NCAA - Immediate eligibility for transfer students? 2018?

[SSHoya]

If adopted, going into effect August 2018.

The NCAA will meet soon regarding immediate eligibility for transfers, multiple sources have informed FanRag Sports. The main point of discussion in these meetings will be that if a student athlete earns a certain GPA, he or she would be eligible to transfer immediately without a sit out year.

www.fanragsports.com/rothstein-ncaa-to-meet-soon-about-immediate-eligibility-for-transfers/

[drquigley]

I'm afraid the rich will get even richer. Kentucky need a guard? Think of all the really good guards playing on losing teams and/or mediocre conferences. SEC, Big Ten, and maybe BE will have a field day picking off top players.

[michaelgrahmstylie]

I don't like the idea. Kids are too fickle.

[kbones17]

I’m all for no waiting a year if your coach leaves/fired, or there is a special waiver event (family health, etc). But no waiting for any transfers will be an absolute sh!tshow. Basically everyone playing on one year contracts and jumping up to the bluebloods whenever they get the chance. Another odd blowback is that universities would then be incentivized to have their players not get a 2.7 gpa so they couldn’t transfer easily. I don’t think this is the answer.

[bamahoya11]

I suppose I could regret saying this, but I think it's way past time for this rule. I get that it could make the traditional programs richer, but I think it cuts both ways. A number of kids who don't get minutes at Duke, UNC, and Kentucky can transfer out and become immediate contributors elsewhere.

Bottom line, I think it's fair for the kids. A coach can leave at any time for a better job. Their classmates can leave for better opportunities if they get them (I knew a handful of classmates in undergrad who did this, and it's increasingly common in law schools). Sometimes, a college is just a bad fit for a student for any number of reasons. Sure, some kids may have an amazing year or two and then transfer "up," but as a matter of fairness I just have no problem as that. My only caveat is that kids should have only the choices their classmates do. That means you have only a limited number of transfer opportunities and must be working toward a degree while in school.

[kbones17]

Jan 14, 2018 17:01:59 GMT -5 bamahoya11 said:

I suppose I could regret saying this, but I think it's way past time for this rule. I get that it could make the traditional programs richer, but I think it cuts both ways. A number of kids who don't get minutes at Duke, UNC, and Kentucky can transfer out and become immediate contributors elsewhere.

Bottom line, I think it's fair for the kids. A coach can leave at any time for a better job. Their classmates can leave for better opportunities if they get them (I knew a handful of classmates in undergrad who did this, and it's increasingly common in law schools). Sometimes, a college is just a bad fit for a student for any number of reasons. Sure, some kids may have an amazing year or two and then transfer "up," but as a matter of fairness I just have no problem as that. My only caveat is that kids should have only the choices their classmates do. That means you have only a limited number of transfer opportunities and must be working toward a degree while in school.

I understand the spirit of your post, but I think that players do have the same ability as their classmates to transfer. They just have to wait a year to represent that new university in athletics, and they don’t lose any eligibility. As for the bluebloods, they will happily replace the players at the end of their benches for players excelling already in college ball.

[njhoya78]

How about an NCAA rule that permits scholar-athletes to transfer, without having to sit out a season, if their head coach resigns to take another coaching job or is fired?

[Deleted]

Yes, but regular students aren't going to school for free. And universities don't pay thousands of dollars to attract most individual students.

Limiting immediate transfers to coaching change situations or other significant events (whatever those are) seems reasonable.

[hoyasaxa2003]

I think this policy would be disastrous and hurt the game for a number of reasons:

(1) By allowing immediate transfers, the stronger teams will be able to "rent a player," in the sense that if they need a point guard, they'll just go poach one from a smaller or less prestigious program. We have seen it for years - a mid-major type school that has 1 or 2 guys (usually guards) who are exceptional. This would allow the high-major schools who are lacking at those positions to recruit these players.

(2) Recruiting would never end. If you allowed immediate transfer, coaches would not only be constantly recruiting for high school classes, but they would also be constantly recruiting existing players. Sure, you can put rules in place to try to prevent active recruiting during the season, but we all know that college basketball is full of shady characters who would be happy to find ways to work around the rules.

(3) High school commitments would become meaningless. If you can transfer whenever you want, then high school commitments would become meaningless. Granted, you could easily control this by forcing players who have signed a letter of intent to play one year at that school, otherwise they have to wait a year. Still, it could be a problem.

(4) The better teams would get better, and the mid-major or struggling high major teams would suffer. This is related to (1) above, but the better teams are always going to look at the worse teams for transfer targets (and better teams are less likely to lose players to transfer). This will create a perpetual cycle where the better schools take all the good players from less competitive schools.

I know we like to fashion ourselves among the high-major better schools, but right now our program is at a low point, and I could easily see a scenario where we have a good player who gets the itch to play in the NCAA tournament, so they leave. For example, take Govan or Derrickson. What if they really wanted to play in the NCAA tournament again? At Georgetown, that's not happening this year, and possibly a long-shot next year. The easy solution would be to transfer to a better team.

(5) Teams that play by the rules will be at a competitive disadvantage. JT3 ran a clean program, and and I have no doubt Ewing will do the same. If you are clean and play by the rules (i.e., you don't have handlers trying to get an ear into players at other schools during the season), you won't be able to take maximum advantage.

I realize that you get guys like Jordan Tucker who make a decision they don't like, and then they need to sit out a year. I am not necessarily opposed to relaxing the rules in instances like that where Tucker barely played any minutes - it's sort of silly to block a transfer who plays in 2 games or 10 minutes, or something of that nature. So yes, it would help some guys, but I think the overall approach is different.

