http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...ivision=d1

Quote:One of the new group's points of emphasis will be to consider whether to update the policy for graduate transfers to more closely mirror a new policy adopted last year for undergraduate transfers.



The current policy for student-athletes who have graduated allows them to compete immediately after transferring if they meet certain conditions, which includes getting written permission from their original school. Also, a graduate student-athlete who isn't eligible for that one-time transfer exception may seek a waiver to compete immediately.



The group will discuss whether that policy should be consistent with the undergraduate transfer policy, which requires students competing in baseball, basketball, bowl subdivision football and men's ice hockey to sit out of competition for a year after transferring. The new policy allows those students to request a waiver to extend the number of years they have to complete their eligibility, but they can no longer request a waiver to compete immediately.



That policy applies to any undergraduate student-athlete seeking immediate eligibility starting with the 2015-16 academic year, regardless of when they enrolled. The group that recommended the undergraduate policy change was interested in exploring similar guidelines for graduate students, pending further research into the issue.

Quote:In addition to the graduate transfer regulations, the group also will consider changes to the permission-to-contact rules. Currently, all students interested in transferring must receive permission from the athletics director at their school before another school's athletics department can discuss with them the possibility of transferring. If permission isn't given, students can still transfer to another school, but that school is barred from discussing the transfer or offering an athletics scholarship until the student has either been attending the new school for a year or has been withdrawn from their previous school for a year.

This should be an interesting discussion. As was posted a week or so ago, the NCAA abolished any waivers for undergrad transfers to play immediately, meaning any undergrad transfers have to sit out a year, regardless of situation, but they don't lose a year of eligibility (for the first transfer). Now they may extend that policy to graduate transfers, too. And potentially reform the contact rules.

(03-27-2015 01:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...ivision=d1

Quote:One of the new group's points of emphasis will be to consider whether to update the policy for graduate transfers to more closely mirror a new policy adopted last year for undergraduate transfers.



The current policy for student-athletes who have graduated allows them to compete immediately after transferring if they meet certain conditions, which includes getting written permission from their original school. Also, a graduate student-athlete who isn't eligible for that one-time transfer exception may seek a waiver to compete immediately.



The group will discuss whether that policy should be consistent with the undergraduate transfer policy, which requires students competing in baseball, basketball, bowl subdivision football and men's ice hockey to sit out of competition for a year after transferring. The new policy allows those students to request a waiver to extend the number of years they have to complete their eligibility, but they can no longer request a waiver to compete immediately.



That policy applies to any undergraduate student-athlete seeking immediate eligibility starting with the 2015-16 academic year, regardless of when they enrolled. The group that recommended the undergraduate policy change was interested in exploring similar guidelines for graduate students, pending further research into the issue.

Quote:In addition to the graduate transfer regulations, the group also will consider changes to the permission-to-contact rules. Currently, all students interested in transferring must receive permission from the athletics director at their school before another school's athletics department can discuss with them the possibility of transferring. If permission isn't given, students can still transfer to another school, but that school is barred from discussing the transfer or offering an athletics scholarship until the student has either been attending the new school for a year or has been withdrawn from their previous school for a year.

This should be an interesting discussion. As was posted a week or so ago, the NCAA abolished any waivers for undergrad transfers to play immediately, meaning any undergrad transfers have to sit out a year, regardless of situation, but they don't lose a year of eligibility (for the first transfer). Now they may extend that policy to graduate transfers, too. And potentially reform the contact rules.

Another attempt to control the student-athlete instead of help them.

Grad students are real student-athletes. They have actually graduated-and they did it in 3 to 4 years. And most people probably do graduate work at a different school. But the NCAA wants to limit them.

(03-27-2015 01:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 01:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...ivision=d1

Quote:One of the new group's points of emphasis will be to consider whether to update the policy for graduate transfers to more closely mirror a new policy adopted last year for undergraduate transfers.



The current policy for student-athletes who have graduated allows them to compete immediately after transferring if they meet certain conditions, which includes getting written permission from their original school. Also, a graduate student-athlete who isn't eligible for that one-time transfer exception may seek a waiver to compete immediately.



The group will discuss whether that policy should be consistent with the undergraduate transfer policy, which requires students competing in baseball, basketball, bowl subdivision football and men's ice hockey to sit out of competition for a year after transferring. The new policy allows those students to request a waiver to extend the number of years they have to complete their eligibility, but they can no longer request a waiver to compete immediately.



That policy applies to any undergraduate student-athlete seeking immediate eligibility starting with the 2015-16 academic year, regardless of when they enrolled. The group that recommended the undergraduate policy change was interested in exploring similar guidelines for graduate students, pending further research into the issue.

