Transfer Rules Change

#1
Michigan
"In cases where an athlete was run off by a coach or essentially had their scholarship pulled for non-disciplinary reasons, the NCAA will require a written statement from the athletics director at the previous school stating whether the athlete would not have had an opportunity to return to the team. The committee is being instructed to deny cases where the athlete can’t document that they’ve been run off. "

Great /s

NCAA putting rules in place to encourage lying. To me, this says they don't have a plan. There will be some comical statements from ADs in the future --book it
 
#2
South Carolina
Can you explain to me why this would encourage lying anymore than the current system?
 
#3
Paducah, Ky
Can there actually any more lying done........It's a cesspool....24/7/365 cesspool......

5M2dXY8.gif


live long and prosper......
 
#4
Michigan
Can you explain to me why this would encourage lying anymore than the current system?
My first reaction is that it would be Mark Smith x 100. If a program/coach doesn't support a kid transferring, it will have a hard time recruiting in the future. Top coaches are far more valuable than ADs, so the pressure will be quite high to sign off.
 
#5
Little Rock, Arkansas
It’s the AD of the departing school that has to make the statement right?

So if the kid wants to transfer to a school that will allow said player to be a detriment to the school he left (like an annual rival or conference foe), I can see ADs saying “Oh no, he was definitely going to get playing time here” that way the player can’t play the next season.

In cases where the player transfers to a school of no consequence, I don’t think ADs will care.

Unless this creates a market for under the table payments? Like ADs come together and say “If you write the statement that grants immediate eligibility, I’ll send $100K to your scholarship fund” or something like that.

It still makes things subjective and allows for too much wiggle room or unfairness.

Once again, I have the solution to this problem. It’s fair, allows for immediate eligibility but still has the consequences the NCAA craves.
 
#7
Unless this creates a market for under the table payments? Like ADs come together and say “If you write the statement that grants immediate eligibility, I’ll send $100K to your scholarship fund” or something like that.
I'd be less concerned about under the table payments and more concerned about backroom quid pro quo arrangements that essentially allow for trading of players. "I'll sign off on the point guard if you send me a big man or a quarterback."
 
Likes: Hoppy2105
#8
If what you want is a simple, reliable, predictable, pro-player process, it's very easy:

Any player who leaves for ANY reason before EITHER exhausting their eligibility OR graduating will have their scholarship counted against the team total for the following season.

Creaning collapses overnight. Instead of coaches having leverage to chase players away, players have leverage to threaten to quit.
 
#9
This will create a clear line between schools whose AD will play ball (i.e. support the coaches' creaning strategy to always bring in max-classes), and AD's who don't. The number of letters sent to the NCAA in support of athletes who transfer will become a resume line to show how supportive they are of attracting promising kids, and in helping the transition out for those who don't meet expectations.
 
#10
If what you want is a simple, reliable, predictable, pro-player process, it's very easy:

Any player who leaves for ANY reason before EITHER exhausting their eligibility OR graduating will have their scholarship counted against the team total for the following season.

Creaning collapses overnight. Instead of coaches having leverage to chase players away, players have leverage to threaten to quit.
That's certainly pro-player, but I'm not so sure how simple or predictable it is. The whole team could threaten to leave en masse to try to influence hiring/firing decisions or school disciplinary matters pertaining to a player. Heck, they could try to influence school policy, or even test their influence on a broader stage, such as the political process if they felt their cause was worthy.
 
Likes: RickBB
#11

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
If what you want is a simple, reliable, predictable, pro-player process, it's very easy:

Any player who leaves for ANY reason before EITHER exhausting their eligibility OR graduating will have their scholarship counted against the team total for the following season.

Creaning collapses overnight. Instead of coaches having leverage to chase players away, players have leverage to threaten to quit.
Just curious, but does this come with the option for the school to not allow a player to leave? Because if not, it radically changes the balance.
 
#12
it radically changes the balance.
That's kinda the idea.

The whole team could threaten to leave en masse to try to influence hiring/firing decisions
They can do that now. They can do all the things you mention now. Maybe that threat should seem a little more real.

In general, the players just want to develop their abilities, get playing time, take their shot at making it to the pros, and win as much as possible on the way there. They're the good guys in this whole tale, but they seldom get treated like it.
 
#13
Little Rock, Arkansas
That's kinda the idea.



They can do that now. They can do all the things you mention now. Maybe that threat should seem a little more real.

In general, the players just want to develop their abilities, get playing time, take their shot at making it to the pros, and win as much as possible on the way there. They're the good guys in this whole tale, but they seldom get treated like it.
What about the kids who simply want to leave and the school supports them and they aren’t being chased out? The school shouldn’t have to take a hit because it helped a player get closer to home or find a situation where they feel more comfortable.
 
#14
The school shouldn’t have to take a hit because it helped a player get closer to home or find a situation where they feel more comfortable.

Might do everyone a bit of good if these marriages were treated a bit more seriously. Two parties investing a 4-5 year commitment in one another.

