New transfer rules
- Thread starter Cydkar
- Start date
Don't play that sport then. They know what they are getting in to when they sign up. If you don't want to commit, then walk on.
Law is not static. The NCAA has a pretty sweet deal going and a lot of negative publicity. They risk more than just losing this rule by letting it stand.
This will make it possible (easier) for coaches to run kids off to make room for better players. I can see this hurting as many kids as it helps.
I feel like you're wanting someone to lead you into this topic, so I'll go ahead and do it. The answer is obviously money. Basketball and football generate the revenue for the athletic departments that keep all of their sports running. Universities are protecting their primary revenue sources.
Is it fair to treat student athletes of different sports differently? No, but the world doesn't treat all athletes and sports the same either. This isn't a situation that universities created. A football player has the potential to make a significantly larger amount of money than a band participant. The university didn't invest hundreds or thousands of dollars recruiting a trumpet player or high jumper. The money flow doesn't exist for the university or the student.
The financial investment, risk and reward a university incurs to recruit and retain an athlete in basketball and football is significantly higher. In kind, the potential earnings by these athletes is also significantly higher. Eliminating any potential deterrent from an athlete transferring will shift even more financial risk to the university. A higher risk investment favors those that can absorb a loss. The same holds true in college athletics. The haves will benefit over the have-nots. This is a charade to say this is being put in place to benefit the student athlete, IMO.
The current system is certainly flawed in a lot of aspects, but this change clearly hurts some universities more than others.
I definitely don't think athletes should be able to compete for 2 teams in the same year (season).
I think if the university wants to give them a release, then I am good with it. It could be a complete release or a conditional release only to certain schools.
Difference is, basketball and football players are on full scholarships, not partial.
I think if the university wants to give them a release, then I am good with it. It could be a complete release or a conditional release only to certain schools.
Difference is, basketball and football players are on full scholarships, not partial.
Last edited:
I fail to see how a sit out year is that bad of a penalty. Seems like limiting transferring to once due to the 5 to play 4 rules is a bigger limit on student athletes' ability to pick where they play/go to school.
For some it would be a benefit...get a 5th year of school paid for to finish up the degree.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,740
- 33,760
- 113
Yes, but the NCAA is trying to have it both ways. They are insisting that for the purposes of compensation, these players in moneymaking sports are no different than athletes in non-revenue sports. But, when it comes to transferring, suddenly they're different because... as you said, money. That's the legal rub. They're open to attack there. The NCAA sees it, and they know that it's only a matter of time before their hand gets forced. That's why this topic is being discussed, and why they will change the rules (if in fact they do).
Ya, I could see a situation like Nebraska used to do in FB. If ISU offered a decent player from the Omaha area that they were hoping would walk on, they would offer the scholarship, not only did they get a pretty good player, they made sure they didn't have to play against him either. Of course this is back in the day when you could have 120 guys on scholarship too.
Still I could see Self looking at Wigginton and thinking his transfer to KU could be a win win.
The problem is that even the Blue Bloods will have a few guys that turn out to not be as good as they thought they would be. Sometimes 4 and 5 star guys get lost in the college experience, don't want to put in the work athletically or academically. Stuff happens.
This rule would be way too extreme. They should meet in the middle and say if your coach leaves for another job or is fired, you're free to go without penalty. That makes more sense and it doesn't force you to play for a coach that you don't want to play for.
So we invest three years in Bolton and Hudson which yields two all conference lineman and Ohio State swoops in and gets the finished product for two seasons. **** the NCAA.
Yah I do not like this at all. Maybe keep the sit out year, but don't count that towards the 5 to play 4? So if a redshirt Junior wants to transfer for their senior year they still can, but they'll still need to sit and get a 6th year.
Not gonna read six pages of thread, so I doubt I'm the first to voice this, but anyone can transfer anytime they like. They just can't play games for a year. The rule is just as much for the teammates of a transferee as it is for the schools. Imagine if your teammates kept bailing on you after one good year. Imagine if a coach could bring in any player across the country to replace you with no penalty. This prevents a lot of chaos.
I do think there should be more exceptions, for coaching changes and such.
I do think there should be more exceptions, for coaching changes and such.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,740
- 33,760
- 113
If that argument was truly valid, then why are there different transfer rules for basketball, football, and baseball players, as opposed to athletes in other sports?
The answer is money. It's not about teammates. It's not about students. It's about money. That's it.
It's a junk rule and a junk system. I'll be so glad to see it die, and hopefully eventually take the entire rotten NCAA with it.
When these kids sign their scholarship agreements, aren't the transfer terms spelled out very clearly? You bring up the inevitable legal dilemma, but carefully written signed contracts are pretty solid in court, arent they? It may not be ideal, but if you agree to it and sign off on it, wouldn't that make it a legally binding document?
I'm genuinely asking this question. I have no first hand experience with scholarship agreements, and my knowledge of law hovers somewhere between LA Law and Law and Order.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,740
- 33,760
- 113
Contracts can be and are challenged in court all of the time. Just because someone signs off on it doesn't matter if a judge/jury finds that the contract was illegal in the first place. Now, that hasn't happened yet, but the warning signs are there. The O'Bannon decision started opening the door, and Jeffrey Kessler looms large on the horizon. The NCAA has some serious anti-trust claims leveled against it, and they aren't going away any time soon. Doing stuff like loosening transfer restrictions is all about positioning itself better when legal scrutiny comes. It's an easy loophole to close, that doesn't really cost much.
