Major Potential Shift In NCAA Transfer Rules

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,728
Reaction score
16,033
Points
113
JimmyJamesMD posted this on the hoops board, figured I'd post here too. This would be a very bad move for the NCAA, IMO. It would create a massive flood of transfers every year and would shift the paradigm in recruiting to transfers as the power source for many programs.

per the link:

In a potentially paradigm-shifting proposal, the NCAA members may vote to allow all Division-I transfers to be eligible to play immediately. The only potential restrictions are that student-athletes would be asked to meet a minimum GPA, in order to transfer immediately, and that any additional transfer would require the student-athletes to sit out a full year. The proposal, which is being solicited among members for feedback, is gaining increased traction in recent weeks, a source confirms.

In April, a 19-person task force comprised of commissioners, athletic directors, coaches, and student-athletes initially assembled under the name of Division I Transfer Working Group. Their mission was to bring a fresh approach to the often publicly maligned transfer process. Although earlier groups had been formed in prior years under similar missions, the Transfer Working Group was given more data, while also tasked with the goal of trying to create uniformity within the transfer process.

By late June, the Transfer Working Group made progress on creating uniformity in transfer rules. They contemplated two polar-opposite options: the first was to require every student-athlete to sit out a year, while the second option was to enable every student-athlete to be immediately eligible upon transferring to a new school, as long as they achieved a minimum GPA designed to lead the student-athlete ultimately to graduate.

http://kansas.247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121

Go Gophers!!
 

Wouldn't this effectively increase the amount of crooting you have to do... both internal and external?
 

Maybe it gets to this eventually but seems a long way off. Imagine they would face universal opposition from coaches.
 


I'm okay with it. Transfer and play is already the norm in some NCAA sports-volleyball for example. I suppose, as usual, football would be the most problematic.
 


I'm not a fan of this unless there is a coaching change. If your coach leaves or is fired, you should be allowed to transfer and play immediately.
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Wouldn't this effectively increase the amount of crooting you have to do... both internal and external?
Click to expand...
You wouldn't be able to recruit guys on other teams roster, but if you star you might be more willing to put yourself on the market so to speak
 




salzie said:
You wouldn't be able to recruit guys on other teams roster, but if you star you might be more willing to put yourself on the market so to speak
Click to expand...

I can see Saban "suggesting" that player "A" goes to some other cozy situation and get a couple years under his/her belt (gotta be PC) and then he'll have a spot open. Or he won't, depending on whomever else he "promised" a spot.
 

IMHO, a bad move for program stability of schools like MN.
 


Unregistered User said:
I can see Saban "suggesting" that player "A" goes to some other cozy situation and get a couple years under his/her belt (gotta be PC) and then he'll have a spot open. Or he won't, depending on whomever else he "promised" a spot.
Click to expand...

And man nobody would ever send them to an opponent or anything ... where they might learn plays or schemes or QB checkdowns or such....
 



In every other sport, except basketball and hockey (I think), players are free to transfer once and become eligible immediately.

That should be the rule.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
In every other sport, except basketball and hockey (I think), players are free to transfer once and become eligible immediately.

That should be the rule.
Click to expand...

Football, basketball, hockey.... trying to think of what other sports there even are...
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
In every other sport, except basketball and hockey (I think), players are free to transfer once and become eligible immediately.

That should be the rule.
Click to expand...

I think that the current system is terribly unfair to the players so I'm definitely okay with this.
I just hope we have PJ when this rule goes into effect.
 

There are unintended consequences all over the place with this. Time to pump the brakes and have a long and unemotional comment and review period.
 

Welcome to America, baby! Land of the brave and home of the free to go and do what you want to do.

I highly welcome the proposed change.
 

Holy ****...this would devastate the parity of college athletics IMO. Top schools in hoops and football could raid other teams to fill holes on their roster every season. I agree that if a coach leaves/gets fired that players should be able to transfer with no requirement to sit a year but if this passes, college sports is headed down a dangerous path.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Speaking of transfers, I see where Gaelin Elmore is listed as 2nd string at East Carolina and didn't record a stat in a 20 point loss to James Madison. He is eligible to play right away right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Some Day...Maybe said:
Speaking of transfers, I see where Gaelin Elmore is listed as 2nd string at East Carolina and didn't record a stat in a 20 point loss to James Madison. He is eligible to play right away right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes
 

Athletes don't want to transfer unless they have a reason to do so. Coaches make or imply a lot of things when prospects are being recruited and have no obligation to follow through. This would help force coaches to be more honest with players.
Of course, there could be the occasional situation where a player does well early in his college career at a mid-level program and transfers to a powerhouse, but I think it would still be less common.
One thing is for certain, it will complicate things for coaching staffs.
 

