Possible New Transfer Rule

[glm38]

As long as the NCAA is going to keep talking about "student-athletes" and "amateurism" then players should be allowed to transfer whenever they wish and not have to sit out a year. No other student has to sit out a year when changing schools.

Yeah, but schools aren't spending the same amounts on those other students either.

This rule would all but kill a mid major's opportunity to compete. The one advantage that we have is that our kids tend to stay around all four years. Pass this rule and we will essentially become little more than JUCOs for the Kentucky's, Kansas', and Dukes of the world.

Which may be what the NCAA hierarchy wants. This would have horrible consequences for all of our basketball programs.

[WhiskeySierraUniform]

I personally don't see a problem with this new rule. I feel like a coach can jump ship and leave his players in limbo without sitting out a year, why shouldn't a player be able to transfer with the same rules? I also feel that if a player on the Shockers team feels he can go "big time" somewhere else, he probably doesn't fit the mold of a player I want on the team anyway, regardless of talent or perceived talent level.

[Jet915]

what is next, if they have a 3.0 or better, they get an agent?

and if you have a 3.5 or higher, you get a 2K/month stipend!

[Wufan]

As long as the NCAA is going to keep talking about "student-athletes" and "amateurism" then players should be allowed to transfer whenever they wish and not have to sit out a year. No other student has to sit out a year when changing schools.

Either admit college sports is a business and change a lot of the rules---or truly treat the athletes like you do the rest of the students.

I would have no problem with them forcing kids to sit out a year if they just admitted the athletes were "property", which, in essence, they really are.

Wrong. The "student athletes" ARE able to transfer to any school that they would like, as "any regular student" would do. In fact, you can go do a different school every year for the rest of you life if you choose to do so.

But you have to be able to separate an academic career from basketball. You can't allow students to haphazardly change schools whenever they please and not have any consequences to their basketball eligibility.

Solid point.

That really is a solid point. I was "okay" with this as I didn't see any reason they should be able to transfer, but you are correct. Heck, they even get a schollie while they ride the pine.

[pafan]

This rule change would provide an interesting set of incentives to schools and coaches. Recruit as many poor students as possible and give them just enough help to keep them eligible, but not enough help to let them transfer immediately.

Say goodbye to courses in underwater basket-weaving, and hello to actuary science.

What's more, it incentivizes a whole new kind of academic fraud. That final paper you turned in for your History of World War II gen-ed? It was well-researched but D+ anyway.

[Bluejay09Bear06]

The article also says this:

"Athletes would still need permission from their former school to practice and compete right away at another school, but even if the request was denied, they'd still be able to accept a scholarship from the school of their choice and compete after sitting out a year."

Am I missing something or, if the mids stick to their guns and don't grant permission, wouldn't this be the same as the current transfer eligibility rules (other than allowing 6 years for transfers)?

[Snaggletooth]

But you have to be able to separate an academic career from basketball. You can't allow students to haphazardly change schools whenever they please and not have any consequences to their basketball eligibility.

I would agree that there has to be some restrictions. But what about the student/athlete that is told his scholarship is not going to be renewed or is asked to transfer say when a new coach shows up? Is it fair he has to sit out if he transfer to another Div 1 school?