http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...icy-change

This new rule would eliminate a hardship waiver, but would allow an extra year of eligibility. Basically, the student who would normally transfer and apply for a hardship waiver if there were family crcumstances he wanted to be closer to home to attend to, would simply just transfer and sit out a year without losing a year of eligibility or a redshirt.

I think it's a good rule change.

I think the student athlete should be able to transfer at least once without penalty if he or she chooses to do so, and if their coach happens to leave for another job then they should be able to transfer with the rules as is to where they must sit, but keep the year of eligibility instead of losing it. I don't think just re-wording or changing of the clause to this or that is sufficient enough. Make it where the student athlete can move without penalty at least one time during their four year stint of college, and yes they keep their eligibility. Now if they transfer again for what ever reason then let them do so, but then they lose a year of eligibility. The NCAA makes more than enough money to hire a committee to over see these movements and to keep up with their status through the course of their careers. I am in favor of letting the student athlete move, but only one time without penalty.

(04-18-2014 03:40 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I think the student athlete should be able to transfer at least once without penalty if he or she chooses to do so, and if their coach happens to leave for another job then they should be able to transfer with the rules as is to where they must sit, but keep the year of eligibility instead of losing it. I don't think just re-wording or changing of the clause to this or that is sufficient enough. Make it where the student athlete can move without penalty at least one time during their four year stint of college, and yes they keep their eligibility. Now if they transfer again for what ever reason then let them do so, but then they lose a year of eligibility. The NCAA makes more than enough money to hire a committee to over see these movements and to keep up with their status through the course of their careers. I am in favor of letting the student athlete move, but only one time without penalty.

Agreed. Lots of recruiting pressure on these kids and we all make mistakes. Let them move once.

(04-18-2014 03:40 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I think the student athlete should be able to transfer at least once without penalty if he or she chooses to do so, and if their coach happens to leave for another job then they should be able to transfer with the rules as is to where they must sit, but keep the year of eligibility instead of losing it.

I agree for the most part, except IMO if the player transfers to their former coach's new school they lose the year of eligibility, must still sit out the transfer year, and counts against the 25 in the initial recruiting class. Anything else and you'll have coaches poaching all of their former players and decimating the programs they departed from.

(04-20-2014 01:45 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 03:40 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I think the student athlete should be able to transfer at least once without penalty if he or she chooses to do so, and if their coach happens to leave for another job then they should be able to transfer with the rules as is to where they must sit, but keep the year of eligibility instead of losing it.

I agree for the most part, except IMO if the player transfers to their former coach's new school they lose the year of eligibility, must still sit out the transfer year, and counts against the 25 in the initial recruiting class. Anything else and you'll have coaches poaching all of their former players and decimating the programs they departed from.

If the kid can't free transfer to follow the coach (and I'd add assistants to that because of the closer relationship), that at least reduces the worries about a school hiring a coach to get a star player or players to follow.

Within FBS it would harder to "unofficially" recruit players from other programs and harder for those players to find a home. They are going to count against the 25 newcomer limit. While they will have faced better competition than most juco players they will have in most cases fewer snaps of experience.

While there may be some players who get their chance at a lower rung FBS and star and want to take their talents to the brighter lights, I reviewed a number of hoop transfers a few years ago (more on that later) and players who transferred "up" got reduced minutes in most cases and ended up never posting great stats while those transferring to gain minutes (ie. transferred "down") had a much higher chance of success.

The reason I looked at it was because AState had a hoops player who was named freshman of the year who suddenly developed a need to seek a hardship transfer and after looking at two schools further from home, transferred to Georgia Tech in his hometown of Atlanta. Looking at GT's stats no player on the team was within 8 minutes per game of what he had averaged at AState and I contended at the time if he wanted to further his game he would have been better off at Georgia State where he could play similar minutes. He ended up getting limited minutes and when he completed his degree with a year of eligibility left he transferred back to AState but was an inferior player as a senior compared to as a freshman because he had gone through that time without getting enough court time to improve his game.

Obviously some players will think that if they are a star at AState they can go to Auburn but most will end up harming their game because they will get fewer snaps. It isn't the job of the NCAA to prevent them from doing something that's dumb and it isn't my job to tell them they will be happier being on the field for more snaps because it may well be playing fewer snaps at a bigger name will bring them more happiness and maybe open a few more doors post-graduation.

