NCAA To Discuss Transfer Rule Change...

[PBP]

The NCAA is set to discuss a rule change that would effectively start free agency in college sports.

According to Jon Rothstein, the NCAA will meet soon to decide on a potential rule change regarding immediate athlete transfer eligibility, where players with either a 2.7 or 2.8 GPA would be allowed a one-time transfer without sitting out a year.

Sources: NCAA to meet soon regarding immediate eligibility for transfers. STORY @FanRagSports: https://t.co/ia36YL3rnf

— Jon Rothstein (@JonRothstein) January 14, 2018

The rule would also impact graduate transfers, as a school taking on a graduate athlete must provide the scholarship for the entirety of the graduate program.

Rothstein reports that if the rule is passed, it would go into effect on August 1, 2018, just in time for next year’s college basketball and football seasons.

PBPMajor transfers would be happening left and right.

What do you guys think? Good or bad idea?

PBP

 

[Bengal_believer]

This rule clearly has the NBA and NFL, not to mention, media interest in mind. This doesn’t really feel like, a sound rule for educational purposes. IMHO

 

[sacstateman]

I wonder just how many student athletes have a 2.7 gpa or better? I don't think there are that many who would qualify for this one time transfer.....if an athlete has a 3.0 gpa, he usually makes academic all league or all american....the numbers may not be as significant as one would think right off the bat...Now the grad transfer change may end up being a big deterrent to those who would use that route...If a school wants to invest 2 years of their scholarships for a kid to play for one year, I would think that would slow down the flow of graduate transfers...

 

[PBP]

Talked about this with Bill Evans on the coaches show today and he thinks it's a "horrible" idea. He fears that any ISU player who shows promise for example can be swept up and taken away by larger programs (not just out of the Power 5 group). He also said that if this passes, "why should I ever recruit any high school kids?" The thinking being that if he needs players he'll just try to take them from somebody else.

He also expressed concerns about former coaches at younger levels who worked with a player being contacted by programs "unofficially" and then that coach gets in the ear of the former player now in college and 'persuades' them to leave.

He said "Kentucky likes this, UCLA, Utah..." but he thinks it will be very bad for smaller conferences / programs.

PBP

 

[sacstateman]

Talked about this with Bill Evans on the coaches show today and he thinks it's a "horrible" idea. He fears that any ISU player who shows promise for example can be swept up and taken away by larger programs (not just out of the Power 5 group). He also said that if this passes, "why should I ever recruit any high school kids?" The thinking being that if he needs players he'll just try to take them from somebody else.

He also expressed concerns about former coaches at younger levels who worked with a player being contacted by programs "unofficially" and then that coach gets in the ear of the former player now in college and 'persuades' them to leave.

He said "Kentucky likes this, UCLA, Utah..." but he thinks it will be very bad for smaller conferences / programs.

PBP

I understand what he is thinking but I think he should look a bit closer at his assumptions....1. If any ISU player shows promise right now, there are people in his ear already trying to sway him to a larger program....2. If Coach Evans thinks he can stock ISU with players that he can poach from other teams, I have my doubts about that. I have a hard time believing that he will be able to convince kids from other programs to come to ISU for all it has to offer that others don't have. If he could do that, he would be far more successful in recruiting right now..smh...3. Former coaches are contacting players every day "unofficially" TODAY!!!! 4. The power 5 conferences will come out on top of the recruiting wars whether this rule change comes about or not...

In your next interview with Coach Evans, ask him how many of his players are carrying a 2.7 or better GPA...I think the answer is not very many....And wouldn't you have loved having Stutzman eligible last year???

 

[PBP]

I understand what he is thinking but I think he should look a bit closer at his assumptions....1. If any ISU player shows promise right now, there are people in his ear already trying to sway him to a larger program.

Your points are valid but regarding #1, there at least is a "penalty" now if a player wants to transfer. You have to sit out a year.

As of figures released by the NCAA in 2015, there were about 600 transfers in men's basketball and about 400 in women's basketball.

If this rule passes the situation could become more chaotic and present coaches with the nightmare of not knowing exactly what their roster could like like with more uncertainty than now.

However as I said on the show, coaches are free to leave basically at will (as long as they pay the buyout) so how can you justify not allowing players at least some of the same rights?

I asked Bill if he thinks this will pass and he feels it will and smaller schools will have to deal with it as best as they can.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

Talked about this with Bill Evans on the coaches show today and he thinks it's a "horrible" idea. He fears that any ISU player who shows promise for example can be swept up and taken away by larger programs (not just out of the Power 5 group). He also said that if this passes, "why should I ever recruit any high school kids?" The thinking being that if he needs players he'll just try to take them from somebody else.

He also expressed concerns about former coaches at younger levels who worked with a player being contacted by programs "unofficially" and then that coach gets in the ear of the former player now in college and 'persuades' them to leave.