You simply cannot compare academic transfer rules to sports transfer rules. The two situations are not comparable. There is no (or little) "recruiting" for academic transfers. In my experience at Georgetown, all the transfers I knew transferred because they wanted to come to Georgetown. A guy with a 3.8 GPA at X university with a great SAT/ACT isn't going to get barraged with offers or have John Calipari on the line trying to recruit him. College athletics are way different because of the recruiting aspects, pressure, and keeping a competitive balance to the game. I would add that sports transfers do get the same treatment as academic transfers, in that they can immediately go to school, they just have to wait to play basketball.

[bamahoya11]

Jan 14, 2018 17:22:57 GMT -5 @nychoya94 said:

Yes, but regular students aren't going to school for free. And universities don't pay thousands of dollars to attract most individual students.

Limiting immediate transfers to coaching change situations or other significant events (whatever those are) seems reasonable.

This is a fair point. Universities do have a lot of sunk costs in recruiting, scholarships, facilities, etc for D1 athletes. I would counter by saying that a lot of universities do spend significant figures recruiting for elite academic programs and the like.

Perhaps I would support a rule that only exempts transfers from sitting out if the coach is out or if they've been at a program at least two years. But bottom line, I think student athletes deserve more freedom to transfer. And I don't have a huge problem with folks transferring "up" if that's what they think will be in their best interests. Like I said, plenty of other students at any school will make that same decision for other reasons.

[calhoya]

Recall that athletes in sports other than football and basketball transfer all the time without sitting out. These athletes are receiving full scholarships too. Not suggesting that there should not be limits, but while the argument about the investment in the athlete is compelling, it should not be the excuse to deny rights to athletes who generate revenues for the school. Unlike the soccer player who moves freely, the basketball player at Georgetown is providing revenue through television, sales of tickets to events and sales of clothing and other gear.

I think that unlimited transfers should always be available to the student when a coaching change occurs. Athletes pick coaches not schools, and to think otherwise is wrong. I think others should be able to transfer as well but that might not be an idea whose time has come. I would limit the number of transfer players who did not sit out that a school can have on the roster at one time. This would preclude the Kentucky and Duke programs from stockpiling transfers every year. Maybe only one transfer would be immediately eligible to play and a second or more would have to sit out a year or find another school. Not trying to destroy programs, but there needs to be more fairness than currently exists.

[EasyEd]

Disasterville.

[iheartdurenbros]

I’m actually on a fence on this one. It does destabilize the commitment process. And while proponents of freedom of choice think it will benefit the athletes I am not convinced. It can work to screw them. I think all student-athletes deserve a degree, however long it takes (and now they are granted 4-year scholarships). And I can see coaches using the leverage to push players out more easily so that they do not take on a 4-year commitment.

It is interesting that the privilege is tied to GPA. As someone who regularly dealt with grading student-athletes (at the big 10 school in PG county), it is a pain to receive continual appeals to change grades so that a player can graduate with a 2.0. So, from the academic side, this is no fun. All of a sudden students need to have a higher GPA. Before all they needed was to be in good academic standing.

I would ask how does this new rule affect graduation rates? How much harder does it make it for programs to maintain good standing?

Finally there are significant disincentives for students — again only eligible for four years to complete undergraduate degrees — to transfer. Depending upon academic requirements, there are difficulties for any student wishing to transfer. (My nephew added a year to his batchelors when he decided to switch majors at beginning of junior year). I don’t know how easy it will be for upperclassmen to transfer without academic penalty. What about transfers coming into Georgetown? Can juniors and seniors make up the general requirements at GU, taking Problem of God for instance, and complete requirements of their major? We’ve seen it work for incoming juniors but that doesn’t seem easy for incoming seniors. Also where will the degree come from? Most schools require that a majority of credits come from a single institution.

In short, I don’t know what impact this will have upon the number of transfers. There are enough obstacles to transferring from academic side that I don’t know if it really tips bargaining power as heavily towards the athlete as it might seem. I actually think it can have a negative impact upon their ability to graduate, especially since it’s easy to envision coaches using them to push players out.

[FrazierFanatic]

Jan 14, 2018 20:04:16 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Disasterville.

Yep. I understand the thought behind it, but $$$$$$ and shady deals will proliferate.

[michaelgrahmstylie]

Jan 14, 2018 16:48:29 GMT -5 kbones17 said:

I’m all for no waiting a year if your coach leaves/fired, or there is a special waiver event (family health, etc). But no waiting for any transfers will be an absolute sh!tshow. Basically everyone playing on one year contracts and jumping up to the bluebloods whenever they get the chance. Another odd blowback is that universities would then be incentivized to have their players not get a 2.7 gpa so they couldn’t transfer easily. I don’t think this is the answer.

Well, yes. There are extenuating circumstances of course. I will alter my response. Let's do it on a case by case basis so that the kids are not penalize for a situation beyond their control.

[drquigley]

I'm sorry but this change of policy would kill schools, like us, that are trying to rebuild. You need top recruits to stay with you for at least 3 years to build the chemistry needed to be competitive. This means that top recruits would have to endure several mediocre years while their peers are competing for national championships. You're asking a lot of a kid to say, "stay here another year because we will be better" when he could transfer to another school that went to the final four and only needs him to compete for a national championship that next year. Like I said, the perennial winners will just just get fatter.

[professorhoya]

So you could basically transfer every year if you had a good GPA. Play one year at Kansas, one at Duke, one at Kentucky and one at Michigan State. Become like a Deion Sanders rental player and win 4 championships at 4 different schools.

[Elvado]

Pros and cons on both sides. I think the middle ground is to allow immediate eligibility but only once in a career.

[seaweed]

Would take the "commitment" out of "commitment"... leaving us with essentially unrestricted player movement based largely on the whims of 12-22 year olds. So not good.

[glidehoyas (Inactive)]