Transfer Portal

MNVCGUY

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
9,101
Reaction score
1,845
Points
113
Maybe it has already been discussed but does anyone know why the WR that is transferring in (Wright) doesn't show immediate eligibility next to his name the way the other three transfers do? Is there any concern about him not being eligible for 2021?
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
1,455
Points
113
Maybe it has already been discussed but does anyone know why the WR that is transferring in (Wright) doesn't show immediate eligibility next to his name the way the other three transfers do? Is there any concern about him not being eligible for 2021?
Grad transfer vs not?
 

btowngopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
480
Points
83
Maybe it has already been discussed but does anyone know why the WR that is transferring in (Wright) doesn't show immediate eligibility next to his name the way the other three transfers do? Is there any concern about him not being eligible for 2021?
I thought everyone can play right away this year.
 

MNVCGUY

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
9,101
Reaction score
1,845
Points
113
I thought everyone can play right away this year.
Thought that was the case as well and maybe it is. But for whatever reason he doesn't show as being immediately eligible on 247. Whether or not that is accurate, I have no idea.
 

hungan1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
10,218
Reaction score
936
Points
113
Maybe it has already been discussed but does anyone know why the WR that is transferring in (Wright) doesn't show immediate eligibility next to his name the way the other three transfers do? Is there any concern about him not being eligible for 2021?
Are there transfer requirements issues?
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,601
Reaction score
271
Points
83
Thought that was the case as well and maybe it is. But for whatever reason he doesn't show as being immediately eligible on 247. Whether or not that is accurate, I have no idea.
I think people were assuming the one-time transfer rule would pass, but it has not yet. It was tabled yesterday. It was supposed to pass in January of 2020, but was postponed. Then supposed to pass in April and COVID hit. Was suppose to pass in November and delayed. Was supposed to be voted on this week, but was tabled. For some background:

 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
20,070
Reaction score
4,319
Points
113
I think people were assuming the one-time transfer rule would pass, but it has not yet. It was tabled yesterday. It was supposed to pass in January of 2020, but was postponed. Then supposed to pass in April and COVID hit. Was suppose to pass in November and delayed. Was supposed to be voted on this week, but was tabled. For some background:

Thanks for sharing this.

Lot of good stuff here:

Name, image and likeness legislation had been expected for months to pass this week. However, in light of a letter sent from the Justice Department to NCAA president Mark Emmert on Friday, and due to a high-profile NCAA case expected to be heard later this year by the Supreme Court, the council opted not to push forth the legislation for a vote later this week by the NCAA's Board of Directors.

The transfer legislation would have allowed first-time transfers across all NCAA sports immediate eligibility. Last fall, the NCAA approved the measures for a vote at this week's NCAA convention, but because the transfer initiative is seen as something inherently tied to name, image and likeness benefits, it too has been pushed back. The Justice Department's letter also referenced the transfer issue.

"We believe, as courts have regularly held, that our current amateurism and other rules are indeed fully compliant [with federal antitrust law]," Emmert wrote in a response letter to the Justice Department obtained by the New York Times. "Whenever we consider revisions to the rules, however, we of course receive input from many interested parties, and we welcome your invitation to consult with the department so that we can hear and fully understand its views as well."

There is no timetable as to when the NCAA Council will opt to bring these issues back up for discussion and approval, but sources indicated to CBS Sports that the goal is to enact this legislation in 2021. The Supreme Court's hearing of Alston v. NCAA is expected to happen by the late spring or early summer, according to CBS Sports' Dennis Dodd. Looming legislation at the federal level tied to college athlete benefits could drastically impact the NCAA's model on amateurism if the federal government allows college players to gain rights well beyond anything the NCAA has allowed since its inception in 1906.

"There's been a lot of rumblings behind the scenes that the NCAA shouldn't do anything on NIL until the Supreme Court rules," one league commissioner told CBS Sports last week. "The thinking being: Why would we go out and set policies and procedures when the Supreme Court hasn't
ruled on [the case]? Let's hear what they determine and develop policies based on how they rule."



So as it applies to TA&M transfer Wright, here is a wild guess: he hasn't applied for a waiver yet, because they were waiting to see if the NCAA would pass new legislation. But that obviously isn't going through for a while.

If that's correct, then I think they'll just start applying for a waiver to be eligible to play in the 2021 season. The NCAA has said it will approve all such waivers in a blanket manner, and there is no reason to think it won't. It would be his first transfer.

In the meantime, I would assume he can enroll here this spring semester, be on scholarship, and fully participate in team activities like strength training, meetings, and practices.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
20,070
Reaction score
4,319
Points
113
You have US senators wanting to push a "student-athlete bill of rights" that covers both NIL and transfers.

And you have the Alston case, which could blow the NCAA wide open, depending how the judge rules and how the appeals go, perhaps all the way to the SC. This will probably cover beyond just NIL and get into the territory of schools directly paying athletes as employees.

Makes complete sense for the NCAA to just hold off passing any new language, until those things play out.
 
Top Bottom