New transfer rule?

[pinstripers]

ESPN's Matt Schick spoke with an NCAA official who said there is a "95-percent chance" that transfer rules will be changed to allow student-athletes to play immediately.


As the rule currently stands, only graduate transfers are eligible to play immediately with their new teams. All other student-athletes moving to a different program must sit out a season unless they are granted a waiver. A rule change on this front would likely cause a sea change for the landscape, as we would almost certainly see a considerably higher number of players on the move. Schick suggests that a "non-grad transfer window" would be helpful in keeping some control over the process. One other note on this potential rule change -- the official whom Schick spoke with said that there would likely be academic requirements for immediate transfers. None of this is up for a vote as of yet, but it's something to monitor over the offseason.

[WheatShock]

I don't mind kids not having to sit out but I would like to see some restrictions on this to prevent this from turning into a free agency situation for top programs.

[wufan]

I totally agree. Not sure what the solution is, but a one year and move on situation seems a bit too loose. Maybe an offer of a four year scholarship prohibits transferring whereas a one year scholarship is an open ended one. I just don’t know.

[pinstripers]

More transfer talk at the NCAA convention. South Dakota State AD Justin Sell, the chair of the transfer working group, faced some hard questions at the DI issues forum about the one-time transfer exception -- which is not yet part of any proposal. NC State AD Debbie Yow suggested that tampering would be rampant if transfers were granted immediate eligibility and estimated that the number of transfers across DI would more than double. She described the scenario as "a free for all, something that we've never seen before." Sell urged patience and promised that his group would use caution as it works to devise a proposal next month.

Mitch Sherman, ESPN Staff Writer

[pogo]

I think the ncaa would have to hire a whole lot more folks to keep up with tampering allegations.

[ShockerDropOut]

Just a bad idea all around. It could in effect create an almost farm system type situation. I don't see how any school outside of the power conferences would possibly support anything like this.

[Dave Stalwart]

I may be completely confused because I’m not very smart, but it seems to me like if there is a free for all every season where all the talent transfers off bad teams to good teams for a glory run, does that not open up recruiting big time at the mid major level? Sure they get poached, but those poachings also create more competition for rosters spots with the major schools. I would think mid majors would gain better access to better talent while recruiting. Of course after a couple years those guys will get poached. Maybe it all ends up the same in the end.

there is a part of me that thinks an overall free market will find a way to normalize and still work. You’d see a lot more transfers but for every action there is going to be an equal but opposite reaction (#science). as long as the number of scholarships remains the same at every school, it should still balance out in the end.

[ShockerDropOut]

I agree with what you say about the actions, but I dont know that I agree that they are equal. Numbers wise, yes, they are equal. But other than that there would be a vast disparity. You take a proven player from a mid-major, that may have been overlooked, had some sort of academic or character risk, ect., he proves himself, gets coached up, whatever, and then is poached by a major program. That player is replaced by a freshman (probably), unproven, needs coaching, ect. Those two are not equal. Of course that is a simple scenario, but one I believe we would see played out again and again. I would hate to think how some of our players of the past could have been poached by other programs. How do you ever build something sustainable if that happens?

[Stickboy46]

I think the happy medium is ... If a coach leaves (any coach on the program), the year sit out rule is waived.

[RoyalShock]

The coach of a top program could tell a player he likes, but either doesn't have room for or isn't convinced is good enough, to go to another school and if he plays well, can transfer.

I think a player should have to sit one year if he leaves after the first year (barring redshirt). After two years, then perhaps he doesn't need to sit out. Something needs to be included in the proposal that discourages a one year show-and-go situation.

[pinstripers]

I think the happy medium is ... If a coach leaves (any coach on the program), the year sit out rule is waived.

Wow, players would leave in droves.

[WheatShock]

Right now as I understand it scholarships are mostly a 1 year deal and can be renewed or dropped at the end of the year. I know that 4 year guaranteed scholarships either exist or they could easily be created. I know people decry the transfer culture that we have but i'm not convinced that its all on the players as I think that a significant percentage of transfers are told that their scholarship will not be renewed so they don't have much choice.

Here's my idea. Any player on a year to year scholarship is free to transfer one time without sitting out. They would have to sit out if they wanted to transfer a second time. Any player on a 4 year guaranteed scholarship would have to sit out to transfer.