GP has brought the topic up before on his show & has written a few columns about it...

Should the NCAA allow transfers without any penalty for ALL "student-athletes". Regardless of reason. No one would have to sit out and no one would have to get a waiver to play - if you want to transfer you can & you can play immediately.

What say you?

I am all for it...though it seems like the NCAA is going in the other direction.

I say no. Penalty should be there. I also agree with not granting the hardships anymore. Some legitimately do need them, but the system had become a complete game. Best to say none at all.

BUT, with that implemented, I also think school's shouldn't be able to restrict where a player can go.

(04-21-2015 03:56 PM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  I say no.

Best to say none at all.

Why doe?

What about the coaches?

That would be absolutely crazy. Every team would be completely different every year. Coaches would continue to recruit players for their entire college career. Oh never mind, college athletics is completely insane these days any way. Let them change teams weekly, between games, maybe at halftime, maybe during time outs even!

GP is dead on. No reason a kid should have to sit a year when a coach can move at will.

I don't think so but I think a lot of the rules regarding coaches and players could be changed. I like the "pushed out rule" that allowed Dom to play. I also think if a coach is under contract then maybe their asses should sit out a year unless they are "pushed out". I think getting rid of waivers for hardship is a little off, however they where really being abused. I don't see how you can tell a kid they can't transfer if they have an immediate family member that has a terminal illness.
If they let players transfer at will it will destroy basketball as we know it. Example, we finally get a really good PG, that PG would be gone to the highest bidder before the end of the season. He could even get paid to not finish the season by his knew teams boosters so he wouldn't get injured or wouldn't compete against them. I could even see players tricked into not finishing the season and promises broken just to keep a kid from competing in the tournament. It would be a true death blow to non P5 teams.

(04-21-2015 03:58 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:56 PM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  I say no.

Best to say none at all.

Why doe?

When did fair enter the conversation. Coaches are employees. Contracts control what happens if they leave.

Players are first and last students. In primary sports they are attending college for free. If they transfer they should be able to access the same level of scholarship with out them counting against the scholarship limit. But no student athlete should be able to play immediately unless:
They graduate,
A school looses the ability to compete in any part or all of the season including postseason,
A significant illness of immediate family or caretaker,

This makes sure educational opportunities continue but playing a sport is not a right. In short students do not have equal rights as employees, even if we start paying student athletes.

NCAA = Lame Duck

Three years from now, I'm betting they will have almost no say on what we now call the Power 5.

You want to make it easier? We're already losing 50% of all the freshmen we sign to transfers. Add to that the 8-10% who got drafted, and you're only looking at a 2 in 5 chance a guy will spend four years here. I don't think it should be any easier than it is already with the hardship rule, the graduate transfer rule, etc. What's wrong with having four-year players? I think that's the way it should be.

(04-21-2015 03:44 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  GP has brought the topic up before on his show & has written a few columns about it...

Should the NCAA allow transfers without any penalty for ALL "student-athletes". Regardless of reason. No one would have to sit out and no one would have to get a waiver to play - if you want to transfer you can & you can play immediately.

What say you?

I am all for it...though it seems like the NCAA is going in the other direction.

In every level of sport there are restrictions on changing teams

(04-21-2015 10:06 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  You want to make it easier? We're already losing 50% of all the freshmen we sign to transfers. Add to that the 8-10% who got drafted, and you're only looking at a 2 in 5 chance a guy will spend four years here. I don't think it should be any easier than it is already with the hardship rule, the graduate transfer rule, etc. What's wrong with having four-year players? I think that's the way it should be.

:D It doesn't matter what we want. Resistance is futile. We are in the last days of the NCAA. The goal for players and their families is to get to the money. And why not?

They risk career ending injury and don't get paid.

Why adults think it's reasonable to restrict college athletes' ability to transfer to a new school like any other NCAA student is beyond me. The only reason to support restrictions is because that's how the stupid system was set up in the first place. There's no other good reason.

The teams would change a lot? It's amateur athletics, who cares? It's in the best interests of student athletes to be able to freely transfer, so that should be the end of the discussion. Why do you want to protect the interests of a coach or a massive state-funded or privately-funded institution instead of individual students?

(04-21-2015 11:01 PM)jgardne Wrote:  Why adults think it's reasonable to restrict college athletes' ability to transfer to a new school like any other NCAA student is beyond me. The only reason to support restrictions is because that's how the stupid system was set up in the first place. There's no other good reason.

