OT: Big Ten Proposed Eliminating "Sit-Out" Year for Transfers

[RenoZag]

(Will move to Sports Talk after a few days)

Story Link: https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ng-out-a-year/

Football and basketball coaches who have been critical of recent changes in the transfer process would have their worst fears realized -- essentially, one-time free agency would be available for all college athletes.

The Big Ten's support of such a proposal indicates a sea change in the transfer debate. The nation's oldest and richest conference sees the issue as one of fairness.

Athletes in only five sports are required to sit for a season when transferring: men's basketball, women's basketball, baseball, hockey and football. In the NCAA's 20 other sports, athletes are allowed a one-time. The difference in the two transfer policies is getting harder to rationalize.

The so-called "graduate transfer" era began in 2005 with athletes who had achieved their undergraduate degrees given the ability to transfer without sitting out for their remaining year(s) of eligibility. The increase in graduate transfers has vexed coached concerned with roster management. It has also created an annual market where coaches can improve their teams immediately by getting a game-changing quarterback.

[CDC84]

One of the worries regarding this rule is that by eliminating the "sit out" year, coaches may rent a player and then just recruit over him with some 4 or 5 star guy the following season. In other words, it's not as much in the players best interest as some people think. When you take in a regular transfer, it requires a lot of commitment to that player. You have to spend tons of time developing him during his redshirt season in order to get him better and so on. The coach cannot dispose of him so easily.

I have always believed that if a head coach gets fired, all players on the roster should have the ability to transfer immediately, but that's because the players committed to that coach. This is a different situation. It worries me a bit.