View Full Version : "Closing transfer loopholes"

05-11-2012, 08:04 AM
Picked this up over on the SMC boards:


1. The National Association of Basketball Coaches board of directors met with NCAA president Mark Emmert on Thursday in Indianapolis and, according to at least one source in the room, there is support to close up a few transfer loopholes. The coaches and Emmert discussed making any player who wants to transfer sit out a year, even if he or she has graduated and is seeking a waiver to play immediately at a school that has a graduate program that isnít available at the current school. The discussion also turned to the waiver that allows a player to play immediately if a relative is ill. That, too, would be closed. The consensus among the coaches is that if anyone transfers, he should sit out a year, even if that means a sixth year in college. The coaches also wanted some sort of universal language on transfer restrictions, maybe even an NCAA rule that forbids transferring within a conference. Conferences and schools create their own policies on restricting transfers.

My response there:

Are they also planning on making a rule that would make coaches who switch schools sit out a year? And seriously, if a guy graduates, why are we penalizing him? If someone has a sick relative, why are we punishing them? Or, in the case of UCONN, if the school can't get its act together, why are we punishing the players who don't want to get stuck with having no chance to play in the postseason?

But sure, coaches can switch teams whenever they want, and players are just stuck.

05-11-2012, 08:10 AM
When kings no longer win the game then the rules will change.

Perhaps when schools change leagues they also should have to sit out a year.

05-11-2012, 08:50 AM
Players should not have to sit out a year in my opinion unless coaches start doing the same...graduating as junior, sick relative or not.

Its a free country and schollies are now year to year , right?

Should coaches get all the blame, though, if players don't get passing grades?? Why not give a stipend for minimum GPA KEPT and MAINTAINED along with class attendance of 95% and above?? Message- don't come here if you don't plan on studying and working hard in school. Why?? Cuz 95% of kids will be a pro in SOMETHING OTHER than their college sport.

Maybe coaches/ schools have a right to rescind the scholarship if minimum GPA is not met.

Also- why not hold back 25% of NCAA tourney money in a pool for Top 65 programs with top GPA's and top Graduation rates. Also why not hold back half of the coach's salary/bonus money until end of each year where GPA's and attendance standards are met?? Sad when a Calhoun is top paid employee of a state imho.

I know this will cause alot of debate and we are now in a one and done mentality ...but I am for shortening the NBA season, MLB season, NFL season
and getting rid of onerous salaries , too.

05-11-2012, 08:59 AM
The rule is so that they can still do the 4 in 5 rule. But that being said... I kinda get... And I use the kinda very loosely... The change to the graduation one. In that situation you have the expectation of 4 yrs of service and getting 3. But sick family parents or guardians... Sorry.... That is flat out evil to punish them.

05-11-2012, 09:27 AM
Are they adding a rule that if you played for UW you can't transfer to the zags?

Martin Centre Mad Man
05-11-2012, 09:52 AM
I really think that the transfer rules should be loosened, not tightened. One thing that really bothers me is that the kids are penalized if they change teams, regardless of what else is happening on campus. What happens if the school simply decides not to extend a player's scholarship? Is he allowed to transfer to a school that will offer him a scholarship?

My understanding is that scholarhips are one-year grants. This means that a team can take it away at will. I would assume this means that a kid who loses his scholarship for any reason has to sit out before he can play at another school that offers him one. Is this correct? If so, that seems really unfair.

I'd like to see an appeals process that allows transferring players to petition for immediate eligibility based on their individual circumstances. If the kid has good academic or personal reasons for transferring, there ought to be a process to allow him to do so without penalties.

Martin Centre Mad Man
05-11-2012, 09:56 AM
I'd also like to see walk-on players be immediately eligible if they transfer to a school that offers them a scholarship, unless their existing school matches the offer. I'll call that, the "Mike Hart Rule." If Montana offers him a scholarship, Gonzaga needs to do the same, or he can transfer and play immediately.

05-11-2012, 05:40 PM
Some kids find out that they aren't suited for the school, the staff or even the D1 level.

Give them all an opportunity to find the best fit.

If not, then change scholarships to a full eligibility term commitment by all programs. Coaches would be much more selective on who they extend offers to.

If you haphazardly offer players, expect them to haphazardly stay or go.

Replacing players is a continuous process. The pace is increased with transfers, but all players need to be replaced eventually.

No knock against GU here. They are simply playing by the same rules as everyone else. Indeed, it appears that coach Few has helped kids to transfer into better situations at times.

I also very much agree with Martin in the previous post.

05-11-2012, 07:02 PM
In my honest opinion, I believe that Players/Students are much like a deer in the headlights when it comes to recruiting. Having to deal with MULTIPLE recruiters, coaches, and other individuals slipping comments into their ears, has to have a dramatic impact on a player to make a wise decision. Regarding what a player feels will best suit his playing style, desires, compatibility with staff and other players, and his future...will simply be compounded when considering everything else that he hears and sees.

I believe often times a student/player ends up picking based on what he hears and not so much about what he wants and feels. And with that I support the non-limited transfer rules while on Scholarship. No player should have to sit out for any season after a transfer. A transfer during season should be allowed with no waiting period IF emergency reasons deemed legit. Otherwise mid-season transfers should be allowed to play at beginning of next season. As for players on Scholarship, teams/coaches should be allowed to deny transfers to other in-state, same conference, and rivalry colleges. And a player should have to sit out 1 year, unless he is joining a college of a lesser division.

Just my thoughts,

05-11-2012, 09:00 PM
Is the reason for sitting them a year to discourage moving around and encouraging staying with the school that invested in them? What exactly is the reason for the penalty? If it were go anywhere any time, it could be a little messy wouldn't it? Destabilizing perhaps?

05-12-2012, 01:17 AM
Is the reason for sitting them a year to discourage moving around and encouraging staying with the school that invested in them? What exactly is the reason for the penalty? If it were go anywhere any time, it could be a little messy wouldn't it? Destabilizing perhaps?

The year wait is penalty enough. It just needs to be applied fairly.

The original post mentioned "closing loopholes". Personally, I'm not one to define the act of moving closer to an ill relative as a loophole. I also believe that if a coach sells you on his program and then takes a job elsewhere, then the player has been deceived, and should be able to transfer without the penalty of waiting an extra year.

The big programs are making mint off of these kids while retaining the ability (albiet seldom used) to revoke scholarships for on court performance. It isn't like these players are in a great bargaining postion.

If the NCAA pushes this reform too far, a couple ugly things may happen. They could open themselves up to a system defined by a judge within a court of law. They may encourage a trend of players choosing to be compensated for their work instead. It isn't like NCAA hoops is the only option for many of them.

Martin Centre Mad Man
05-12-2012, 04:02 AM
One consequence of transferring is that it is often harder for a student to graduate in four/five yearrs. Too often, kids find that their credits don't transfer or that the gaining school doesn't treat a class that meets graduation requirements as meeting essentially the same requirements at another. My wife's graduate level English classes from Oxford didn't meet the 100 level English requirements for an associates degree at Northwestern Louisiana State. Go figure.

I can understand places rules to discourage hasty decisions on transfers for this reason, but the "loopholes" they are trying to close have nothing to do with this problem.

05-12-2012, 06:50 AM
I really don't see these as 'loop holes'. I have not seen any real abuse. Rob Jones' xfer seemed to be supported by both USD &SMC foer example.