KillerGopherFan said:
Athletes don't want to transfer unless they have a reason to do so. Coaches make or imply a lot of things when prospects are being recruited and have no obligation to follow through. This would help force coaches to be more honest with players.
Of course, there could be the occasional situation where a player does well early in his college career at a mid-level program and transfers to a powerhouse, but I think it would still be less common.
One thing is for certain, it will complicate things for coaching staffs.
Click to expand...

I have a hunch the $EC could come up with some reasons for all sorts of guys to transfer "back home." I think the NCAA should go in the other direction and close the grad-transfer loophole...make it easier for parity to be achieved. The only transfer rule that I think is currently too harsh, and should be removed, is the asinine rule where coaches can dictate where a kid can transfer to (and get a scholarship). That's just spiteful and mean.
 

GopherHomer said:
I have a hunch the $EC could come up with some reasons for all sorts of guys to transfer "back home." I think the NCAA should go in the other direction and close the grad-transfer loophole...make it easier for parity to be achieved. The only transfer rule that I think is currently too harsh, and should be removed, is the asinine rule where coaches can dictate where a kid can transfer to (and get a scholarship). That's just spiteful and mean.
Click to expand...

I disagree with first part and agree to second part. Students should have a choice, if they end up in a school and find situation toxic or otherwise not what they expected, they should be able to move on

I think there would be an uptick in transfers, but not an epidemic that would bring down sports.
 

I've always thought there could be some middle ground. Still have some restrictions but give them some freedom as well. Make scholarships 2 year contracts. After the 2 years are over, the school can decide not to renew the scholarship and the player can transfer without sitting out. If player transfers after 1 year, he must sit out like it is now.
 

Some Day...Maybe said:
Speaking of transfers, I see where Gaelin Elmore is listed as 2nd string at East Carolina and didn't record a stat in a 20 point loss to James Madison. He is eligible to play right away right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

One of the papers included a note that Elmore started last week while also mentioning he didn't record a stat. Don't know if they were right.
 

Slim Tubby said:
Holy ****...this would devastate the parity of college athletics IMO. Top schools in hoops and football could raid other teams to fill holes on their roster every season. I agree that if a coach leaves/gets fired that players should be able to transfer with no requirement to sit a year but if this passes, college sports is headed down a dangerous path.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment that a player should be able to transfer if the coach leaves. But that has the potential to devastate a program through no fault of its own.
 

As someone who is intimately up close and personally familiar with the transfer rules, I would welcome this suggested change. Players who have graduated and have remaining eligibility are already immediately eligible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

The change would be a bonanza for the power schools. You recruit a few high school guys, but if you can cherry pick the quality players on the lesser teams, why waste your time on high school kids that may or may not pan out. And while I am sure recruiting other teams players would be against the rules, it would be a paper rule only. With the connection the players have to each other and social media mediums, there is no need for a coach to "recruit" anyone from another team.

As to whether it is fair to the players or not, I can see the argument both ways, but the argument that they should have the same freedom of movement as regular students is ignoring reality. Scholarship athletes in revenue sports already operate under different standards than regular students. They receive extra benefits, including an entirely different set of admission standards, holding them to extra rules, like transfer restrictions is part of that package.

And finally is it good for the student athlete? For some, absolutely. For many maybe not. If a rule such as being proposed results in the blow to competitive balance that many suspect it would, it could very well be the straw that broke the camels back. Many lesser schools already don't make money playing football or basketball and turning them into feeder schools for the power schools is not exactly going to be a benefit to an already eroding market of people attending college sporting events. If more schools go the way of UAB, the thousands of full rides through out FBS and D-1 sports will inevitably decrease as lower level schools drop programs or move down in level of play. It is the same argument that can be made of paying players. The very best benefit from these rules. The collective, not so much. I am fine with that as long as we honestly recognize that as a real possibility.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom