a two year commitment. Grow up a little. Limit transfers to one for their career in college.

It is like everything in the free market. To much regulation and nothing gets done. To little and it is the early 1900's with children working, no middle class and people being shot for asking to make things better. It is human nature to cut corners for self interest at the expense of others and the right balance of rules are always needed.

It only sucks for fans on one side of the equation.  It's great for fans on the other side. 

[DanTheHorn 4969]

2 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

It only sucks for fans on one side of the equation.  It's great for fans on the other side. 

You must have grown up in the days of Charles Haley, Deon Sanders and Terrell Owens and not the days of Randy White, Drew Pearson and Tony Dorset. On one hand we got players that put us over the top via free agency. On the other we lost knowing the great ones would only be on one team and be only ours. For, the players it was great and well deserved. For many of us that had to make the transition it sucked.

[Machinator 32099]

The official text:

Quote

The Division I Council received updates about several ongoing topics and made several decisions at a meeting this week in Indianapolis that illustrated the depth of their responsibilities for running Division I on a day-to-day basis. Among their actions were clarifications of transfer waiver guidelines to help members understand what specific information to submit with waiver requests. No transfer rules changed.

Members participated in a workshop conducted by the NCAA Sport Science Institute that was designed to help campuses develop plans to promote and support student-athlete mental health issues. The council also heard updates from groups examining sports wagering issues, federal and state legislation related to college sports, and the coach credentialing pilot in Division I men’s and women’s basketball.

Council members received updates about several suggested changes to academic integrity rules and policies and agreed to urge conferences to provide feedback to the Division I Presidential Forum on those matters by July 1. They discussed athletics director accountability and received a preview of attestation and certification of compliance modules for presidents, chancellors and directors of athletics.

They met with representatives from the U.S. Olympic Committee and discussed the work of the USOC Collegiate Advisory Council, including how the NCAA could work with USOC to better support the nation’s most elite athletes training for international competition.

The group also discussed transfer regulations, adopting noncontroversial legislation to specify that a student-athlete would be subject to transfer rules after he or she enrolls in classes and attends the first day of class and then transfers to another school. Previously, students only had to enroll and be present on the first day of class to be subject to transfer status to attend a different school. The change brings the transfer trigger in line with the requirement for full-time enrollment.

Also in the transfer space, the group adjusted four of the 13 guidelines national office staff use when making an initial determination in transfer residence requirement waiver cases. The changes were acknowledged as minor adjustments to the waiver process intended to clarify the requirements, prompt more involvement from athletics directors and give guidance to members as they submit waivers.

When a school requests a waiver because it asserts a student-athlete no longer has the opportunity to participate at his or her previous school, the new school must provide proof that the student-athlete is in good academic standing and meeting progress-toward-degree requirements at the new school and a statement from the previous school’s athletics director indicating whether the student could return to the team; whether the student was dismissed from the team and the date of dismissal; whether the student was in good academic standing at the time of departure; and the reasons the student gave the previous school for the transfer.

Previously in such cases, the new school had to provide confirmation the student couldn’t return to the team for reasons outside his or her control; a statement from an academic authority indicating the student-athlete was in good academic standing and met progress-toward-degree requirements; and a statement from the previous school detailing its position on the request.

In cases in which the student-athlete transferred because he or she is the victim of egregious behavior directly impacting his or her health, safety or well-being, the new school must continue to provide objective documentation of the behavior and how it impacts the health, safety or well-being of the student-athlete. In addition, the new school also must now provide a statement from the previous school’s athletics director explaining why the student-athlete indicated he or she is transferring and proof that the student-athlete is in good academic standing and meeting progress-toward-degree standards at the new school.

Previously in cases alleging egregious behavior, the new school had to provide objective documentation of the behavior and the previous school’s position on the waiver request.

In cases where a student-athlete transfers because of the recent injury or illness of an immediate family member, the new school must provide contemporaneous medical documentation from the treating physician showing how the family member is debilitated; an explanation of the student-athlete’s role in providing care; confirmation from both the athletics director and faculty athletics representative that the student-athlete will be allowed to depart the team to provide care; a statement from the previous school’s athletics director explaining why the student-athlete said he or she was transferring; and proof that the student-athlete is in good academic standing and meeting progress-toward degree at the new school. The transfer must occur within or immediately after the academic year after learning of the injury or illness, and the guideline requires the new school be within 100 miles of the immediate family member.

Previously in such cases, the new school had to provide written documentation from the family member’s treating professional; contemporaneous medical documentation showing how the family member was debilitated; an explanation of the student-athlete’s need to transfer; and confirmation from the athletics director and faculty athletics representative that the student-athlete would be allowed to depart the team in order to provide care for the family member.

Additionally, the council approved new guidelines for staff to follow when considering transfer waivers in cases where a student-athlete transfers to be closer to their home or support system because of their own injury or illness.

In those cases, the school must provide contemporaneous medical documentation from the student-athlete’s treating professional showing the student-athlete is debilitated and was receiving treatment before the transfer; an explanation of the student-athlete’s need to transfer and treatment plan; and a statement from the previous school’s athletics director explaining why the student-athlete indicated he or she was transferring. The student also must be in good academic standing and meeting progress-toward-degree requirements at the new school. The transfer must occur in the academic year after diagnosis, and the new school must be within 100 miles of the student-athlete’s family or support system.

Previously, staff did not have specific guidelines in such cases, but a rise in waiver requests because of a student-athlete’s own injury or illness, particularly mental health issues, prompted the membership to create the guidelines approved by the council.

 

[Huckleberry 33118]

24 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

It sucks for us fans but I believe players should not only be able to transfer without permission but they should not have to sit out a year. Yet, I still believe the transfer portal should be closed for the first two years. When a person signs a contract in the real world they have to honor it. So these players make a commitment, regardless of promises they know they have to compete for a job. They should at least honor a two year commitment. Grow up a little. Limit transfers to one for their career in college.

It is like everything in the free market. To much regulation and nothing gets done. To little and it is the early 1900's with children working, no middle class and people being shot for asking to make things better. It is human nature to cut corners for self interest at the expense of others and the right balance of rules are always needed.

Terrible. They should be allowed to move whenever they want. Do regular students have these burdensome limitations put on them? Are coaches required to sit out a year when they take a new job? Are NCAA administrators locked down for two years even if a better job comes calling? You know the answer to all those questions. The only way I can see requiring anything of players is if schools guarantee multi-year scholarships. If a player has a guaranteed multi-year scholarship then we can start discussing the concept of an adult signing a contract that entails a multi-year commitment. What you're suggesting is the same thing that exists now where all the power is with the school that is raking in money hand over fist. They are under no obligation to renew a player's scholarship but the player is obligated to stay there or suffer consequences associated with changing schools. It's bullshit.

5 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

You must have grown up in the days of Charles Haley, Deon Sanders and Terrell Owens and not the days of Randy White, Drew Pearson and Tony Dorset. On one hand we got players that put us over the top via free agency. On the other we lost knowing the great ones would only be on one team and be only ours. For, the players it was great and well deserved. For many of us that had to make the transition it sucked.

Tough shit, we're not the ones doing the work.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Huckleberry

[BurntOrange&White 40050]

Unlimited transfers for underclassmen.  All transfers sit a year to become eligible.  4 years of playing eligibility period. No more 5 to play 4.  
That would cut down on transfers as a move would require a commitment, and should give the student a year to acclimate academically to his new environment 

I wouldn’t mind that but with a rule stating they had to be on campus say 2 or 3 years.

[DanTheHorn 4969]

21 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Terrible. They should be allowed to move whenever they want. Do regular students have these burdensome limitations put on them? Are coaches required to sit out a year when they take a new job? Are NCAA administrators locked down for two years even if a better job comes calling? You know the answer to all those questions. The only way I can see requiring anything of players is if schools guarantee multi-year scholarships. If a player has a guaranteed multi-year scholarship then we can start discussing the concept of an adult signing a contract that entails a multi-year commitment. What you're suggesting is the same thing that exists now where all the power is with the school that is raking in money hand over fist. They are under no obligation to renew a player's scholarship but the player is obligated to stay there or suffer consequences associated with changing schools. It's bullshit.

