Started By
Message
re: NCAA considering 1 transfer with no penalty for all sports
Posted on 2/20/20 at 10:14 am to bamameister
Posted on 2/20/20 at 10:14 am to bamameister
I've thought about this and I actually think this might end up working in favor of the schools as much if not more than the players. Hear me out. While the headlines indicate this is for all players it really isn't, this is really centered around the NCAA avoiding judging hardship transfer cases for immediate eligibility. Under this, if the school grants the release the player is eligible next year, if they don't the player sits a year. With it being in the hands of the school I actually believe you will see less releases granted. I doubt Saban or most of these other coaches are going to grant a release unless it is absolutely necessary. These smaller schools aren't going to grant releases to players who want to go to better programs and there isn't going to be any public outcry if UAB, Buffalo, or USF doesn't grant a kid a release to go play at a better school immediately.
On the flipside, say you have an underperforming player-you are frustrated they aren't producing and they are frustrated because they can't get on the field. However they are a sophomore and while they would like to transfer to a school they might be able to see the field they definitely won't play because they have to sit out a year so they decide to stay because it isn't worth it. Now you have a scholarship that is being used by a non productive player and it is unlikely this kid will ever see the field for you. If you grant them the release then if I'm not mistaking you get the scholarship back if they find a transfer school and they get a chance to play.
Just a theory but I feel the Big Ten and ACC wouldn't be behind this if there wasn't a benefit to the schools.
On the flipside, say you have an underperforming player-you are frustrated they aren't producing and they are frustrated because they can't get on the field. However they are a sophomore and while they would like to transfer to a school they might be able to see the field they definitely won't play because they have to sit out a year so they decide to stay because it isn't worth it. Now you have a scholarship that is being used by a non productive player and it is unlikely this kid will ever see the field for you. If you grant them the release then if I'm not mistaking you get the scholarship back if they find a transfer school and they get a chance to play.
Just a theory but I feel the Big Ten and ACC wouldn't be behind this if there wasn't a benefit to the schools.
This post was edited on 2/20/20 at 11:01 am
1
Posted on 2/20/20 at 2:30 pm to Carlton
quote:
Just a theory but I feel the Big Ten and ACC wouldn't be behind this if there wasn't a benefit to the schools.
In the ACC, it's Clemson and the 13 dwarfs. Clemson has to risk their 4* and 5* guys and teams like Boston College can ante up with their 2* and win the pot. Not sure what you call it but it ain't poker. The vote was probably 13 to 1.
Posted on 2/20/20 at 3:05 pm to bamameister
I think Clemson would be for this more than the other schools. Clemson already presents itself that they won't push you out because you aren't performing.
If they have a player that isn't producing who wants to leave great they free up another scholarship. In the unlikely situation it is a player that produces they are more equipped to deal with it than any other school. Since they market themselves as a program that doesn't push kids out that don't perform they wouldn't get any backlash for denying releases cause they can say if the player stays he is guaranteed a scholarship until his eligibility is up.
If they have a player that isn't producing who wants to leave great they free up another scholarship. In the unlikely situation it is a player that produces they are more equipped to deal with it than any other school. Since they market themselves as a program that doesn't push kids out that don't perform they wouldn't get any backlash for denying releases cause they can say if the player stays he is guaranteed a scholarship until his eligibility is up.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:15 am to TidalSurge1
I blame the Stewart Mandels and other college football media who continue to push this lazy narrative that life is so unfair for the players.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:39 am to FairhopeTider
I just want to continue to stress this proposal has very little to do with the plight and well being of the players. This is mostly for the NCAA to pass the buck and in the end to the benefit of the schools.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 8:41 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 8:51 am to Carlton
quote:
I think Clemson would be for this more than the other schools. Clemson already presents itself that they won't push you out because you aren't performing.
If they have a player that isn't producing who wants to leave great they free up another scholarship. In the unlikely situation it is a player that produces they are more equipped to deal with it than any other school. Since they market themselves as a program that doesn't push kids out that don't perform they wouldn't get any backlash for denying releases cause they can say if the player stays he is guaranteed a scholarship until his eligibility is up.
If that much control goes back to the conferences and schools I would be semi-shocked. There have already been so many unintended consequences on transfer portals the NCAA has raised the white flag.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:10 am to bamameister
I don't think they are giving much back and in reality, NCAA doesn't want to be held responsible for any of these transfer decisions anyway, they want to look impartial, even though they aren't.
If this passes, unless I'm reading it wrong, if a school grants a kid a release the NCAA doesn't have to deal with the situations like Luke Ford's or JQ and take the PR hit. The programs have already been granting these releases and saying hey it isn't up to us it is the NCAA who didn't want to be in that position. Now it is back on the programs and if the school is willing to grant a release it is unlikely they care where the kid is going.
