NCAA Xfer policy change?

[DuffMan]

Should the NCAA change thier policy requiring D1 transfers to sit a year if they transfer to another D1 school? I think there should be no penalty if the player invovled is a RS freshman who hasn't played a game. IMO allowing a player who hasn't seen any game action to transfer free of charge does nobody any harm. Penalizing them by making them sit an additonal year is punitive.

Anybody can make a mistake, and this allows kids to try and correct them in certain situations. Who would be the victem here? The argument the kid someone owes the school something because they gave them a free year of education is a joke. The school profits far more from these kids than they do often times.

 

[ssckelley]

I think getting rid of this policy could really hurt the college game as basically players could reopen their recruitment at any time. These kids need to do everything they can during the recruiting process to ensure they are picking the right school. If they find out after the fact then sitting out a year is reasonable, a lot of times they have the redshirt to use anyway.

But if they do decide to transfer, the coach should have no say on where he can or cannot go. These are Student Athletes and there could be a situation where a school has a certain academic program they want to be part of, I know this is rare but it can happen. Even the style of basketball game or better opportunity for the athlete is a good enough excuse to move on, but the penalty is you sit out a year. Leave it up to the conferences if they are allowed to transfer within the same conference.

Now if the school got placed on probation for breaking rules, there are coaching changes, or something drastic happens to them personally (ie family illness/death) then they should have the ability to transfer without having to sit out a year.

 

[DuffMan]

If the school gives a kid a multi year scholly and wants to leave early, he should be subject to the current rules. If a school only gives out yearly scholly, then both parties should be able to reconsider their position.

That's just it Boat. Schools don't give multi year schollie offers. Athletic scholarships are written on a one year basis. They must be renewed each year by the school. There are plenty of situations in which an incomming coach tells a kid on schollie that he has to make other plans next year. There is nothing at all preventing a college coach from pulling a schollie from a player, it happens all the time in SEC football.

 

[DuffMan]

I think getting rid of this policy could really hurt the college game as basically players could reopen their recruitment at any time. These kids need to do everything they can during the recruiting process to ensure they are picking the right school. If they find out after the fact then sitting out a year is reasonable, a lot of times they have the redshirt to use anyway.

But if they do decide to transfer, the coach should have no say on where he can or cannot go. These are Student Athletes and there could be a situation where a school has a certain academic program they want to be part of, I know this is rare but it can happen. Even the style of basketball game or better opportunity for the athlete is a good enough excuse to move on, but the penalty is you sit out a year. Leave it up to the conferences if they are allowed to transfer within the same conference.

Now if the school got placed on probation for breaking rules, there are coaching changes, or something drastic happens to them personally (ie family illness/death) then they should have the ability to transfer without having to sit out a year.

I'm not talking about opening recruitment at any time. I'm talking about very specific situations, RS freshman who haven't played for the school.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I'm not talking about opening recruitment at any time. I'm talking about very specific situations, RS freshman who haven't played for the school.

Speaking purely from a selfish perspective, I would say no. Iowa football lives off of redshirting guys and would basically become Michigan and OSU's incubator. A kid like Donnal could come to Iowa for a year, get Doyle-ized, then have OSU call him when they have a really big need, then go play for OSU after we have sunk hundreds of hours of training and fundamental practice into the guy. Ferentz would need to get 8 o-linemen a year to get 3 of them to graduation.

 

[DexterMorgan]

You'd also most likely see teams simply stop redshirting many players.

 

[DuffMan]

Speaking purely from a selfish perspective, I would say no. Iowa football lives off of redshirting guys and would basically become Michigan and OSU's incubator. A kid like Donnal could come to Iowa for a year, get Doyle-ized, then have OSU call him when they have a really big need, then go play for OSU after we have sunk hundreds of hours of training and fundamental practice into the guy. Ferentz would need to get 8 o-linemen a year to get 3 of them to graduation.

Interesting

 

[ssckelley]

I'm not talking about opening recruitment at any time. I'm talking about very specific situations, RS freshman who haven't played for the school.

My answer is still no.

 

[SpiderRico]

I don't think the answer is changing the transfer policy, I think the answer is requiring universities to commit to a 4 year scholarship. These coaches and universities expect kids to stay committed to them for 4 years, so the commitment should be reciprocal.

I'd be scared that allowing kids to transfer at their own whim without penalty would cause several mid/upper-mid level universities to become almost a "farm system" for the heavyweights. A kid like Aaron White flies under the radar and develops greatly in his first two years at Iowa. OSU sees that they missed out on him before and contacts him and gets him to transfer to them because the kid wants a shot at winning a national title.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I don't think the answer is changing the transfer policy, I think the answer is requiring universities to commit to a 4 year scholarship. These coaches and universities expect kids to stay committed to them for 4 years, so the commitment should be reciprocal.

I'd be scared that allowing kids to transfer at their own whim without penalty would cause several mid/upper-mid level universities to become almost a "farm system" for the heavyweights. A kid like Aaron White flies under the radar and develops greatly in his first two years at Iowa. OSU sees that they missed out on him before and contacts him and gets him to transfer to them because the kid wants a shot at winning a national title.

Wouldn't this be a violation though? We all know OSU would never do something like anyways but hypothetically.

 

[H8IAST8]

no, but schollies should be 2 or more years IMO.

 

[theboat]

That's just it Boat. Schools don't give multi year schollie offers. Athletic scholarships are written on a one year basis. They must be renewed each year by the school. There are plenty of situations in which an incomming coach tells a kid on schollie that he has to make other plans next year. There is nothing at all preventing a college coach from pulling a schollie from a player, it happens all the time in SEC football.

Exactly, that is the change I am looking for. IF a coach is unwilling to commit to kids for more than one year, they shouldn't expect the kid to commit for one year.

Multiyear scholarship rule narrowly survives override vote

 

[thejumper5]

I think the term you meant to use was "Christfer." Please don't take the Christ out of Christfer.

 

[thejumper5]

A way a rule change could work would this:
Player transfers from team A to team B after redshirting for team A.
He is allowed to play for team B immediately if, and only if, team B is willing to reimburse team A for the cost of the scholarship during Player's redshirt year.

Probably still not the best idea, but it would be a way the rule could work.

 

[ssckelley]

A way a rule change could work would this:
Player transfers from team A to team B after redshirting for team A.
He is allowed to play for team B immediately if, and only if, team B is willing to reimburse team A for the cost of the scholarship during Player's redshirt year.

Probably still not the best idea, but it would be a way the rule could work.

Interesting angle.

 

[storminspank]

If the player doesn't have a "good reason*" to leave the school, he needs to be penalized. Has to sit out a year, at minimum. Otherwise this turns into Free Agency in college sports. That can't happen.

* Good reason is hard to define

 

[Rifler]

Players should be free to transfer if and when they choose. There should be no restrictions placed on scholarship offers from potential new teams. Transferring players should be required to sit out one year, with no opportunity to regain that year of elegibility.....