PDA

View Full Version : NCAA to tighten immediate-eligibility process for non-grad transfer rules



AustinDevil
06-26-2019, 11:27 AM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/06/26/ncaas-changes-transfer-guidelines-limit-immediate-eligibility/1569260001/

Most of this seems quite sensible in backing away from what was starting to look like offseason free agency. But a couple of things stand out to me:

(1) They should continue letting kids who are transferring to within 100 miles of a dying family member just go, and not require additional documentation of specific "caregiver" responsibilities; and

(2) What school is going to put out on school letterhead documentation that its coach(es) ran off a player? They might as well eliminate being run off as a reason for immediate-eligibility transfers.

I'm more ambivalent on them tightening rules around athletes leaving a school that has just been walloped by the NCAA. I would feel less ambivalent about this if the NCAA were not so arbitrary in its wallopings.

Acymetric
06-26-2019, 11:39 AM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/06/26/ncaas-changes-transfer-guidelines-limit-immediate-eligibility/1569260001/

Most of this seems quite sensible in backing away from what was starting to look like offseason free agency. But a couple of things stand out to me:

(1) They should continue letting kids who are transferring to within 100 miles of a dying family member just go, and not require additional documentation of specific "caregiver" responsibilities; and

(2) What school is going to put out on school letterhead documentation that its coach(es) ran off a player? They might as well eliminate being run off as a reason for immediate-eligibility transfers.

I'm more ambivalent on them tightening rules around athletes leaving a school that has just been walloped by the NCAA. I would feel less ambivalent about this if the NCAA were not so arbitrary in its wallopings.

Yeah...for (2) they really need to put some rule in place for the process of pulling a scholarship if they are going to go that route (like some deadline to officially renew or not renew the contract for the next season that is early enough to give the player time to transfer). I guess this means players who are getting moved to the bench under a new coach/system will not be able to get the waiver, I don't know if they could previously.

Fully agreed on the sick/dying family member thing. It doesn't matter if they will be assisting in regular care...let the kid be with their damn family!

If anything...loosen these restrictions. New coach? Immediately eligible. New Coordinator or even position coach (relevant to your position)? Immediately eligible. And so forth.

English
06-26-2019, 12:24 PM
Yeah...for (2) they really need to put some rule in place for the process of pulling a scholarship if they are going to go that route (like some deadline to officially renew or not renew the contract for the next season that is early enough to give the player time to transfer). I guess this means players who are getting moved to the bench under a new coach/system will not be able to get the waiver, I don't know if they could previously.

Fully agreed on the sick/dying family member thing. It doesn't matter if they will be assisting in regular care...let the kid be with their damn family!

If anything...loosen these restrictions. New coach? Immediately eligible. New Coordinator or even position coach (relevant to your position)? Immediately eligible. And so forth.

I don't think this will realistically happen--that would be tantamount to the NCAA explicitly saying "The coach >>> The institution & program," whether it's true or not (it mostly is). I just don't see that becoming the official stance of the organization.

Acymetric
06-26-2019, 12:31 PM
I don't think this will realistically happen--that would be tantamount to the NCAA explicitly saying "The coach >>> The institution & program," whether it's true or not (it mostly is). I just don't see that becoming the official stance of the organization.

Oh sure. This is if they made me Supreme Chancellor of NCAA Stuff or something. No way they ever go that route unless somehow forced by law (which is not outside the realm of possibility).

Have the transfer rules ever been challenged in a state that isn't friendly to non-compete type contracts?

PackMan97
06-26-2019, 01:02 PM
My rules would be simple:

Leaving UNC: Immediately eligible
Going to UNC: Lifetime ban from NCAA competition.

JetpackJesus
06-26-2019, 04:28 PM
My rules would be simple:

Leaving UNC: Immediately eligible
Going to UNC: Lifetime ban from NCAA competition.

Neither of those rules would exist if I were in charge because I would give uNC's athletic department the death penalty.

PackMan97
06-26-2019, 09:15 PM
Neither of those rules would exist if I were in charge because I would give uNC's athletic department the death penalty.

LOL! I'm getting senile in my old age.

DarkstarWahoo
06-27-2019, 11:01 AM
I'm perfectly fine with there being specific criteria for immediate-eligibility transfers, and to hold kids and schools to that criteria. There's a real "Signed, Epstein's Mother" feel to a lot of the flimsy justifications, and I wish we would collectively stop the charade.

That said, I'm also OK with the criteria being a pretty low bar to clear. Once the "5 to play 4" clock starts ticking, I think players should be able to find the school that fits them the best and get themselves there as quickly as possible. Look at Marco Anthony at UVA (I'm trying to think of a Duke example - Jordan Tucker?). I have to imagine it was pretty much a mutually agreed-upon parting. Who is hurt if guys like that get to play the next season?