If this passes, unless I'm reading it wrong, if a school grants a kid a release the NCAA doesn't have to deal with the situations like Luke Ford's or JQ and take the PR hit. The programs have already been granting these releases and saying hey it isn't up to us it is the NCAA who didn't want to be in that position. Now it is back on the programs and if the school is willing to grant a release it is unlikely they care where the kid is going.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 9:21 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 9:59 am to Carlton
I think this would be better if it only applied to the first two years of eligibility and to graduate transfers. When you allow this later on year 3-4 of eligibility, it's going to blow up graduation rates for many of these student athletes as credits are lost
Posted on 2/21/20 at 10:13 am to droliver
Graduate transfers shouldn’t matter, they are automatically immediately eligible and are likely just starting their program so they won’t lose credits. The schools will work with student athletes in regards to which credits will transfer. For the programs GSR and APR rates are adjusted as long as the student is in good academic standing when they transfer.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 10:15 am
Posted on 2/21/20 at 12:26 pm to Carlton
Carlton, if you have ever transferred school you know how disruptive transfer credits actually are. While it make not cause too many waves for some of the soft majors major sports athletes are often steered to, it would delay graduation progress for many that majored in business, professional degrees, and sciences. That only gets more true the further along you are. Thus my suggestion of limiting that to the first two years with an eye towards graduation rates
Posted on 2/21/20 at 1:04 pm to droliver
Academic departments usually make the decisions on what credits will transfer in and what classes you can receive credit for. It can be subjective as a Bio 101 from one school might be accepted, but from another be rejected. They can also make exceptions such as allowing a class that would normally transfer as only an elective qualify for a core class, waive prerequisites requirements, etc. I do agree that many times this can be a painful task for the average transfer. However for elite athletes exceptions are often made at major institutions especially if they are receiving pressure from athletics and the administration. And if that doesn't work the athlete is usually encouraged to change to a school or major that has a more forgiving transfer credit policy. If you really want to come here be a communications major instead of a business major.
I'm not saying this how it should be done but it happens. I will give you an example of how schools can manipulate credits. I finished up the requirements for my major program by the end of my junior year in college. I wanted to go for a double degree but the program I wanted would have taken me another 2 years to finish. I went to the Dean of that school and went look I want to do this second program but it will take me 4 semesters and the most I'm willing to do is 3 cause that is all I have the money for. Will you make an exception for a semesters worth of my courses from my other program to count toward this degree program. Needless to say I graduated after 3 semesters with the dual degrees.
I'm not saying this how it should be done but it happens. I will give you an example of how schools can manipulate credits. I finished up the requirements for my major program by the end of my junior year in college. I wanted to go for a double degree but the program I wanted would have taken me another 2 years to finish. I went to the Dean of that school and went look I want to do this second program but it will take me 4 semesters and the most I'm willing to do is 3 cause that is all I have the money for. Will you make an exception for a semesters worth of my courses from my other program to count toward this degree program. Needless to say I graduated after 3 semesters with the dual degrees.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 2/21/20 at 1:33 pm to Carlton
Carlton,I think it's a lot more complicated then that. Loss of hours/credits is the norm in transfers. The athletic department isn't going to have a lot of latitude or influence on that.
If we pay more then lip service to graduation rates, this kind of transfer policy is going to cause problems for a lot of high risk students
If we pay more then lip service to graduation rates, this kind of transfer policy is going to cause problems for a lot of high risk students
Posted on 2/21/20 at 1:55 pm to droliver
I can tell you from some experience that happens often for athletes and the schools who want these transfer will make sure it works out. Academic departments determine what counts as credit and as long as it isn't outlandish they can make exceptions. And many students are willing to change majors of their primary goal is the play for a specific school.
With that being said you could be right, I've only worked with a small portion of the Colleges and Universities on offer.
However I do agree with credit loss being a big issue for the typical transfer student. However working with those students I've generally found it is to poor guidance and lack of information (neither of which is typically the student's fault). A lot of students are working out transfers on their own choosing a school before knowing what will transfer and not knowing the resources available to them. I've worked with kids who had no idea Bama has a Transfer Equivalency Table and they would have known well before hand what the school would take.
I have a feeling you won't, but trust me the schools and football programs will make sure the athletes will get the credits for the programs and graduate on time.
ETA: The only real problem I might see popping up with any regularity is if the student has met the maximum number of credits that can be transferred in. Say the program allows a maximum of 60 credits tp transferred in and the student has 90. Exceptions can be made there as well but then you might get stronger push back on fairness vs the rest of the student pop.
With that being said you could be right, I've only worked with a small portion of the Colleges and Universities on offer.
