NCAA Looking at Changing Transfer Rules

[triangletiger 1,599]

Thoughts?

Quote

If it happens, the next Antwuan Jackson Jr. won't have to transfer from Auburn to a junior college because Gus Malzahn won't be able to prevent him from going on scholarship at any four-year school of his choice.

If it happens, the next Maurice Smith won't have to wage a PR campaign to get Nick Saban to back down and allow him to transfer to Georgia.

If it happens, it'll be one small step for student-athlete welfare, one giant leap for sanity and fairness in major college football and basketball.

Make it happen, NCAA. Make it happen.

The NCAA Division I Council Transfer Working Group is working toward that end. It's asked the membership for feedback on a number of major potential changes to the transfer rules. The most common-sense of those changes would end the punitive practice of coaches and schools blocking players from transferring to certain opponents, such as those in the same conference or on an upcoming schedule.

Seven-figure coaches have enough perks. They should no longer be given handcuffs to shackle their players as they please.

Currently, a student-athlete has to request that his current school allow him permission to have contact with another school about a potential transfer. If his current school denies that permission, the student-athlete still can transfer to that school but can't receive athletics-related financial aid for one year.

In short, you can transfer anywhere you like, but you might have to pay your own way for a year. It's an unconscionable financial burden for a coach who makes millions to place on a student-athlete.

According to Jackson, Malzahn and Auburn blocked him from going on scholarship for a year at any other SEC school, any school on this year's schedule and Ohio State. Jackson is transferring instead to Blinn College in Texas.

A juco year at Blinn didn't hurt Cam Newton before he won the Heisman and led Auburn to a national title, but it wasn't Jackson's first choice.

As Smith said at the time, Saban and Alabama originally blocked his graduate transfer to Georgia last summer. Smith and his family went public, Saban relented and the defensive back played his final college season in 2016 for the Bulldogs. His pick-six helped Georgia beat Auburn, which secured the SEC West title for Alabama.

Those two situations added local attention to the growing national outrage against one-sided permission-to-contact rules governing transfers, which allow schools to hold student-athletes hostage financially. The NCAA Working Group wisely disagrees with that concept.

"Group members believe financial aid should not be tied to whether a school grants permission to contact," an NCAA press release said. "They want to know if others in the membership feel the same way."

Let's hope they do.

The Working Group also is seeking feedback from the membership on other concepts, such as:

• Institute a national transfer policy and don't allow individual conferences to adopt their own more-restrictive transfer rules;
• Have all transfers abide by the same rules regardless of sport;
• Have all transfers sit out a year of competition at their new schools or, if they meet certain academic standards, allow them to play right away;
• Have a graduate transfer count against a school's scholarship limit for two years even if the transfer plays only one season;
• Apply APR standards to graduate transfers;
• Stiffen the penalties for coaches who recruit players to transfer from other schools.

Specific new proposals could come as early as the fall and could be approved as early as next April. The most needed change would be to stop allowing coaches to keep a player from transferring to the school of his choice.

If it happens, it would help correct the terrible imbalance that's allowed coaches to change schools when and where they please while giving them unwarranted power over player movement.

If it happens, it would be long overdue.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/06/thank_goodness_the_ncaas_movin.html#incart_river_index

[AUatHeart 624]

If this goes through, that's the end of college football as we know it.  It will be free agency and the NCAA will be the junior version of the NFL.  Just my thoughts about it.

[triangletiger 1,599]

A player still has to sit out a year, so that offers some deterrent to it being a free-for-all. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

7 minutes ago, AUatHeart said:

If this goes through, that's the end of college football as we know it.  It will be free agency and the NCAA will be the junior version of the NFL.  Just my thoughts about it.

This seems like a little bit of hyperbole to me. It's not like kids aren't already able to transfer to most schools, and this doesn't change that you still have to sit out a year. 

