NCAA is considering changing the Red-Shirt Transfer Rule... Would hurt MidMajors

IrishDawg · January 16, 2018, 02:44:12 PM

Quote from: bigmosmithfan1 on January 14, 2018, 09:24:26 PM
From the chatter I've seen, there might be a significant number of P5 schools who are against this change. Last thing you want if you're a non-traditional power in one of those conferences is to have to fight off the "elite" programs in your conference for players you already successfully signed. The schools that have a lot of "one and dones" could pluck top players from other programs to use as continuity/role players. Let's hope that chatter is right. This would devastate every midmajor program in the nation.

I'm not completely against it, but there does need to be some language in this if it goes through that keeps it from becoming a complete free agency. Here are some things that I think can help all programs, let me know if there are any others that you guys think would be helpful.

1. Players who transfer are not eligible until the start of the school's next semester, and must enroll prior to the drop/add period ending. This will help curb complete insanity in transferring between games.

2. In the instance of a coaching change, whether the coach leaves or is fired, all incoming recruits or first year players can transfer without having to sit out, as long as the termination occurs prior to the start of the 2nd semester of their first year at the school. These transfers would not count towards their total in #3.

3. Outside of #2, each player can transfer once in their career without having to sit out additional time. Each successive transfer will result in time missed, so transfer #2, they'd sit a semester, transfer #3, a full year and so on.

4. If a player transfers from a multi-bid league to a one bid league beyond their first transfer, they can do so without having to sit out additional time. However, if they go from a one-bid league to a multi-bid league, or go to another league that was the same one-bid or multi-bid classification as their previous one, rule #3 would apply. Bid classification would be based on the number of bids that conference received in the prior year's NCAA tournament.

VULB#62 · January 16, 2018, 03:34:52 PM

What about 'no sit' after transfer after a medical red-shirt?

VU2014 · February 13, 2018, 03:06:31 PM

Update:

https://twitter.com/NCAA/status/963481090156527617

bigmosmithfan1 · February 13, 2018, 04:27:47 PM

Actually, this is a relief. The devil will be in the details, as always, but this is a much more level-headed approach to changing the transfer rule. This makes clear that a "free for all" situation is not under consideration. (It also makes clear the current rule is not being kept as-is, either).

The "academic" benchmark thing will be interesting to watch - you're going to see it set higher than a 3.0, I'd imagine, but probably lower than a 3.5 (maybe a 3.3 or better). Your better academic schools will probably look to have this either set very high or spiked altogether, because it will punish programs that have high academic standards vs. ones that don't. (This could also lead to the perverse incentive of a coach hoping for his team to all be 2.9 GPA students instead of honor roll candidates, because they won't be candidates for a transfer).

The free transfer when a coach leaves is completely fair and hard to argue against, even if such a rule could have hurt us worse two years ago. If a coach doesn't have to sit out a year when leaving for a new job, then a player shouldn't be punished for wanting to move on if that coach leaves. The proposed Big 12 rule wouldn't allow players to follow their coach, which is the only restriction I think that makes sense. (They even note they'll have to figure something out with the APR - you can't punish a school if a rule allows mass transfers after a coaching change).

As for timing, since they aren't voting until June, I'd be surprised if it was implemented for next season. Probably not until the year after.

vuny98 · February 14, 2018, 09:09:40 AM

Even if it does hurt mid-majors a bit (I could argue it could be beneficial) its the right thing to do. These are kids and their lives. If they have the opportunity to play up a level and want to do so, let them. If they are unhappy in a situation let them leave. Making them sit out a year is punitive and can ruin their very short college careers. I bet there are a ton of athletes in major programs that don't get any playing time that would love the opportunity to go to a smaller school like Valpo where they could play significant minutes. Probably more of those than there are of kids from mid-majors that will jump up to a high major (although yes the loss of those kids will hurt a program much more than a bench player leaving a high major would).

bigmosmithfan1 · February 14, 2018, 09:17:23 AM

Oh, one other thing... the NCAA is not entertaining any proposal that would allow an athlete to compete for two schools in the same academic year. So no mid-season transfers, and probably, no transferring after school has started without sitting out that season. That's completely fair. Logistically, there will need to be a transfer "window" each summer just for roster certainty (and to give schools hit by mass transfers after a coach departure a fair shot to replenish their program).

The "free transfers for everyone" isn't going to happen because it in essence punishes schools that recruit and develop talent well in favor of ones that don't. There needs to be an academic carrot attached at a minimum.

humbleopinion · February 14, 2018, 10:30:55 AM

The rationale that higher achieving academic students should be allowed to transfer because they are more likely to graduate than lower academic students that transfer made me chuckle. Duh! I would presume higher academic athletes who don't transfer are also more likely to graduate than the group as a whole that doesn't transfer. In fact I would presume that there is a correlation between getting good grades and graduating overall!

valpopal · February 14, 2018, 10:42:18 AM

Speaking of NCAA rules, I was pleased to see Notre Dame's president rip into the NCAA for its unfair application of harsh penalties and alluding to the lack of penalties for North Carolina. Notre Dame was penalized for enforcing their Honor Code, retroactively re-calculating grades, and honestly reporting the situation. Had Notre Dame simply expelled the students involved rather than re-calculating grades or had a statute of limitations, then the NCAA would not have imposed any penalty.