However I do agree with credit loss being a big issue for the typical transfer student. However working with those students I've generally found it is to poor guidance and lack of information (neither of which is typically the student's fault). A lot of students are working out transfers on their own choosing a school before knowing what will transfer and not knowing the resources available to them. I've worked with kids who had no idea Bama has a Transfer Equivalency Table and they would have known well before hand what the school would take.
I have a feeling you won't, but trust me the schools and football programs will make sure the athletes will get the credits for the programs and graduate on time.
ETA: The only real problem I might see popping up with any regularity is if the student has met the maximum number of credits that can be transferred in. Say the program allows a maximum of 60 credits tp transferred in and the student has 90. Exceptions can be made there as well but then you might get stronger push back on fairness vs the rest of the student pop.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 2/21/20 at 3:45 pm to TidalSurge1
quote:
NCAA considering 1 transfer with no penalty for all sports
No Bama fan should be upset about this change, at least not for reasons that would hurt Bama. Hurt the game perhaps, but hurt Bama? Nope.
Any player who desires to transfer away from Alabama will almost certainly do so for reasons related to not being a contributor. Also, any player who transfers to Alabama will do so because he believes he will be a contributor and the staff agrees.
This rule change is basically free agency, yeah. But it will always benefit Alabama or any team like Alabama.
Posted on 2/21/20 at 3:56 pm to prevatt33b
Unless I'm mistaking, I still think people are misconstruing this rule. Nothing much is changing. If a player and a school want to amicably part ways the student gets a one time opportunity to play immediately if the school he is leaving offers him a release without need for an NCAA waiver evaluation. Schools are currently very careful about who they offer releases to and will likely be even more so now.
If the school they are leaving doesn't offer the waiver they can go into the portal and the school they are going to can file for a waiver with the NCAA on their behalf like they do now or they accept they have to sit a year. This is the process in every other NCAA sport except these 4 in the proposal.
Again all this does it keeps the NCAA from having to deal with transfer waiver request they don't want to touch.
I think the schools are going to benefit from this way more from a roster management standpoint than the students although it will help a handful of students like JQ and Luke Ford each year.
If the school they are leaving doesn't offer the waiver they can go into the portal and the school they are going to can file for a waiver with the NCAA on their behalf like they do now or they accept they have to sit a year. This is the process in every other NCAA sport except these 4 in the proposal.
Again all this does it keeps the NCAA from having to deal with transfer waiver request they don't want to touch.
I think the schools are going to benefit from this way more from a roster management standpoint than the students although it will help a handful of students like JQ and Luke Ford each year.
This post was edited on 2/21/20 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 2/21/20 at 4:50 pm to prevatt33b
It was an alright listen. This was my first time hearing the defense for the year sit out was the academic year in residence argument.
Posted on 2/23/20 at 1:58 pm to bamameister
quote:
In the ACC, it's Clemson and the 13 dwarfs. Clemson has to risk their 4* and 5* guys and teams like Boston College can ante up with their 2* and win the pot. Not sure what you call it but it ain't poker. The vote was probably 13 to 1.
ACC: Student-athletes should be allowed one-time transfer exemption (ESPN)
quote:
The ACC joins the Big Ten in supporting a one-time transfer exemption for student-athletes in all sports. The league announced Monday that it "unanimously concluded" at its annual winter meetings that athletes in all sports should be allowed to transfer one time without having to sit out a year of competition. . .
This post was edited on 2/23/20 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 2/24/20 at 8:15 am to TidalSurge1
Did you do all that for me?
Free agency is always the unintended consequence of all this. But realistically, guys are leaving through the transfer portal in record number. Even if they have to sit a year, they are still leaving. I don't see even ticked off HCs refusing a player through this new version of the transfer portal that the appeals committee doesn't finish the job and the player is still immediately free to play wherever.
The law of 25/85 will kick in at some point. There are just so many spots available.
Free agency is always the unintended consequence of all this. But realistically, guys are leaving through the transfer portal in record number. Even if they have to sit a year, they are still leaving. I don't see even ticked off HCs refusing a player through this new version of the transfer portal that the appeals committee doesn't finish the job and the player is still immediately free to play wherever.
The law of 25/85 will kick in at some point. There are just so many spots available.
Posted on 2/24/20 at 8:26 pm to bamameister
quote:
Did you do all that for me?
For you and everyone. That ACC article link was in the ESPN article that I'd included in the OP. I didn't have to hunt for it.
quote:
The law of 25/85 will kick in at some point. There are just so many spots available.
Yep. Bama actually needs some guys to transfer to open up spots within the 85 limit for incoming summer enrollees (Roster/Depth).
This post was edited on 2/24/20 at 8:36 pm
Page 2 of 3
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News