Jump to content


Photo

Possible proposal for new transfer rules


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 gimpeltf

gimpeltf

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,935 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:05 AM

Sounds interesting

 

http://www.ncaa.org/...ansfer-concepts



#2 gopher_fan_90

gopher_fan_90

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 127 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:19 AM

Would this work that if put in to place, if Nick lost a year he could get it back?



#3 Idaho

Idaho

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,095 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:25 AM

In football if a student athlete graduates they can transfer anywhere for their last year of eligibility. Is that not true in all sports? The article seems to suggest that it is not.



#4 JeanGuy

JeanGuy
  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:29 AM

Would this work that if put in to place, if Nick lost a year he could get it back?

I'm not sure it is much different than what is happening now. I guess it says "sits out a year of competition" not "forfeit a year of eligibility."

 

There needs to be a clarification in my mind over losing a year of eligibility and a year of competition. To me they are different but the Big Ten seems to apply them as the same.

 

Nick Suriano will be graduated before the NCAA acts on a recommendation of the student athlete committee.



#5 pamela

pamela

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:38 AM

In football if a student athlete graduates they can transfer anywhere for their last year of eligibility. Is that not true in all sports? The article seems to suggest that it is not.

 

Yep, I think so. It's rampant in college basketball. 

 

I believe there are some restrictions to the grad transfer rule - like if an athlete completes their undergraduate degree and still has eligibility, he or she can transfer and compete elsewhere, but I think only if the grad (or second degree) program they're interested in is not offered at their current school. 

 

The article may also have been referring to reforms to grad transfers under consideration by the NCAA. There was a report not long ago that showed, not surprisingly, that a significant % of athletes who utilize the grad transfer option don't actually complete their graduate degree once their remaining semester/year of eligibility is utilized.  They usually end up competing and then dropping out. So, I guess the NCAA and the universities want to be sure it isn't abused. Only a small fraction of D1 athletes exercise this option though.


Edited by pamela, 11 August 2017 - 05:47 AM.


#6 gimpeltf

gimpeltf

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,935 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:47 AM

This wouldn't necessarily override the B1G rules since current B1G rules are stricter than current NCAA rules anyway.

So this might not change the Suriano issue at all but is still more athlete centrric. Less needing to ask permission first.

And waivers/releases wouldn't be needed out of conference.

Hopefully, it would also align the graduate student transfer rules across the country.

B1G doesn't seem to differentiate in-conference and yet Ivies (and some other schools like F&M) don't allow grads to compete same school.



#7 IronChef

IronChef

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 06:10 AM

F&M has no grad school, gimp.



#8 gimpeltf

gimpeltf

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,935 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 06:25 AM

F&M has no grad school, gimp.

 

I didn't say there wasn't a good reason for the allowance from the school.


  • Pinnum likes this

#9 lu_alum

lu_alum

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,568 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 06:33 AM

I never understood why athletes that had had completed their degrees were considered transfers when enrolling & competing as a grad student at another institution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Pinnum and nom like this

#10 Pinnum

Pinnum

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,589 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 06:42 AM

Seems like the rule changes proposed will really have a significant impact on football and basketball.

I suspect the motivation is basketball. The one and done college players has resulted in some new issues in college basketball. If you get a high impact star, they are gone in one year. And if you bring in a transfer they are required to sit a year (unlike in wrestling). This rule would allow the top programs to recruit mid-major or minor conference stars to their programs as transfers that can compete immediately.

Transfers are already rampant in college basketball, even with the mandatory year that transfers have to sit out a year. Without having to sit-out, there is really no deterrent to transferring. http://www.espn.com/...l-transfer-list

Not only can guys transfer to top programs without penalty, but they can talk to coaches without seeking permission from their current school.

I assume schools can still have the ability to block transfers, but with the new emphasis on road games, I see the buy-out for a transfer being a home/home contract.