The teams would change a lot? It's amateur athletics, who cares? It's in the best interests of student athletes to be able to freely transfer, so that should be the end of the discussion. Why do you want to protect the interests of a coach or a massive state-funded or privately-funded institution instead of individual students?

They are allowed to transfer to a new school like any other student (with one exception, which I don't agree with, and that's the coach providing blocking transfers normally within conference schools). What they can't do, and shouldn't be able to IMO, is play a sport immediately if they choose that transfer option.

let's make sure we're still comparing things properly.

Players should be allowed to transfer every year and be eligible at their new schools immediately every year. So, long as coaches are free to leave whenever they fell there is a better opportunity with no consequence and players are only guaranteed scholarships one year at a time then it is simply not right to force them to stay or sit out a year. Now, if players were getting scholarships that spanned multiple years then I might feel a bit differently, so long as their coached stayed. However, even if players are getting multi-year scholarships, there should be extenuating circumstances that allow them to transfer with no punishment.

Coaches that I've talked to would be in favor of allowing transfers without penalty if the coach you signed with leaves.

A player would be given a window of opportunity to move on without having to sit out.

Otherwise, you transfer, you sit a year.

In a perfect world, it seems reasonable not to restrict any player from transferring. But think about what that would cause.

Every proven good player on a G5 team, or even lower rung P5 teams, could be poached by a richer P5 team, every single year, without consequence. No way we could keep Paxton Lynch for his junior year this season.

In the past, even in basketball, we likely would have lost Joe Jackson, Austin Nichols, and many, many more that we didn't lose, b/c they had to sit out a year to transfer.

So, be careful what you wish for.

(04-22-2015 07:37 AM)Easterwood Wrote:  Coaches that I've talked to would be in favor of allowing transfers without penalty if the coach you signed with leaves.

A player would be given a window of opportunity to move on without having to sit out.

Otherwise, you transfer, you sit a year.

I feel like that would be an acceptable compromise (but I'm still in favor of removing ALL restrictions)

(04-22-2015 08:06 AM)TripleA Wrote:  In a perfect world, it seems reasonable not to restrict any player from transferring. But think about what that would cause.

Every proven good player on a G5 team, or even lower rung P5 teams, could be poached by a richer P5 team, every single year, without consequence. No way we could keep Paxton Lynch for his junior year this season.

In the past, even in basketball, we likely would have lost Joe Jackson, Austin Nichols, and many, many more that we didn't lose, b/c they had to sit out a year to transfer.

So, be careful what you wish for.

I agree, in a perfect world it would work without flaw. But that's not the world we live in...

Because of that, I also agree with your predictions. HOWEVER, I still don't see why that matters. High-level programs "steal" coaches from lower-level programs all the time. No one has a problem with that. Why do we only care when players are involved?

Also - regarding the Lynch example - what's so bad about flying under the radar as a prospect, signing with memphis, killin' it, gaining the attention of a "bigger program" and finishing there? IF that's what he's always wanted to do?

If the only problem is: Memphis gets screwed ... I don't know if I'm cool with "screwing" unpaid student athletes b/c it hurts any particular institution (not just memphis).

(04-21-2015 08:06 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:58 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:56 PM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  I say no.

Best to say none at all.

Why doe?

When did fair enter the conversation. Coaches are employees. Contracts control what happens if they leave.

Players are first and last students. In primary sports they are attending college for free. If they transfer they should be able to access the same level of scholarship with out them counting against the scholarship limit. But no student athlete should be able to play immediately unless:
They graduate,
A school looses the ability to compete in any part or all of the season including postseason,
A significant illness of immediate family or caretaker,

This makes sure educational opportunities continue but playing a sport is not a right. In short students do not have equal rights as employees, even if we start paying student athletes.

For a person with all those degrees you are extremely naive about big time collegiate sports.

You'd see even less discipline by coaches, for one thing. The players who are prima donnas would be even moreso. Kid gets yanked for poor play, or whatever reason, throws a fit, talks to the press, and coach knuckles under the pressure.

It was unseemly when the stars from the 80's and 90's first had the clout to publicly get their coaches fired. This would be worse, IMO.

Plus, where does it end? Why couldn't they transfer mid-term? Or mid-week? Or mid-game?

If the coach leaves, you get a window to transfer without penalty. No restrictions. Otherwise you sit out a year. Like KE said.