It would also make the recruiting strategy of the Duke's and Kentucky's nonviable.

It's not perfect, there would still be problems, but things would err on the side of stability and a genuine commitment to providing a fulfilling college experience for the player, opposite to now.
 
#15
Little Rock, Arkansas
Might do everyone a bit of good if these marriages were treated a bit more seriously. Two parties investing a 4-5 year commitment in one another.

It would also make the recruiting strategy of the Duke's and Kentucky's nonviable.

It's not perfect, there would still be problems, but things would err on the side of stability and a genuine commitment to providing a fulfilling college experience for the player, opposite to now.
That would be great if everyone got on board and treated the commitments like you say they should. (Oh what a world that would be!)

Unfortunately, what your idea does is take all the power and give it to the students. Currently, all (or the vast majority) of the power is with the schools/coaches, so that’s not good either, but knee jerking all the way to the other side would simply create a host of different issues, subjectively stupid waiver approvals, and the grinding of our collective gears.

Can you imagine during a coaching change, when 10 dudes decide to transfer out, Illinois has to go into the next year with only 75 scholarships to offer? What if 59 are already accounted for and our first class can only be 16 players? Then the normal 3-5 players leave each year after that? It would be very tough to win or build a program under those circumstances. (And we, especially, need NO handicapps)

It feels like this hypothetical just goes too far the other way. IMO ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
#16

Deleted member 643761

D
Guest
Might do everyone a bit of good if these marriages were treated a bit more seriously. Two parties investing a 4-5 year commitment in one another.

It would also make the recruiting strategy of the Duke's and Kentucky's nonviable.

It's not perfect, there would still be problems, but things would err on the side of stability and a genuine commitment to providing a fulfilling college experience for the player, opposite to now.
You want the players to take the commitment more seriously but punish a school that isn't pushing them out the door and in fact wants them to stay.

Jcl and myke Henry come to mind.
 
#17
They can do that now. They can do all the things you mention now. Maybe that threat should seem a little more real.

In general, the players just want to develop their abilities, get playing time, take their shot at making it to the pros, and win as much as possible on the way there. They're the good guys in this whole tale, but they seldom get treated like it.
Yes, they can do that now, but what they can't do is effectively impose one of the NCAA's harshest penalties without any hearings or right to appeal. I was thinking of the "good guys" on the Minnesota football team who threatened to boycott their bowl game a few years ago unless the university reinstated all of the players involved in a sexual assault on campus.
 
Likes: CoalCity
#18
Unfortunately, what your idea does is take all the power and give it to the students. Currently, all (or the vast majority) of the power is with the schools/coaches, so that’s not good either, but knee jerking all the way to the other side would simply create a host of different issues, subjectively stupid waiver approvals, and the grinding of our collective gears.
You basically have three choices.

1. A simple, rules-based system which gives schools and coaches essentially absolute power in creating and managing their rosters. This is the historical reality of college sports.

2. A simple, rules-based system which gives players leverage against coaches and schools. This is what I'm proposing.

3. A system in which the two interests are balanced at the discretion of the NCAA. This is what is currently emerging in college sports.

The question of "is the player ditching the school or is the school ditching the player?" is a very difficult one to investigate and adjudicate even by a well-staffed, highly competent, publicly trusted and corruption-free organization. The NCAA is none of those things, and basically has no chance at all to make those decisions in a consistent, reliable, publicly acceptable way. Everybody thinks we ought to be able to do #3, and tends to support #3 in theory, but it will always be a disaster in practice and smart fans should realize that.

And as for the potential parade of horribles about a player-friendly system, there is no doubt there would be problems that make people justifiably mad, as there would be under any of the three options. But I think predictions of total chaos are a bit overblown, at least over the long term, because after whatever initial friction there was, the entire structure of the relationship between schools, coaches, and players would start to fundamentally shift. Decisions would be made based on building and maintaining player capital within the program, which IMO is how the smart programs who don't necessarily have constant access to top talent operate anyway.
 
#19
Little Rock, Arkansas
My solution is simple. It takes all decision making and gives it to the players but doesn’t punish the schools simply because the kids want to leave. It also doesn’t allow kids to hold their scholarship hostage and make demands.

The one thing it doesn’t solve is this current issue of coaches pushing players out. I’d have to think more on that.

My solution:
Every transfer is free. No sit out years. Immediately eligible no matter what.

The caveat, you pay for the transfer with a year of eligibility.

In essence, the first transfer is free because each player has 5 years to play 4. It’s the mulligan to help take care of kids who get home sick or feel they will be buried on the depth chart (whether they figured it out or the coaches told them) or even simply those that want a change of scenery.

Then each transfer after that is subject to the same rules.

So after a player’s freshman year (4 years left to play 3) he transfers and has 3 to play 3.

However, if a player gets transfer happy or isn’t taking the relationship seriously (as you stated Gritty) he will pay dearly.

After a player’s sophomore year (if they’ve transferred before) they will have 2 years to play 2. Transferring again would kill one of those valuable years left and they would be a junior at their next school with only one year left to play.

