(09-07-2017 03:36 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]Was it ever determined if schools would be picking up more of the administrative "say" in approving transfers to ensure schools were "committing" to the kids? It's a silly, if not moot point; they at some point have to oversee it all, but, on the surface, it looked like athletic departments couldn't just snip students out of the school just because of a coaching regime change or other matters.
They are thinking of taking that away too (which I would agree with). Personally, I'd leave the current transfer rules in place except that I would remove the ability of a school to dictate where the kid can go. Where the athlete transfers to should be completely up to the athlete---just as his original commitment was completely up to the athlete.
(09-07-2017 03:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2017 03:36 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]Was it ever determined if schools would be picking up more of the administrative "say" in approving transfers to ensure schools were "committing" to the kids? It's a silly, if not moot point; they at some point have to oversee it all, but, on the surface, it looked like athletic departments couldn't just snip students out of the school just because of a coaching regime change or other matters.
They are thinking of taking that away too (which I would agree with). Personally, I'd leave the current transfer rules in place except that I would remove the ability of a school to dictate where the kid can go. Where the athlete transfers to should be completely up to the athlete---just as his original commitment was completely up to the athlete.
I don't necessarily disagree. It gave the appearance the school was committing to the kids, but, it's just smoke and mirrors. There was nothing to guarantee the kid would be cared for if a program were to dump them. If you have a kid who has no right being at the school other than for sports, that actually makes it probably easier to get rid of people. "We didn't want you, but our football team did, and now they don't, and we still don't want you, so, bye." Or, more callous..."you have a spot here, how are you paying for it?"
It was a mythical/hypothetical population the move was supposed to protect. On the surface, it made it look like these schools were getting kids they would keep anyway, but, total nonsense in reality.
As for taking choice away from schools...more of the same smoke and mirrors. There would be "unspoken rules" or "gentlemen's agreements" about where kids could go. A kid who's striking out at Michigan is not going to find a home at Michigan State.