Maybe someone like @ellitor or @WarDamnEagleWDE can help me, because I don't know the answer to this question, but generally speaking, how often are restrictions placed upon players, and when they are how many teams are they generally restricted from transferring to? Because, the above article is talking about a restriction to ONE school. How much different is it when you remove the restriction? If at all?

edit: Maurice Smith was only restricted form transferring to one school. Obviously, Jackson was restricted from transferring to many, many more than that. 

I do think there should at least be limits. What Malzahn allegedly did is excessive and unreasonable. 

[oracle79 3,569]

Cry me a river.  Pay your way and you can play anywhere you want to right?  Actions? Consequences? Out the window which is about par for the course today.

[Barnacle 9,064]

7 minutes ago, oracle79 said:

Cry me a river.  Pay your way and you can play anywhere you want to right?  Actions? Consequences? Out the window which is about par for the course today.

Except sometimes it isn't about "actions" that lead to "consequences." Sometimes things don't work out, for any number of reasons that don't have anything to do with a player's misconduct. And, there are consequences already - you can't transfer without sitting out a full year. That's a consequence of transferring. 

If coaches can restrict transfers, they need to be reasonable. A coach shouldn't be able to apply restrictions carte blanche. 

[AU64 10,122]

1 minute ago, Barnacle said:

Except sometimes it isn't about "actions" that lead to "consequences." Sometimes things don't work out, for any number of reasons that don't have anything to do with misconduct. And, there are consequences already - you can't transfer without sitting out a full year. That's a consequence of transferring. 

If coaches can restrict transfers, they need to be reasonable. A coach shouldn't be able to apply restrictions carte blanche. 

Agree...hard for me to believe that schools would be abused by the change...they treat the players like indentured servants and yet somehow can always manage to find a way to push out a guy they don't want.   The system is heavily slanted to the benefit of the schools and coaches IMO.  The one year sit out period is reasonable and looks like that is not going away.

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,297]

Crybabies. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

4 minutes ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

Crybabies. 

Other than your unjustified position that players are just whining, what is your justification for allowing coaches unlimited power to restrict player transfers? At what point would your position change? Should a coach be able to restrict transfer to all D1 programs? 

[WarTim 3,456]

The west vance wee man will veto and demand his best Buddy @ NCAA make it stick. ?

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,297]

27 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Other than your unjustified position that players are just whining, what is your justification for allowing coaches unlimited power to restrict player transfers? At what point would your position change? Should a coach be able to restrict transfer to all D1 programs? 

They are whining. The average student can't just demand a relocation with continuing financial aid to wherever they see fit. I've got $100k in student loans and am in the medical field. Just because I can't throw or catch a tightly wound ball of rubber bands and leather as well as the next guy I'm stuck with the debt. Forgive me for not feeling sympathy for some of these guys. Especially ones that, by most accounts, didn't put in the effort for greatness.

As for the coaches- they get paid handily to protect the program. Better believe that Luke Walton doesn't want his Lakers to have to play the Warriors for the next 5 years, but there isn't $h_& he can do about it. Good for the coaches who do what they are ALLOWED to do to help themselves. If players sign a contract and doesn't do well at the school they've selected, they can go back to Blinn College and try again in a year. 

 

Now, in the instance of Jay Prosch or any one with LEGITIMATE family reasons, I say you review the transfer and make exceptions. But Pandora suggests you not open this box.

[DAG 33,982]

I really don't have any issue with these proposals. Seems like they want one national standard for all. There would still be restrictions with transfers .

[DAG 33,982]

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

This seems like a little bit of hyperbole to me. It's not like kids aren't already able to transfer to most schools, and this doesn't change that you still have to sit out a year. 

Maybe someone like @ellitor or @WarDamnEagleWDE can help me, because I don't know the answer to this question, but generally speaking, how often are restrictions placed upon players, and when they are how many teams are they generally restricted from transferring to? Because, the above article is talking about a restriction to ONE school. How much different is it when you remove the restriction? If at all?

edit: Maurice Smith was only restricted form transferring to one school. Obviously, Jackson was restricted from transferring to many, many more than that. 

