01-30-2018, 11:38 AM
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-up-steam/
https://sports.cbsimg.net/images/college...oposal.pdf
The headline is a student-friendly one--transfer instantly after a coaching change--but the other changes in the draft proposal would have far-reaching impacts. The one that stood out most to me is that the "year in residence"--the NCAA's term for sitting out a year before you can play after you transfer--would be extended to every NCAA sport, as opposed to the limited number of sports that rule applies to now (football, basketball, baseball, and hockey, I think). So, if this passes, it would mean no more instant impact undergraduate transfers in Olympic sports. Now, I'm not sure whether this would be a net positive or a net negative for Stanford as compared to other schools, but it would mean, for example, that Taylor Uhl wouldn't have led Stanford women's soccer in scoring as a junior, because she would have either been sitting out or the prospect of sitting out a year would have led her to stay at Minnesota. Though you wouldn't lose a year of eligibility due to sitting the year out under this proposal, so perhaps Uhl still would have transferred, and used the extra year to do a co-term or start a Master's.Â
And the ability to transfer after a coaching change isn't without limitation, either, because you'd specifically be barred from following your old coach to his new school. (Specifically, you wouldn't be immediately eligible for competition at that school; you could still transfer there.) That said, it would be the only restriction on transferring--schools would no longer be able to keep you from transferring to certain schools in any situation. That's a monumental change in the transfer landscape.Â
The uniformity of the "year in residence" is complicated, but there is a lot to like in this proposal:
1. Schools can no longer limit where you transfer. Period. You may have to sit out a year, but you get to transfer where you want to transfer.Â
2. You'd be immediately eligible to play if you're a grad transfer (so no change there) or a walk-on
3. Transferring wouldn't cost you a season of competition, but it would delay it in most cases. The old 5 years to play 4 rule would still apply, but there would be an automatic one-year extension for first-time transferring students.Â
4. If your school gets a postseason ban, you can transfer and be eligible to play immediately at your new school. I love this change, though it could function like an equivalent to the death penalty, because every member of the team would have that same ability. While the number of spots available at a given school for accepting transfers is small due to scholarship limitations, so you likely wouldn't see the entire team leave, it's not hard to imagine a school getting hit with a postseason ban and then seeing its best players all get picked off by other schools. If schools complain about that, though, my response would be to not violate NCAA rules so flagrantly that they feel compelled to impose a postseason ban.
The emphasis is on first-time transfers, though, as a mechanism to discourage excessive school-shopping. If you don't like School A, transfer to School B, and then decide you don't like School C, your "year in residence" at School C would cost you a year of competition. Here's an illustration:
Say you redshirted your freshman year at Washington, didn't like it, and transferred to Ohio State for your sophomore year. You'd have to sit it out, but you could practice and receive aid, and you'd still have four years of athletic eligibility starting your junior year. If you then transferred to Michigan after your sophomore year, you'd spend your junior year doing your "year in residence," but you'd only have three years of eligibility remaining starting your senior year. But if you transferred to Michigan because Urban Meyer left after your sophomore year or the NCAA imposed a postseason ban that year, you'd be immediately eligible for competition your junior year at Michigan, and you'd still have your full four years of eligibility.
Thoughts? It pretty drastically puts the power in student-athletes' hands, which I think is important. I'm a little uncomfortable by the prospect of, say, a K.J. Costello deciding he'd rather play at USC after redshirting one year and playing one year, sitting out a year at USC, and then having three years of eligibility for them. But I'm not sure there's any way around it, given how schools have abused the release process even where a kid wants to transfer back home to a school not on the current schedule. A limited transfer exception, restricting students from transferring to schools on next year's schedule, but otherwise allowing a student-athlete to transfer wherever he or she desires, could have worked if it took the discretion out of the hands of the first school. And maybe that's where this rule eventually ends up--it's early yet. But the proposal seems like a massive improvement over the current system. And if you're worried about too many student-athletes wanting to leave your program for greener pastures, maybe you should be asking yourself why they all want to leave.
