Two questions come to mind. 1. Is it good for the student-athlete? 2. Is it 'free agency' at the college level. "The rule's original intent was noble. If a student-athlete had earned his undergraduate degree but the school he or she was attending did not offer the desired master's program, the student-athlete could transfer to a school that had the program while waiving the usual transfer requirement of sitting out a season. After a few adjustments, the rule was amended to its current form in 2007, essentially saying an athlete could transfer for any reason as long as both schools approved." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/01/26/college-football-free-agency/index.html “I am all for empowering the athlete,” Ridpath said. “And if you want to call it free agency, great, let’s call it free agency because they should be able to do what they want to do. . . . If a coach can leave and break contracts anytime they want, then we need to give the athlete more freedom to do exactly the same.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...s-detractors/2012/02/16/gIQAz368HR_story.html
At this point in college athletics, I'd be perfectly fine if student-athletes were allowed to transfer at any time without sitting out a year. The only caveat that I'd put in is that the kid must leave the school with a minimum standard GPA.
I think kids should get one free transfer. After that, they have to sit. Granting a kid the chance to play for 3 or 4 different schools in 4 years is making a mockery of the scholarship process. Granting them 1 free transfer without sitting is an admission that people make mistakes, coaches leave, situations change, and sometimes things don't work out. If a kid graduates from a school in 3 or 4 years, and wants an additional year somewhere else, that should be granted too. As long as the kid is taking 4 or more classes, is working toward a graduate degree, and is maintaining the required gpa, let him have an additional year somewhere else, he's earned it by doing what he was supposed to do in the classroom. The scholarships should also be for 4 year commitments from the school barring behavioral or academic issues.
They are. I think they should be a 4 year commitment, with the option for an additional year by the school. It doesn't happen often, (Calipari did it at Kentucky) but a new coach can choose not to renew the scholarship of returning players, leaving them screwed. If you offer a scholarship, it should be for 4 years not 1 year, unless the kid screws up and breaks the rules.
I wonder if you missed the point - IF the scholly was truly for a year, then the players would have a right to move after a year. It is a 1-way street - the kids can (more theoretically) have their scholly pulled and the school can block from them moving. Other than that, it is a 1 year deal
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The kids can leave at any time. There are restrictions, but if guys like Endres or Kuraczea choose to leave school in the middle of a season, they can. The school can choose not to renew a scholly but they have to wait until the schoolyear is done. They are 1 year deals all around with the players retaining the right to leave at any time. Just because a kid has to sit if he decides to transfer to certain schools, doesn't mean the scholly isn't a 1 year deal. If a kid transfers, the new school is responsible for deciding whether or not he gets a scholarship.
You guys know that baseball players in D1 and I think hockey players as well are given 1 "free" transfer where they can transfer and be eligible to play right away. That rule has been around for a while now. I'm in for the 4 yr scholarship, 1 free transfer with minimum gpa requirements.
The reality is that although scholarships are 1 year re-newable, you won't meet many coaches who work them this way. For every Les miles who uses this as a recruiting loophole there are 10 other coaches who assume a scholarship is a 4 year deal or at least until the kid gets a degree if they graduated early. For a kid who works hard, wants to remain with the team and does the right things they can assume their degree is paid for with this 4 year committment. You do not meet with the coach after the season or semester to discuss if your scholarship will be renewed or not. If they are having that discussion then the player would likley have an issue with conduct, class work (through lack of effort or caring) or because of the possibility of transferring. Or this is often a discussion with a potential 5th year senior.
While I like the intent behind your proposal, the way it is now keeps, programs like Alabama from using a school like UConn as a prep school. I'm pretty sure a program like that could reach out to a player like Bama Wilson's family, and let them know they missed the boat on him and would love it if he transfered there, after seeing the player he was as a freshman. There are no easy answers. Maybe the one free transfer could be that a player could sit out and still not lose a year eligibility if he had already red shirted.
Why can't they do that now? Other than the fact that they aren't allowed to recruit players enrolled in other programs. And why can't Bama say, "thanks but no thanks, I'm loyal to UConn"? Also, if Bama was that interested in leaving, he could have reached out to the Tide on his own. The flip side of Bama are the guys like Kevin Poles. The first commit (6/05) of his class who never really saw meaningful snaps. UConn is free to recruit over guys they offer scholarships to, leaving them on the bench for 4-5 years. The players should be free to look elsewhere at least once without penalty assuming they are in good academic standing. A guy with a 3.5 GPA on his way to graduating in 4 years wants to leave because he's not getting the opportunity to play has to sit a year to get the opportunity to play? Why? What harm could come from a kid not playing, but getting good grades, transferring to a place where he can play right away while putting the same effort into his schoolwork he was before? IMO, that's unfair to the players. Especially when you compare it to coaches who come and go on a regular basis. In 2008 the average tenure was 4.5 years. So unless your coach was hired your freshman year, the vast majority of players willy play for two different coaches. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2008-12-02-coaches-longevity_N.htm I would allow some restrictions, i.e, still having to sit a year if you transfer within the conference, or maybe still having to sit a year (or maybe a portion of games, or spring/summer practice) if you have an available redshirt to use. The NCAA needs to stop picking and choosing when academics matter and when they don't. If a kid has a 2.0 GPA (cumulative) make him sit a year if he wants to transfer. If it's 4.0, let him go without penalty. One of the reasons they are forced to sit is so that they aren't making a mockery of the academics/scholarship process right? Reward the kids who do the best. I don't think we'll see a flood of transfers, If we do, then you can always tighten up the requirements again. But there are ways to give more power and freedom to the players who's performances are making people billions of dollars, while still emphasizing the importance of their academics. Reward their effort in the classroom by giving them more freedom.
I think it should be A. Both schools agree unless B. There has to be a circumstance that warrants it. IE Coaching Change or Undergrad Degree or Playoff Ban etc. Student cant decide that he just wants to transfer because another school comes calling. And UConn wouldnt have to agree to let the kid transfer to Alabama if its best suited for him to stick around.
"A guy with a 3.5 GPA on his way to graduating in 4 years wants to leave because he's not getting the opportunity to play has to sit a year to get the opportunity to play? Why? " I don't see the problem with a kid being forced to sit a year if he just wants to transfer for no reason other than playing time. These kids are adults, they have to weigh the options when the scholarship offer comes across the table. Evaluate the pros and cons of each school just like any other student does. yes you can just transfer as a regular student if things arent going the way you thought, but there are consequences like losing credits and or an academic scholarship etc. There should be some sort of consequence for these student athletes also for not thinking the decision completely through.