Quote:In addition to the graduate transfer regulations, the group also will consider changes to the permission-to-contact rules. Currently, all students interested in transferring must receive permission from the athletics director at their school before another school's athletics department can discuss with them the possibility of transferring. If permission isn't given, students can still transfer to another school, but that school is barred from discussing the transfer or offering an athletics scholarship until the student has either been attending the new school for a year or has been withdrawn from their previous school for a year.

This should be an interesting discussion. As was posted a week or so ago, the NCAA abolished any waivers for undergrad transfers to play immediately, meaning any undergrad transfers have to sit out a year, regardless of situation, but they don't lose a year of eligibility (for the first transfer). Now they may extend that policy to graduate transfers, too. And potentially reform the contact rules.

Another attempt to control the student-athlete instead of help them.

Grad students are real student-athletes. They have actually graduated-and they did it in 3 to 4 years. And most people probably do graduate work at a different school. But the NCAA wants to limit them.

Agree 100%. This smells of an employee contract.

(03-27-2015 01:33 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 01:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 01:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...ivision=d1

Quote:One of the new group's points of emphasis will be to consider whether to update the policy for graduate transfers to more closely mirror a new policy adopted last year for undergraduate transfers.



The current policy for student-athletes who have graduated allows them to compete immediately after transferring if they meet certain conditions, which includes getting written permission from their original school. Also, a graduate student-athlete who isn't eligible for that one-time transfer exception may seek a waiver to compete immediately.



The group will discuss whether that policy should be consistent with the undergraduate transfer policy, which requires students competing in baseball, basketball, bowl subdivision football and men's ice hockey to sit out of competition for a year after transferring. The new policy allows those students to request a waiver to extend the number of years they have to complete their eligibility, but they can no longer request a waiver to compete immediately.



That policy applies to any undergraduate student-athlete seeking immediate eligibility starting with the 2015-16 academic year, regardless of when they enrolled. The group that recommended the undergraduate policy change was interested in exploring similar guidelines for graduate students, pending further research into the issue.

Quote:In addition to the graduate transfer regulations, the group also will consider changes to the permission-to-contact rules. Currently, all students interested in transferring must receive permission from the athletics director at their school before another school's athletics department can discuss with them the possibility of transferring. If permission isn't given, students can still transfer to another school, but that school is barred from discussing the transfer or offering an athletics scholarship until the student has either been attending the new school for a year or has been withdrawn from their previous school for a year.

This should be an interesting discussion. As was posted a week or so ago, the NCAA abolished any waivers for undergrad transfers to play immediately, meaning any undergrad transfers have to sit out a year, regardless of situation, but they don't lose a year of eligibility (for the first transfer). Now they may extend that policy to graduate transfers, too. And potentially reform the contact rules.

Another attempt to control the student-athlete instead of help them.

Grad students are real student-athletes. They have actually graduated-and they did it in 3 to 4 years. And most people probably do graduate work at a different school. But the NCAA wants to limit them.

Agree 100%. This smells of an employee contract.

Pay the players, then! :)

(03-27-2015 01:36 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 01:33 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 01:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 01:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...ivision=d1

Quote:One of the new group's points of emphasis will be to consider whether to update the policy for graduate transfers to more closely mirror a new policy adopted last year for undergraduate transfers.



The current policy for student-athletes who have graduated allows them to compete immediately after transferring if they meet certain conditions, which includes getting written permission from their original school. Also, a graduate student-athlete who isn't eligible for that one-time transfer exception may seek a waiver to compete immediately.



The group will discuss whether that policy should be consistent with the undergraduate transfer policy, which requires students competing in baseball, basketball, bowl subdivision football and men's ice hockey to sit out of competition for a year after transferring. The new policy allows those students to request a waiver to extend the number of years they have to complete their eligibility, but they can no longer request a waiver to compete immediately.



That policy applies to any undergraduate student-athlete seeking immediate eligibility starting with the 2015-16 academic year, regardless of when they enrolled. The group that recommended the undergraduate policy change was interested in exploring similar guidelines for graduate students, pending further research into the issue.

Quote:In addition to the graduate transfer regulations, the group also will consider changes to the permission-to-contact rules. Currently, all students interested in transferring must receive permission from the athletics director at their school before another school's athletics department can discuss with them the possibility of transferring. If permission isn't given, students can still transfer to another school, but that school is barred from discussing the transfer or offering an athletics scholarship until the student has either been attending the new school for a year or has been withdrawn from their previous school for a year.