This method would deter multiple transfers and keep players at one school for long periods of time (to get the degree they are supposedly going to school for) while also making players/families think long and hard about WHY they are transferring. (Since even though they can play the following year, it does eat up a year of eligibility)

Every player is treated the same and we take the decision out of the subjective/corrupt hands of the NCAA.

Grad transfers wouldn’t have this rule as they completed their degree and have earned the free transfer.
 
#20
My solution is simple. It takes all decision making and gives it to the players but doesn’t punish the schools simply because the kids want to leave. It also doesn’t allow kids to hold their scholarship hostage and make demands.

The one thing it doesn’t solve is this current issue of coaches pushing players out. I’d have to think more on that.

My solution:
Every transfer is free. No sit out years. Immediately eligible no matter what.

The caveat, you pay for the transfer with a year of eligibility.

In essence, the first transfer is free because each player has 5 years to play 4. It’s the mulligan to help take care of kids who get home sick or feel they will be buried on the depth chart (whether they figured it out or the coaches told them) or even simply those that want a change of scenery.

Then each transfer after that is subject to the same rules.

So after a player’s freshman year (4 years left to play 3) he transfers and has 3 to play 3.

However, if a player gets transfer happy or isn’t taking the relationship seriously (as you stated Gritty) he will pay dearly.

After a player’s sophomore year (if they’ve transferred before) they will have 2 years to play 2. Transferring again would kill one of those valuable years left and they would be a junior at their next school with only one year left to play.

This method would deter multiple transfers and keep players at one school for long periods of time (to get the degree they are supposedly going to school for) while also making players/families think long and hard about WHY they are transferring. (Since even though they can play the following year, it does eat up a year of eligibility)

Every player is treated the same and we take the decision out of the subjective/corrupt hands of the NCAA.

Grad transfers wouldn’t have this rule as they completed their degree and have earned the free transfer.
Obviously this is a much, much more pro-coach, pro-school way of doing it, a subject on which reasonable people can disagree. It's actually very symmetrical with my idea in that way, you propose taking a year of scholarship away from the player, where I propose taking it from the school.

But the other issue I would see is that you are truly decoupling NCAA eligibility from anything to do with the academic and graduation calendar at that point. Guys will run out of scholarship before they've had any opportunity to finish a degree.
 
#21
Little Rock, Arkansas
Obviously this is a much, much more pro-coach, pro-school way of doing it, a subject on which reasonable people can disagree. It's actually very symmetrical with my idea in that way, you propose taking a year of scholarship away from the player, where I propose taking it from the school.

But the other issue I would see is that you are truly decoupling NCAA eligibility from anything to do with the academic and graduation calendar at that point. Guys will run out of scholarship before they've had any opportunity to finish a degree.
If they transfer multiple times, sure. But isn’t that the point? These players need to make adult decisions about their school as well their sport. The intent for them playing sports for the school is that they also go to/graduate from said school right?

What this method does is cause players to weigh the factors of a tough transfer decision with exact info. There is no ambiguity about eligibility, no “will this waiver go through”, and no “what does the NCAA think based on the team I played for or the reason for my transfer.”

Players can plan their timeline with much more certainty than now.

If a player transfers so many times that they run out of scholarship before graduating, then there is a high likelihood the “student” part of student athlete may not be a high priority.
 
Likes: Illiniwek33
#22
In fairness, not all credits transfer equally, or at all.
 
#23
If they transfer multiple times, sure.
Worth noting that this would play very differently in football than basketball because of the frequency of redshirts. The other thing you'd likely get is players refusing to leave, which might be worthwhile in Creaning situations, but less so when players have broken team rules or whatnot. And how do you resolve that anyway? What are the terms under which a player can be kicked off a team? There comes NCAA discretion creeping in through the back door again.

But I just think in general that looking at the college landscape and diagnosing the issue as a surplus of player power, and players needing to have rules and punishments imposed on them to limit their choices isn't the way I would look at it. They have the short end of the stick as it is.

(I would also note that the old system of one sit out year, no exceptions, was completely viable and working fine, and balanced these interests in a reasonable way.)
 
Last edited:
#24
I think you could get some of the NCAA and school discretion out of it by saying that any player that does not play in at least ten games and for more than 100 minutes of playing time (or some other amount that is reasonable - i.e. 15 games and 150 minutes) can transfer and not have to sit out a year. Otherwise, the current rules apply.
Doesn't solve the Creaning issue but I think that it is overstated. Sure, a kid should get to stay for 4 years as long as he does his part- show up for practice and put forth effort. But 4 years of sitting the bench is not very attractive to anyone, so if a kid isn't going to play he would probably want to go where he can get time. Most P5 kids won't have a hard time finding a good school to take them.
 
#25
Turn the 1-year renewable contracts into 2-year renewable contracts. Neither player or school can get out of it, before the term of the contract without a penalty, unless mutually agreeable. Might slow down the transfer rate a bit, which was last reported by the NCAA scholarship process committee to be at 60%.
 
Likes: mjr1987