NCAA to Push for Transfer Rule Change

2,925 Views | 5 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by SFA Jack Fanatic
SFA Jack Fanatic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The NCAA took a significant step toward allowing all Division I athletes to transfer one time without sitting out a season of competition.

A plan to change the waiver process is expected to be presented to the Division I Council in April. If adopted, new criteria would go into effect for the 2020-21 academic year and be a boon for athletes in high-profile sports such as football and men's and women's basketball.

In those sports, along with baseball and men's hockey, Division I undergraduate athletes are required to do what the NCAA calls a year-in-residence after transferring, when they can practice with their new teams but not participate in games.

Other NCAA Division I athletes are permitted by rule a one-time exception to be immediately eligible for competition after transferring.

The NCAA's announcement Tuesday comes a day after the Atlantic Coast Conference became the second Power Five conference to publicly support the one-time exception for all transferring athletes. Last month CBS Sports reported that Big Ten athletic directors backed a legislative proposal that would allow all athletes to transfer one time and be immediately eligible to play.

The NCAA's Division I transfer waiver working group said it will seek feedback from athletes, administrators and coaches over the next two months. The group can expect push back from coaches.

Todd Berry, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, said he was "shocked" by the NCAA's announcement and fears the change will spark a free-agent frenzy that led to restrictions being placed on transfers decades ago.

"It leads to opportunities for recruiting off other campuses," Berry said. "If you're at another program why would you take a high school player? Why not go get one that's already proven in college?"

The working group's concept would change the waiver process, but not NCAA bylaws.

The Division I Board of Directors placed a moratorium on transfer legislation last fall and directed the Council to appoint a working group to examine the transfer waiver process.

The NCAA adjusted waiver criteria two years ago to give more athletes the chance to become immediately eligible, but that has led to complaints about inconsistency in the process.

"The current system is unsustainable. Working group members believe it's time to bring our transfer rules more in line with today's college landscape," said Mid-American Conference Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, who is the chairman of the transfer working group. "This concept provides a uniform approach that is understandable, predictable and objective. Most importantly, it benefits students."

If the transfer working group's concept is adopted, any athlete would be granted immediate eligibility after a transfer if four criteria are met:
Receive a transfer release from the previous school.
Leave the previous school academically eligible.
Maintain academic progress at the new school.
Leave under no disciplinary suspension.

"More than a third of all college students transfer at least once, and the Division I rule prohibiting immediate competition for students who play five sports hasn't discouraged them from transferring," Steinbrecher said. "This dynamic has strained the waiver process, which was designed to handle extenuating and extraordinary circumstances."

Athletes can currently request a waiver for immediate eligibility for several reasons. The most common are: Claims of athletes being run off a team by a coach; claims of egregious behavior by the original school; injured or ill immediate family member; and injury or illness to the athlete.

While several high-profile football players such as Ohio State quarterback Justin Fields and Michigan quarterback Shea Patterson have had waivers granted by the NCAA, plenty of athletes have their requests denied. What has risen is the expectation of immediate eligibility.

"We know that challenges will exist with this concept, particularly as it relates to other coaches potentially tampering with currently enrolled student-athletes," Steinbrecher said in a statement. "The working group will continue to examine this, as well as any potential financial aid and academic impacts, so the Council can make a fully informed decision."

Berry said coaches are mostly supportive of the movement toward providing more benefits to athletes in recent years. The latest part of that movement is the ongoing attempt by the NCAA to find a way to allow college athletes to be compensated for their names, images and likeness. That issue is likely to be settled with the help of federal lawmakers.

Berry said he fears more freedom for transfers will change locker room dynamics and encourage athletes to make rash decisions.

"It might pass, but I'm afraid of what the outcome will be," Berry said. "This is not a hypothetical. The rule was in there for a reason. If they go through with this I'm not sure everybody will like the outcome."
nacluth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been clear about my feelings on this topic in other threads, but it essentially will make schools like SFA a training ground for top level P5/6 schools.

Imagine Kevon was a junior and had that game against Duke. Immediately all the top schools would be watching him and contacting him after the season. While I don't think it will affect 80% of our players, it will affect the top and bottom 10%. We'll easily cut the problem players knowing they can play somewhere else and lose our top players for big conferences.

But it's best for the athlete. Short term probably. Long term no way. Mid major schools are way more than an undervalued sports team. They are an entire community. Think about how hard it has been to pull SFA's programs up even with decent exposure. It takes tens of millions of dollars, it takes community buy in, it takes national media coverage.

If big schools can easily recruit top players, why would the college put in 20 million into trying to make waves in the NCAA's.? If we're starting over every year trying to find the next breakout star, why would the community keep showing up? (We know how hard it is now) SFA sports success makes the college better which in turn makes Nacogdoches better which in turn makes the whole economic area better.

Maybe no one believes me, but our basketball team raises more than some application numbers, it raises our whole county economically. When the NCAA is deciding whether it's better for a player to easily switch schools instead of giving considered thought and having to endure time off, they are really messing on a fundamental level with the economy of towns like Nacogdoches or Spokane or any small town that gets national coverage from their ball club.

I'm using basketball as an example because one player makes so much difference, but it could be just as damaging in football for quarterbacks.
Ljacks&Longnecks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Completely agree with Nacluth's comments above...this change hurts mid majors in favor of the Power conferences. The NCAA is only interested in power and money. Since big schools have the money they get to call the shots. Now the Power schools can just troll the mid majors to get players that they missed or need right away.
Ryan used the example of Kevon....my example would be Posey. Here is a kid that some say will play and have impact as a freshman for us next year. If he does so, how many big schools will come recruit him to leave little SFA and come play on a big stage somewhere else. It's a rule that could potentially have schools like SFA in a constant rebuilding state if/when you lose 1 or 2 key players to this scam each year or two.
Terrible rule, very typical of the NCAA rich get richer policy.
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great points Nacluth. It is again ... 40-50 really big schools creating an environment that gives them gigantic advantages.
nacluth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks. Reading back through it, I'm not sure my main thought came through. A little degeneration to the program results in fewer high level recruits. It will take a decade or so for everything to play out, but I think ultimately it will be the death knell to an already struggling Southland. Maybe we can get out before then.
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think we have lots of potential and plenty of hope. A better regional alignment could possibly benefit us.
SFA Jack Fanatic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good points by all. That would be just a horrible, horrible rule change. I hope the coaches scream like Hel* to stop it!
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.