This should be an interesting discussion. As was posted a week or so ago, the NCAA abolished any waivers for undergrad transfers to play immediately, meaning any undergrad transfers have to sit out a year, regardless of situation, but they don't lose a year of eligibility (for the first transfer). Now they may extend that policy to graduate transfers, too. And potentially reform the contact rules.

Another attempt to control the student-athlete instead of help them.

Grad students are real student-athletes. They have actually graduated-and they did it in 3 to 4 years. And most people probably do graduate work at a different school. But the NCAA wants to limit them.

Agree 100%. This smells of an employee contract.

Pay the players, then! :)

And/or give them freedom of movement in their best interest as determined by themselves.

There should be unlimited transfer allowed within competitive levels on a next year eligible basis.

That means:

- you can't transfer and compete at the new school within the same season, but you don't have to sit out the full season after transferring
- there is no penalty for transferring within the same competitive level (P5 to P5, G5 to G5, FCS to FCS, DII to DII, DIII to DIII) but there is a one season penalty for transferring outside the level (up or down)

This would be known as the Vernon Adams being recruited by Oregon while still in school At Eastern Washington rule

(03-27-2015 01:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  There should be unlimited transfer allowed within competitive levels on a next year eligible basis.

That means:

- you can't transfer and compete at the new school within the same season, but you don't have to sit out the full season after transferring
- there is no penalty for transferring within the same competitive level (P5 to P5, G5 to G5, FCS to FCS, DII to DII, DIII to DIII) but there is a one season penalty for transferring outside the level (up or down)

FCS football coaches would hate that, because many of them benefit by getting transfers from FBS schools who play right away at their new FCS school.

Eastern Washington, for example, won an FCS national title a few years ago with a QB (Bo Levi Mitchell) who transferred to EWU from SMU and played right away.

The EWU head coach who won that national title with Mitchell at QB is the same EWU head coach who complained about his former QB Vernon Adams using the graduate-transfer rule to transfer and play at Oregon this fall.

Which just shows, again, that the schools want to use the transfer rules to allow coaches and ADs to control athletes, for the benefit of the school and at the expense of the athlete.

Heaven forbid that the NCAA should do anything to reward an athlete for actually graduating. What do they think they are - students or something?

(03-27-2015 02:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  This would be known as the Vernon Adams being recruited by Oregon while still in school At Eastern Washington rule

He's hardly the only one to take advantage of it. Though perhaps the most recent high profile and perhaps one of the few to go upwards from FCS to P5 using the rule.

Off the top of my head, I know the former QB at Oregon used it to transfer to Mississippi.

(03-27-2015 02:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  Heaven forbid that the NCAA should do anything to reward an athlete for actually graduating. What do they think they are - students or something?

Every player gets five calendar years to participate in four seasons. Once you've participated in four seasons, your eligibility is done. Doesn't matter if you have a year left in your window. Hence terms like "true senior".

Are you suggesting that graduating with an undergrad degree should allow for another season of participation and/or a year extension of the window?

(03-27-2015 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  FCS football coaches would hate that, because many of them benefit by getting transfers from FBS schools who play right away at their new FCS school.

Eastern Washington, for example, won an FCS national title a few years ago with a QB (Bo Levi Mitchell) who transferred to EWU from SMU and played right away.

The EWU head coach who won that national title with Mitchell at QB is the same EWU head coach who complained about his former QB Vernon Adams using the graduate-transfer rule to transfer and play at Oregon this fall.

Which just shows, again, that the schools want to use the transfer rules to allow coaches and ADs to control athletes, for the benefit of the school and at the expense of the athlete.

Yeah but as we all know, FCS doesn't matter to the NCAA any more than DII or DIII. The big boys make the rules.


And I don't really care about programs like Eastern Washington or Sam Houston St. that get fat on transfers.

NDSU is the model for doing it the right way. Recruiting high school players from the region and training them for all five years.

Is freedom of movement from one school to the next with no wait/penalty (not within the same season) more detrimental to an University than paying players?

What is the difference between a graduate student and a freshman that would like to move schools for whatever reason?

I'm really confused as to why there is opposition to the immediate eligibility of graduate transfers. For top tier athletes, there's a big incentive for players who have competed in a system for 3-4 years to stay in that system for their final year. A large majority of graduate transfers are #2 or lower on the depth chart, and are looking for a chance to start, usually at a smaller program. In general, it seems like graduate transfers and the programs they transfer to benefit greatly with only a slight loss of depth at the original school. Plus, I sort of think it's intutitive that the "contract" begun on signing day is done when the player completes his/her degree.