He said "Kentucky likes this, UCLA, Utah..." but he thinks it will be very bad for smaller conferences / programs.

PBP

I understand what he is thinking but I think he should look a bit closer at his assumptions....1. If any ISU player shows promise right now, there are people in his ear already trying to sway him to a larger program....2. If Coach Evans thinks he can stock ISU with players that he can poach from other teams, I have my doubts about that. I have a hard time believing that he will be able to convince kids from other programs to come to ISU for all it has to offer that others don't have. If he could do that, he would be far more successful in recruiting right now..smh...3. Former coaches are contacting players every day "unofficially" TODAY!!!! 4. The power 5 conferences will come out on top of the recruiting wars whether this rule change comes about or not...

In your next interview with Coach Evans, ask him how many of his players are carrying a 2.7 or better GPA...I think the answer is not very many....And wouldn't you have loved having Stutzman eligible last year???

Stutzman just transferred this year and won an appeal allowing him to be immediately eligible (although the ruling didn’t come until four games into the season). And yes we are very glad he got immediately eligible.

 

[50 yr fan]

If this happens schools that ups their game will have an edge. I feel I.S.U. will have to hire better coaches. It will take more money but there's room for this with U.I. and B.S.U. already paying much more. And economic expansion in this area. We should be able to do better in the hiring area. GO BENGALS

 

[sacstateman]

Thanks Skippy, I didn't know Stutzman got an appeal approved....Another thing I thought about may help the mid majors and that is the fact that there will be no "penalty" year...if a kid is at a P5 school and not getting as much time as he wants, the transfer down may look even more attractive to him since he would no longer have to sit out a year...it could be the reason for MORE downward (from P5 to mid majors) transfers than before...

 

[sasquatch]

This has been talked about for several months now. Actually, most coaches are against this. Nick Saban came out against it, and most mid- and low-major programs REALLY don't like it. The fear in basketball is you would start to see a major divide in Division I. The lower level program would become a farm system, and the higher programs would poach from each other. Most in favor of this are current and former players.

I can see the good and bad. I don't think a player should be held hostage. I hate it when I see a player transfer, but a coach restricts where they can transfer to. On the other hand, upper programs within the same came conference could poach from lower ones.

I saw the women's basketball coach at Tulane talking about this a few weeks back, and I meant to bring up the question then. Not only does she think the transfer rule would make the elite even stronger, she thinks women's basketball should drop from 15 scholarships to 13 (match the men). She thinks that would help the parity in women's basketball, instead of keeping things so top heavy (UCONN). She said something like the #15 player on a top tier program would be the #3 or #4 choice on a slightly lower program and even a #1 or #2 player on a lower level program.

 

[PBP]

She thinks women's basketball should drop from 15 scholarships to 13 (match the men). She thinks that would help the parity in women's basketball, instead of keeping things so top heavy (UCONN). She said something like the #15 player on a top tier program would be the #3 or #4 choice on a slightly lower program and even a #1 or #2 player on a lower level program.

Title IX gender equity issues would not allow this especially at schools like ISU which because of the larger number of female students has to have a larger number of athletes who are female on scholarship in order to stay within the legal ratio.

 

[SLCBengal]

FootballScoop.com reported the following today:

NCAA: Discussions on changing the transfer eligibility rules have been pushed back to 2019, according to a tweet from Adam Zagoria of the New York Times. AFCA executive director Todd Berry came out against changing these rules at the convention last week.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AdamZagoria/status/953306195661672448[/tweet]

 

[SLCBengal]

She thinks women's basketball should drop from 15 scholarships to 13 (match the men). She thinks that would help the parity in women's basketball, instead of keeping things so top heavy (UCONN). She said something like the #15 player on a top tier program would be the #3 or #4 choice on a slightly lower program and even a #1 or #2 player on a lower level program.

Title IX gender equity issues would not allow this especially at schools like ISU which because of the larger number of female students has to have a larger number of athletes who are female on scholarship in order to stay within the legal ratio.

Just out of curiosity, couldn't you just take those 2 scholarships and direct them to another sport (i.e. track, softball...)?

 

[JJB]

If the NCAA wanted to change the total number of scholarships from 15 to 13 for women's BB, they absolutely could. Title IX is about allowing equal opportunity, but it isn't dictated sport by sport. Some schools have more men enrolled than woman, but the 15 WBB scholarship max is still the rule. Utah State didn't even offer women's basketball for most of the 80's and 90's. So yeah, they could change the scholarship limit from 15 to 13, but they would still have to offer equal opportunity for females - so those scholarships would have to be made up somewhere.

 

[PBP]

I can tell you that at ISU coaches are "encouraged" to have the maximum number of female scholarship athletes as possible to help the Title IX situation.

You could, I guess, move the two scholarships to other sports although I imagine that every sport already has the maximum number of athletes on scholarship as allowed. Don't know where you'd be able to move them to under those circumstances...you certainly couldn't hand them over to men's sports.