Tough shit, we're not the ones doing the work.

Did I not say the players deserve it? Did I not say the players are the ones putting in the work? How some of us feel about it does not change. It does not mean we do not root for a better environment for the players. It is bullshit to have a complete free market without any rules. Students that transfer must watch their hours otherwise if they take to many to graduate they have to start paying out of state tuition without financial aid and most schools require they complete 50+ hours in their school to get an undergraduate degree. So yes they have rules that limit them from moving around too much.

 

On the multi year scholarship is one area we can agree on completely.

Edited June 26, 2019 by DanTheHorn

[Hurtlocker 2213]

On the fan front, I think most fans only care if there is no winning.   The vast majority of transfers are people who lost out, not first team.   

Besides who doesn't want to beat the guy who left?

 

[Huckleberry 33118]

 
On the multi year scholarship is one area we can agree on completely.

This is actually a point that most people agree on even if they start out on opposite sides of the argument. And that's why I think it should be at the forefront of the debate.

If a player does not have a guaranteed multi-year scholarship then he should have complete freedom to transfer with no forced sitting out at all. If the schools want to control a player's movement then they need to have some skin in that game. If the school didn't guarantee the scholarship for multiple years then the player should have the right to decline the following year's scholarship just like the school has the power to decline giving the scholarship for the following year. And he should then have zero restrictions on his movement.

And don't get me started on how non-scholarship players have their movement restricted. That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. The schools have made zero commitment to those players but expect loyalty and punish them if they want to move. The players need to beat that drum loudly and continuously so that the general public understands that the NCAA's and their constituents' wishes to restrict player movement have nothing to do with actual concern for the welfare of "student-athletes" and 100% to do with maintaining control and profit margins.

[El Diablo 4232]

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 1:44 PM, Pig Bellmont said:

Coaches blocking players always seemed like a dick move. 

Candi Fisher has an opinion on this.

[Beau Vine 54471]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I still confused on why transfers are a big deal, at all.  Why should they need permission to not take a scholarship the next year?   Its not like they are paid in advance or transferring mid-season or something.   Its not like regular students need to enroll the next year.

In most NCAA sports (T&F, soccer, XC, field hockey, lacrosse, etc), there have never been any restrictions on transferring.  You transfer and are eligible the next year.  It's only the money sports (football, basketball, baseball, and hockey) that you have to jump through these hoops.  If that doesn't tell you what the NCAA's motivation is here, I don't know how to help you.

[Armybrat 40938]

Wait!

Hockey is a money sport in college?

[Gene Parmesan 4016]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

In most NCAA sports (T&F, soccer, XC, field hockey, lacrosse, etc), there have never been any restrictions on transferring.  You transfer and are eligible the next year.  It's only the money sports (football, basketball, baseball, and hockey) that you have to jump through these hoops.  If that doesn't tell you what the NCAA's motivation is here, I don't know how to help you.

Even knowing that I still don't understand where the money is affected.  How is someone leaving Texas for Bama or vice versa affecting the overall money?  I get that the right player leaving can hurt a school affecting their cash flow negatively, but then that same player would help another school affecting theirs positively.  It's not like they are transferring out of the machine.

[Beau Vine 54471]

13 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Wait!

Hockey is a money sport in college?

For several schools, it's the main revenue sport.

[Armybrat 40938]

Color me informed. I wasn’t really aware of it being a big thing anywhere in the NCAA.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

31 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

In most NCAA sports (T&F, soccer, XC, field hockey, lacrosse, etc), there have never been any restrictions on transferring.  You transfer and are eligible the next year.  It's only the money sports (football, basketball, baseball, and hockey) that you have to jump through these hoops.  If that doesn't tell you what the NCAA's motivation is here, I don't know how to help you.

Well, you helped me by making my point, which was "everyone stop freaking out about kids wanting to transfer"