LSU signs a basketball star from Winthrop and Winthrop agrees to the transfer in exchange for LSU going to Winthrop for a game.

At the end of the day, the top programs (and conferences) get even stronger.
Twitter: @Pinnum

#11 gowrestle

gowrestle

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • 1,497 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 08:35 AM

At the root of the problem is the primary objective is to excel in athletics. College athletics continues to spiral out of control. Colleges were developed for academic purposes. The tail now wags the dog.










.
  • Pinnum and nom like this

#12 SetonHallPirate

SetonHallPirate

    Hall of Fame Member

  • Members
  • 10,444 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:34 PM

Seems like the rule changes proposed will really have a significant impact on football and basketball.

I suspect the motivation is basketball. The one and done college players has resulted in some new issues in college basketball. If you get a high impact star, they are gone in one year. And if you bring in a transfer they are required to sit a year (unlike in wrestling). This rule would allow the top programs to recruit mid-major or minor conference stars to their programs as transfers that can compete immediately.

Transfers are already rampant in college basketball, even with the mandatory year that transfers have to sit out a year. Without having to sit-out, there is really no deterrent to transferring. http://www.espn.com/...l-transfer-list

Not only can guys transfer to top programs without penalty, but they can talk to coaches without seeking permission from their current school.

I assume schools can still have the ability to block transfers, but with the new emphasis on road games, I see the buy-out for a transfer being a home/home contract.

LSU signs a basketball star from Winthrop and Winthrop agrees to the transfer in exchange for LSU going to Winthrop for a game.

At the end of the day, the top programs (and conferences) get even stronger.

Wouldn't Winthrop make more money from playing LSU in Baton Rouge (and receiving a guarantee) than Winthrop hosting LSU? (although at 6,100 seats, Winthrop Coliseum is pretty large for a mid-major basketball arena)


Saturday, November 11: Journeymen/Northeast Duals, Troy, NY

Sunday, November 12: Journeymen Collegiate Classic, Troy, NY

 

"You stopped to pay with an open gate in front of you? That's taking honesty to a new level." -NoVaLion

 

Owner/Editor, Wrestling by Pirate

Follow me on Twitter @WrestlingSHP

Website/Blog: http://wrestlingbypirate.wordpress.com


#13 Pinnum

Pinnum

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 4,589 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:02 AM

Wouldn't Winthrop make more money from playing LSU in Baton Rouge (and receiving a guarantee) than Winthrop hosting LSU? (although at 6,100 seats, Winthrop Coliseum is pretty large for a mid-major basketball arena)

 

No, because there is competition for the game in LSU.  If Winthrop doesn't agree to the game at LSU for $80k, then LSU will just get Fort Wayne, Missouri State, or Loyola-IL to come in for the $80k.  There is competition that drives down the cost of guarantees. 

 

On top of that, Winthrop would have to pay for their travel and lodging.  So it is about a $60-70 payday for them after expenses to go to LSU and give up home court advantage.

 

A game at the Winthrop Colliseum would yield more money for the program.  Not only would it increase demand for tickets, but they would see more engaged students, attract more alumni giving from the game, and build more of a basketball and campus culture that would carry over to other games.

 

There is no competition for teams to go in to play Winthrop which is why they had to bring in two D3 teams last year to fill out their schedule.  They simply don't have any leverage in negotiations.  Once you get to teams outside of the top-100 or top-150, there is no real leverage.

 

The transfers would give them the leverage to help elevate the program some but they would have to do it by selling off their best players which then relegates them to a second tier program that continues to lose their best players.  That is a rock and a hard place...


Twitter: @Pinnum

#14 buf87

buf87

    Bronze Member

  • Members
  • 503 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:59 AM

I wonder what would happen to the schools that mainly have only 1 or 2 AA candidates on their team.  If Edinboro keeps losing guys like Lugo to the top team, how long before some of these schools drop the sport?  And Edinboro isn't the best example because they have had some success lately. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users