I do think there should at least be limits. What Malzahn allegedly did is excessive and unreasonable. 

Only thing CGM did that could be excessive was the left field blocking of tOSU. Players should absolutely have to sit out a year for transferring to another school within a conference , on the schedule or not . Just my 02 cents .

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,297]

5 minutes ago, DAG said:

Only thing CGM did that could be excessive was the left field blocking of tOSU. Players should absolutely have to sit out a year for transferring to another school within a conference , on the schedule or not . Just my 02 cents .

Yep. Unless Urban was playing dirty. But Gus wouldn't say that, so this is the best he can do.

[Barnacle 9,064]

26 minutes ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

They are whining. The average student can't just demand a relocation with continuing financial aid to wherever they see fit. I've got $100k in student loans and am in the medical field. Just because I can't throw or catch a tightly wound ball of rubber bands and leather as well as the next guy I'm stuck with the debt. Forgive me for not feeling sympathy for some of these guys. Especially ones that, by most accounts, didn't put in the effort for greatness.

Yes, the average student who receives an offer of scholarship from another school, can absolutely transfer at will and accept the scholarship money. They aren't (so far as I know) demanding that the current school pay for their costs at the transfer school. The transfer school is offering to pay costs, and students are being prevented from accepting them. Of course the average student can't demand a scholarship - they haven't been offered one. 

The reason you have $100k in debt isn't because you couldn't play football. We all know plenty of people who went to school on full scholarships for a variety of curricular and extra curricular qualifications. So, if you aren't one of those people, then you can in no way apply this scenario to yours.

Let's say you did receive a full academic scholarship in a science, and communicated with another school about the possibility of transferring. They just received a research grant in your area of interest, and they want to offer you a full scholarship to attend their school. You think this is the best school for your situation, and so you request a transfer. Your current institution responds by restricting you from receiving any financial aid at the new school, and a number of other competing schools. That's the analogy. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

7 minutes ago, DAG said:

Only thing CGM did that could be excessive was the left field blocking of tOSU. Players should absolutely have to sit out a year for transferring to another school within a conference , on the schedule or not . Just my 02 cents .

I agree about the one season. Taking it away would create free agency in college football. Have to keep the one year restriction, but I do not like the idea that coaches can restrict kids from going to any school that they please.

Unless the restriction is built into their original scholarship, outlining which schools they may and may not transfer to (similar to a non-compete agreement), then I don't think they should be allowed. 

[AU64 10,122]

And yet..any college athlete other than football or basketball can transfer pretty much at will without even sitting out a year.   JMO..but NCAA was probably expecting to lose a lawsuit on this issue and is trying to get ahead of a judgment.

[ellitor 33,092]

2 hours ago, Barnacle said:

how often are restrictions placed upon players, and when they are how many teams are they generally restricted from transferring to? Because, the above article is talking about a restriction to ONE school. How much different is it when you remove the restriction? If at all?

1. Most of the time. 2. Usually restricted from transferring to any team in the same conference. 3. The difference is as the rule is now, when a school restricts a transfer an athlete transferring to a restricted school has to pay their own way the 1st year at the restricted school & not play in year 1 of the transfer. With the new rule the athlete still has to sit out a year when transferring to a restricted school but the restricted rule can place the athlete on scholly immediately.

2 hours ago, Barnacle said:

What Malzahn allegedly did is excessive and unreasonable. 

No it's not. It's par for the course. Also given AJ was lazy in the weight room & practice Gus was well within his rights to place restriction instead of give the kid a free pass out.

[Barnacle 9,064]

1 minute ago, ellitor said:

1. Most of the time. 2. Usually restricted from transferring to any team in the same conference. 3. The difference is as the rule is now, when a school restricts a transfer an athlete transferring to a restricted school has to pay their own way the 1st year at the restricted school & not play in year 1 of the transfer. With the new rule the athlete still has to sit out a year when transferring to a restricted school but the restricted rule can place the athlete on scholly immediately.