On a separate note that applies to about nobody on this board, I wonder if there is an plan for an ammendment to the Riley Nelson rule to address early enrollees who do not sign a NLI.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/utes/581619...h.html.csp

(03-27-2015 01:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  There should be unlimited transfer allowed within competitive levels on a next year eligible basis.

That means:

- you can't transfer and compete at the new school within the same season, but you don't have to sit out the full season after transferring
- there is no penalty for transferring within the same competitive level (P5 to P5, G5 to G5, FCS to FCS, DII to DII, DIII to DIII) but there is a one season penalty for transferring outside the level (up or down)

Such a rule would actually be detrimental to student athletes as well. Not the ones who transfer, but the ones affected by the transfer. Now if you go to a school and work your way into a starting position after two hard years of work, your position can be taken by a random transfer from Nebraska who can come over without penalty because they saw a starter graduated.

(03-27-2015 03:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 01:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  There should be unlimited transfer allowed within competitive levels on a next year eligible basis.

That means:

- you can't transfer and compete at the new school within the same season, but you don't have to sit out the full season after transferring
- there is no penalty for transferring within the same competitive level (P5 to P5, G5 to G5, FCS to FCS, DII to DII, DIII to DIII) but there is a one season penalty for transferring outside the level (up or down)

Such a rule would actually be detrimental to student athletes as well. Not the ones who transfer, but the ones affected by the transfer. Now if you go to a school and work your way into a starting position after two hard years of work, your position can be taken by a random transfer from Nebraska who can come over without penalty because they saw a starter graduated.

I can agree with a "two year" apprentice and a "free agent" transfer window. Coaches have freedom of movement and schools are penalized by the "Ruling Organization" limiting opportunity and exposure. A player should be able to do what is best for themselves. Right?

Within reason. I get why they have to keep some restrictions on the school end. But also I think the players who put in work at a school should not be subject to random players from other schools all having free reign to transfer in, because they couldn't earns spot somewhere else. So I see restrictions helping both the schools and the majority of players.

Now I am all for loosening the rules for who has to sit out, or whatnot. But free reign on transfers with no penalty would be chaos for everyone involved.

Even pro sports don't allow free movement to that degree; they also have restrictions.

(03-27-2015 03:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Such a rule would actually be detrimental to student athletes as well. Not the ones who transfer, but the ones affected by the transfer. Now if you go to a school and work your way into a starting position after two hard years of work, your position can be taken by a random transfer from Nebraska who can come over without penalty because they saw a starter graduated.

By that logic, incoming freshmen are detrimental to student athletes, too, because, by that logic, a junior or senior has worked his way into a starting position, and no freshman, no matter how talented or hard-working, should ever be allowed to join the team and win that position away from the upperclassman.

(03-27-2015 03:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Such a rule would actually be detrimental to student athletes as well. Not the ones who transfer, but the ones affected by the transfer. Now if you go to a school and work your way into a starting position after two hard years of work, your position can be taken by a random transfer from Nebraska who can come over without penalty because they saw a starter graduated.

Just because a transfer is from a big name program doesn't mean he is automatically going to win (let alone be given) the spot.

In my experience, it works approximately like this:

- players who get to play (or at least contribute), will stay

- the players who transfer are usually the ones who weren't playing or weren't going to play much anymore, which usually means they aren't necessarily that great (relative to that competitive level, of course)

- there are the exceptions of players who definitely can play, but who get into trouble. Do you really want those players on your team anyway?

- and finally, there are the rare exceptions of players who can play and just got into a bad situation. They transfer, fit in well at the new location and contribute to the new team.


I don't think the last possibility warrants placing any restrictions on transfers. The thought of a young man who loses "his turn" because someone else came in and beat him out doesn't really bother me.

(03-27-2015 05:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 03:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Such a rule would actually be detrimental to student athletes as well. Not the ones who transfer, but the ones affected by the transfer. Now if you go to a school and work your way into a starting position after two hard years of work, your position can be taken by a random transfer from Nebraska who can come over without penalty because they saw a starter graduated.

By that logic, incoming freshmen are detrimental to student athletes, too, because, by that logic, a junior or senior has worked his way into a starting position, and no freshman, no matter how talented or hard-working, should ever be allowed to join the team and win that position away from the upperclassman.

Not the same. I am referring to players who go to other schools where there is immediate playing time (for example a non power school), then immediately being able to transfer (without penalty) to another team when a spot opens up. Compared to the players who went to said school and opted to compete for PT. Namely quarteracks.