https://sports.cbsimg.net/images/college...oposal.pdf
The headline is a student-friendly one--transfer instantly after a coaching change--but the other changes in the draft proposal would have far-reaching impacts. The one that stood out most to me is that the "year in residence"--the NCAA's term for sitting out a year before you can play after you transfer--would be extended to every NCAA sport, as opposed to the limited number of sports that rule applies to now (football, basketball, baseball, and hockey, I think). So, if this passes, it would mean no more instant impact undergraduate transfers in Olympic sports. Now, I'm not sure whether this would be a net positive or a net negative for Stanford as compared to other schools, but it would mean, for example, that Taylor Uhl wouldn't have led Stanford women's soccer in scoring as a junior, because she would have either been sitting out or the prospect of sitting out a year would have led her to stay at Minnesota. Though you wouldn't lose a year of eligibility due to sitting the year out under this proposal, so perhaps Uhl still would have transferred, and used the extra year to do a co-term or start a Master's.Â
And the ability to transfer after a coaching change isn't without limitation, either, because you'd specifically be barred from following your old coach to his new school. (Specifically, you wouldn't be immediately eligible for competition at that school; you could still transfer there.) That said, it would be the only restriction on transferring--schools would no longer be able to keep you from transferring to certain schools in any situation. That's a monumental change in the transfer landscape.Â
The uniformity of the "year in residence" is complicated, but there is a lot to like in this proposal:
1. Schools can no longer limit where you transfer. Period. You may have to sit out a year, but you get to transfer where you want to transfer.Â
2. You'd be immediately eligible to play if you're a grad transfer (so no change there) or a walk-on
3. Transferring wouldn't cost you a season of competition, but it would delay it in most cases. The old 5 years to play 4 rule would still apply, but there would be an automatic one-year extension for first-time transferring students.Â
4. If your school gets a postseason ban, you can transfer and be eligible to play immediately at your new school. I love this change, though it could function like an equivalent to the death penalty, because every member of the team would have that same ability. While the number of spots available at a given school for accepting transfers is small due to scholarship limitations, so you likely wouldn't see the entire team leave, it's not hard to imagine a school getting hit with a postseason ban and then seeing its best players all get picked off by other schools. If schools complain about that, though, my response would be to not violate NCAA rules so flagrantly that they feel compelled to impose a postseason ban.
The emphasis is on first-time transfers, though, as a mechanism to discourage excessive school-shopping. If you don't like School A, transfer to School B, and then decide you don't like School C, your "year in residence" at School C would cost you a year of competition. Here's an illustration:
Say you redshirted your freshman year at Washington, didn't like it, and transferred to Ohio State for your sophomore year. You'd have to sit it out, but you could practice and receive aid, and you'd still have four years of athletic eligibility starting your junior year. If you then transferred to Michigan after your sophomore year, you'd spend your junior year doing your "year in residence," but you'd only have three years of eligibility remaining starting your senior year. But if you transferred to Michigan because Urban Meyer left after your sophomore year or the NCAA imposed a postseason ban that year, you'd be immediately eligible for competition your junior year at Michigan, and you'd still have your full four years of eligibility.
Thoughts? It pretty drastically puts the power in student-athletes' hands, which I think is important. I'm a little uncomfortable by the prospect of, say, a K.J. Costello deciding he'd rather play at USC after redshirting one year and playing one year, sitting out a year at USC, and then having three years of eligibility for them. But I'm not sure there's any way around it, given how schools have abused the release process even where a kid wants to transfer back home to a school not on the current schedule. A limited transfer exception, restricting students from transferring to schools on next year's schedule, but otherwise allowing a student-athlete to transfer wherever he or she desires, could have worked if it took the discretion out of the hands of the first school. And maybe that's where this rule eventually ends up--it's early yet. But the proposal seems like a massive improvement over the current system. And if you're worried about too many student-athletes wanting to leave your program for greener pastures, maybe you should be asking yourself why they all want to leave.
