(01-06-2016, 09:47 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=rudruff link=topic=14318.msg151651#msg151651 date=1452138798]
I don't think you can place restrictions on someone once they have the degree.
This is correct.
[/quote]
As far as I can tell that isn't quite correct. I cannot find the text of the rules, but I did find some third party summaries.
There are two relevant NCAA eligibility rules in play here.
The newer, usually more relevant rule is the Graduate Transfer Exception.
This was proposal 2010-52, passed in April 2011.
The rules for this seem to be:
- The athlete has never previously transferred
- The athletes previous institution says it does not object to allowing the athlete to use the one-time transfer exception
- The athlete is enrolled in a specific graduate program
- The previous school did not renew the athletes athletic scholarship.
The older, but still on the books rule is the Graduate Transfer Waiver.
This is now mainly used by athletes who have already transferred.
It requires that,
- The athletes former school does not object to the waiver;
- The athlete is enrolled in a graduate program not offered at the previous institution.
And you still have to apply for said waiver, which seems to be always granted.
It is this older rule that leads to all the confusion about whether the graduate program has to be something not offered at the original institution.
-------------------
In the case of Scarlett, it was reported that Dykes didn't wanted to object to the transfer to Stanford, but higher levels of the Berkeley administration told him he had to. This all led to his pissy statement that he didn't care about anything Scarlett did.
As an addendum, I object to them calling this a "transfer" and having any restriction on the matter at all. For any other student, if the actually get a degree then go somewhere to grad school nobody calls it a transfer - and an athlete that gets that far should merely be congratulated.