No it's not. It's par for the course. Also given AJ was lazy in the weight room & practice Gus was well within his rights to place restriction instead of give the kid a free pass out.

Just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Just because it's par for the course doesn't make it kosher. 

[ellitor 33,092]

1 hour ago, DAG said:

Only thing CGM did that could be excessive was the left field blocking of tOSU. Players should absolutely have to sit out a year for transferring to another school within a conference , on the schedule or not . Just my 02 cents .

They have to sit anyway. The restrictions only decides if the family pays for year 1 at the new school or the new school pay for it via scholly.

[ellitor 33,092]

8 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Just because it's par for the course doesn't make it kosher. 

The staff spent countless hours and money recruiting him & getting him to AU. For him to repay that by wanting to be lazy & quit on the team should not be rewarded with a free pass out. Also the coaches signed the kid with the idea that he'll be a piece that will play a role on his roster. This isn't the pros where they can just replace the kid before the year starts. There is now a hole in the roster with no possibility of filling it. Kid made the decision to go to Auburn. If he wants out, there are/should be consequences.

[ellitor 33,092]

52 minutes ago, AU64 said:

And yet..any college athlete other than football or basketball can transfer pretty much at will without even sitting out a year.

Baseball transfers have to sit also.

[Barnacle 9,064]

Just now, ellitor said:

You think a lazy kid deserves a free pass out after quitting on the team & program? The staff spent countless hours and money recruiting him & getting him to AU. For him to repay that by wanting to be lazy & quit on the team should not be rewarded with a free pass out. Also the coaches signed the kid with the idea that he'll be a piece that will play a role on his roster. This isn't the pros where they can just replace the kid before the year starts. There is now a hole in the roster with no possibility of filling it. Kid made the decision to go to Auburn. If he wants out, there are/should be consequences.

What any of us think that he deserves isn't relevant. The rule doesn't differentiate between "lazy players" and "other players." You can't evaluate these transfers on a case by case basis in order to determine which players "deserve punishment" and which ones don't. Justifying these restrictions based upon whether a kid is subjectively lazy is what's known as the exception that swallows the rule. As it stands, when a player is seeking transfer for a legitimate reason, of which there are many, the coach can still apply similar restrictions at will, or out of spite. That's wrong. 

If the SEC wants to put these restrictions into scholarship offers up front - making it clear and explicit that such a restriction applies to other SEC schools before the kids sign the dotted line - I can live with that, but this whole cherry picking business is excessive. Going out of conference is excessive. 

These kids still have to sit out for a year. They have to spend a year not playing football - or else play in junior college. The rule allows far too much latitude to coaches to abuse their authority. 

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,297]

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

The reason you have $100k in debt isn't because you couldn't play football. We all know plenty of people who went to school on full scholarships for a variety of curricular and extra curricular qualifications. So, if you aren't one of those people, then you can in no way apply this scenario to yours.

I agree, but this is why I think they are whining, which is the respond I had for which you said had no reason. They (often) aren't appreciating the opportunity they have to get an education for being athletic. Most of the time, in my opinion, there is very little tangible return to society for their gift unlike those of us who go to school for the education.

 

I'm also the son of a teacher, so sport salaries is already a sore subject for me when military, police/fire, and teachers get paid crap. I lump this in with that. Take your free education and be grateful for it.

[DAG 33,982]

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

I agree about the one season. Taking it away would create free agency in college football. Have to keep the one year restriction, but I do not like the idea that coaches can restrict kids from going to any school that they please.

Unless the restriction is built into their original scholarship, outlining which schools they may and may not transfer to (similar to a non-compete agreement), then I don't think they should be allowed. 

You know what?! I do agree with you to an extent. I think for all conferences, a player should have to sit out if they are transferring to another school within that same conference no matter what. I also think they should have to sit out a year if they transfer to a school who is on their previous team upcoming schedule. That is probably as far as it should go for me.