NSDukeFan
06-27-2019, 11:09 AM
My rules would be simple:

Leaving UNC: Immediately eligible
Going to UNC: Lifetime ban from NCAA competition.

My impression is the NCAA tends to have more favourable rules for Carolina.

Spanarkel
06-27-2019, 12:16 PM
I'm perfectly fine with there being specific criteria for immediate-eligibility transfers, and to hold kids and schools to that criteria. There's a real "Signed, Epstein's Mother" feel to a lot of the flimsy justifications, and I wish we would collectively stop the charade.

That said, I'm also OK with the criteria being a pretty low bar to clear. Once the "5 to play 4" clock starts ticking, I think players should be able to find the school that fits them the best and get themselves there as quickly as possible. Look at Marco Anthony at UVA (I'm trying to think of a Duke example - Jordan Tucker?). I have to imagine it was pretty much a mutually agreed-upon parting. Who is hurt if guys like that get to play the next season?


I agree with your post entirely. Since you're undoubtedly more familiar with the situation, I was interested in your thoughts on Marial Shayok's transfer two years ago. He turns 24 next month, and I'm thinking that his having to sit out a year may have significant ramifications for his second and third NBA contracts(, assuming he does stick with the Sixers or another club). Of course it's impossible to know how well Shayok would have played for ISU two years ago if he didn't have to sit out a year. He may not have had as good a season overall as he did last year. Thank you!

Neals384
06-27-2019, 02:20 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/06/26/ncaas-changes-transfer-guidelines-limit-immediate-eligibility/1569260001/

Most of this seems quite sensible in backing away from what was starting to look like offseason free agency. But a couple of things stand out to me:

(1) They should continue letting kids who are transferring to within 100 miles of a dying family member just go, and not require additional documentation of specific "caregiver" responsibilities; and

(2) What school is going to put out on school letterhead documentation that its coach(es) ran off a player? They might as well eliminate being run off as a reason for immediate-eligibility transfers.

I'm more ambivalent on them tightening rules around athletes leaving a school that has just been walloped by the NCAA. I would feel less ambivalent about this if the NCAA were not so arbitrary in its wallopings.

Was #2 the exception that applied to Rasheed S.?

English
06-27-2019, 02:40 PM
I'm perfectly fine with there being specific criteria for immediate-eligibility transfers, and to hold kids and schools to that criteria. There's a real "Signed, Epstein's Mother" feel to a lot of the flimsy justifications, and I wish we would collectively stop the charade.

That said, I'm also OK with the criteria being a pretty low bar to clear. Once the "5 to play 4" clock starts ticking, I think players should be able to find the school that fits them the best and get themselves there as quickly as possible. Look at Marco Anthony at UVA (I'm trying to think of a Duke example - Jordan Tucker?). I have to imagine it was pretty much a mutually agreed-upon parting. Who is hurt if guys like that get to play the next season?

I'm not sure who Marco Anthony is in UVA history (and I'm too lazy on the internet to do any background research about him), but I doubt Jordan Tucker is a proper analogy for Duke. Tucker, as far as I know, is as stereotypical an athlete transfer as it comes. He didn't get as much burn as he wanted/thought he deserved, and he decided to move to another program to address that. Simple. If that's an exception WRT the transfer rule, there might as well not be a transfer rule. Sulaimon seems like it may be a better comp, but he was actually kicked out of the program, so probably again not great.

DU82
06-27-2019, 08:45 PM
Was #2 the exception that applied to Rasheed S.?

Rasheed graduated during the summer after he was dismissed from the team, so he was a grad student transfer.

Wander
06-28-2019, 07:41 AM
I'm with Coach K on this - the rules should just be either (a) everyone has to sit out a year, or (b) no one has to sit out a year. No case-by-case decisions.

DarkstarWahoo
06-28-2019, 07:52 AM
I'm not sure who Marco Anthony is in UVA history (and I'm too lazy on the internet to do any background research about him), but I doubt Jordan Tucker is a proper analogy for Duke. Tucker, as far as I know, is as stereotypical an athlete transfer as it comes. He didn't get as much burn as he wanted/thought he deserved, and he decided to move to another program to address that. Simple. If that's an exception WRT the transfer rule, there might as well not be a transfer rule. Sulaimon seems like it may be a better comp, but he was actually kicked out of the program, so probably again not great.

If you watched UVA’s Final Four games this year, Anthony was the best bench dancer.

I guess my main point is just that the Anthony transfer, in particular, seemed to be a mutual decision between him and UVA. I wouldn’t mind seeing an “uncontested transfer” situation. I’m sure it’s ripe for abuse and there are a million issues I haven’t thought of.