1. screw this stupid "hardship" BS.......with the state of medical care and the quackery here in the USA there can be a "hardship" for anyone that wants one and the only reason there isn't is because for most they still take the chance to play and the chance to get an education seriously enough that they do not want to waste time and effort to front up the fraud of "hardship"

I bet if they could monitor it they would see that those that "transferred to be closer to a sick relative" with a few exceptions spent the same amount or probably even less time around that relative than before they transferred and that would include time coming home to get laundry done or raid the fridge

2. the NCAA does not "make money" people in this country are not economically intelligent enough to realize the difference between having a lot of revenue and "making money" and there is a difference........there is no need to waste a ton of money sorting through the "hardship" stupidity that will rain down with this rule change and the legal issues and lawsuits that will result from being denied "hardship" because of issues with long time family pets, 5th cousins that are "like an uncle to you" and neighbors that "are like granny"

wasting time, money, and effort to sort through foolery and buffoonery to see if it is a real issue is just stupid........give athletes 5 years to play 4 and give them one free transfer and then programs that recruit fools will suffer and programs that take in waffling idiots will suffer too

schools will soon find that these great transfers come in with a sense of entitlement, a poor work ethic, and expecting to have things handed to them and they will either not do the work to earn the position and that will cost the school or if the are handed the position it will bust up team chemistry and cause more issues and sooner than later schools will stop wanting transfers so badly

put an exception in for transferring to where a coach of any level or position has moved to and move on.......schools that have a lot of "playas" that will jump ship at the moment they are not anointed the starter will have to do more work to find fewer fools that are committed to "playing for them" as long as they play right off and or as long as they are winning and school that take the idiots that leave places because they can't cut it will soon find many of those "playas" are just that playas and not players and they spend more time being a "playa" instead of a player and end up on the bench, in jail or failing out or any combination of the three

3. there needs to be a rule in place where you only get to move for free if you are academically eligible otherwise it COST you a year to play with no exceptions and no hardships allowed.....so you have 5 years to play 4 unless you are academically ineligible and transfer then you lose a year so you have 5 years to play 4 unless you transfer in bad academic standing then you have 4 years to do anything period (so if you have already red shirted then you have 3 years left to play and if you have not red shirted you have 3 years left and you can red shirt and then play 2 years) and the school you left gets to dump your APR issues on the school you transfer to unless you drop down 1 level (D1-A to D1-AA) then it is just like it is now

4. along with this cut scholarships to 80 players for D1-A as well just because and because then it makes it all the more difficult on teams that recruit idiots that "just want to play" instead of putting importance on a college choice because they realize their chances of "goin' pro" are limited and it puts difficulty on teams that decide to pick up those same idiots as they soon learn that "player" that transferred in is a lazy idiot and a distraction and a fool with a bad attitude that makes impulse decisions about important things and then when faced with reality makes another impulse decision to correct their past poor choices

teams will soon see it just like taking JUCO players or slightly worse than that because at least a JUCO player had to earn their way up on the field and in the classroom instead of living on 1-2 year old high school press clippings and a sense of "unfair never got my chance im better than them im a gamer I just need to get on the field not put all my energy in practices and the playbook is all good but I got skillz and I can make it happen on the field, but I just need to be out there on the field not these other guys"

I think a lot of "playas" would suddenly find they are being encouraged to transfer and "get that playing time" and a lot of programs would soon find they are dumping grounds for other schools fools and idiots and distractions and waste of space time and air and in short order for most it would be even tougher to transfer out much less in somewhere else

I have a high degree of confidence that the whole "transfer" argument is one of those situations where you find that when you give someone what they are demanding they often find a few years down the road the results were not what the expected when they made their demands and those they were making their demands upon, once they make a few adjustments, are often much happier in the new situation even if they thought at first it would be bad for them

big programs will love dumping their idiots and attitude problems off on others and freeing up a scholarship and teams that think they will clean up with transfers will find they have a bunch of morons on their team and the transfers will find they are on the bench or even off the team for "rules issues" in short order as well......all which will be a long term benefit to the sport in general

TodgeRodge , That was perfectly said. There still needs to be realistic expectations and reasons for transferring.