Sources: Major Potential Shift In NCAA Transfer Rules Coming

[gauchoheel]

I don't think there should be any special GPA level that should be set for athletes for transfer. The bar should be the same as it would for any normal student that may transfer. And that line would vary depending on the school. But don't think they should put an extra GPS restrictions on them just because they are athletes.

Well, I can see what you're saying, but the difference is the athlete academic bar is much lower as it is. Most students couldn't transfer to UNC with a 2.4 college GPA, but an athlete probably could. I don't know that making the athletes at least get close to the average transfer GPA would necessarily be unfair, although I'd be open to hearing more.

 

[tarheel0910]

The point is we don't know what the effects will be. It could be more or less impactful than what we project.

But we shouldn't restrict someone's career choice because we think it might have a bad effect on us. If it becomes a huge issue, the rule can always be changed back.

Who loses out in the current format? Maybe some players, but is it really so bad if Seventh Woods sits a year if he decides to transfer?

It's not bad for me, but it can hurt Seventh and that's the point. Sure he can practice and develop, but NBA scouts aren't going to be going to practices to watch him. You're telling him he can't interview for a job and/or do the thing he loves, because that's what these games are.

I'm not sure why you think that, they already do. We see grad transfer starters move schools all the time because they don't have to take a year off (Cam Johnson). Someone like Dedric Lawson thought it was worth sitting out a year even though he was starting, imagine all the guys that could justify it without the year off?

Poor wording on my part. I should have said less likely. The issue people are worried about is kids transferring because they are unhappy with their role. I think it's safe to say that most kids who are starting are happy. It's the role players who would most likely transfer.

What if Joel Berry decides he wants to try living on the West Coast for a year, so he's off to UCLA? Or his girlfriend moves to Miami, so he's going to go play down there to live with her? Or he wants to play in a more PnR heavy system, so he's off to Kentucky? The point is when you remove any consequences for transferring, the calculus drastically changes.

Then good for Joel. He should be able to determine what is in his best interest. The NCAA shouldn't punish him because he wants to expand his horizons, be close to someone he loves or go to a school that he feels fits his needs better. Regular students change schools all the time based on those very same issues.

Right now there has to be a large gain to justify such a move, but if you don't have to sit out then relatively small things could lead to a transfer.

Why does there have to be a large gain though? Who decides what the size of the gain should be for another person? It's easier to let someone live their own life than to answer such subjective questions.

What if they can just pick the tops off of every roster from guys who have proven they can succeed at the college level?

But they can't do that because of scholarship limitations. And despite what UK fans believe, not everyone wants to go there.

We should be very okay with it, or at least think player freedom outweighs any downsides, if we're on-board with this change.

For me, anything that gives a player the same freedoms as a normal student is a good thing. I despise the NCAA's hypocrisy. They continually say they are students first, but they treat them completely different than normal students. It's almost always to the athletes detriment and normally benefits coaches, conferences and the NCAA. The "student" should come first since it's their life.

 

[gauchoheel]

Yeah, I'm right there with you. I'm not a fan of most NCAA rules, and wish athletes could at least profit off of their likeness. I just think this may have harmful impacts on the sport, but it probably wouldn't be as big of a deal as I think. We just have to be okay with the possibility that it could be.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

This is the rub to me. The other points you guys are making really are food for thought, BUT the only thing that really matters is what is in the best interest of the kid in question. I think the athlete and his/her parents should be able to determine this for themselves and the NCAA should stay out of it! If you can claim that the U cannot give any benefit that is not offered to all other students; then how can you deny the athlete the same rights as the other students? IE: The right to make money off their images or skills; the right to transfer with no penalty; the right for a teammate's father to buy you a freaking ice cream cone if you travel with them to a freaking amusement park! (OK the last one might be personal, lol)

NCAA hypocrisy knows no bounds!

 

[DSouthr]

This is the rub to me. The other points you guys are making really are food for thought, BUT the only thing that really matters is what is in the best interest of the kid in question. I think the athlete and his/her parents should be able to determine this for themselves and the NCAA should stay out of it! If you can claim that the U cannot give any benefit that is not offered to all other students; then how can you deny the athlete the same rights as the other students? IE: The right to make money off their images or skills; the right to transfer with no penalty; the right for a teammate's father to buy you a freaking ice cream cone if you travel with them to a freaking amusement park! (OK the last one might be personal, lol)

NCAA hypocrisy knows no bounds!

First, it is sad that in todays world getting a college education paid for seems of so little value. It was not that long ago that kids committed to schools for the very reason other college kids that do not play a sport do, to prepare for their future. The college game was and IMO still is the very best training ground for kids preparing to one day enter the NBA or any professional sport. That Jordan fella, he may have been able to play and makes a few dollars if he had not wasted himself playing for UNC those 3yrs.

But we live in a I want it all NOW world, not willing to wait not willing to do what those before you did not willing to earn it, hand it to them because for some reason they deserve it?

 

[tarheel0910]

First, it is sad that in todays world getting a college education paid for seems of so little value.

People still see the value of it, even though the idea of a college education is overrated.

It was not that long ago that kids committed to schools for the very reason other college kids that do not play a sport do, to prepare for their future.

How is that not what they are doing now? Did Bradley not prepare for his future by playing for a national championship team?

But we live in a I want it all NOW world, not willing to wait not willing to do what those before you did not willing to earn it, hand it to them because for some reason they deserve it?

That's because we live in a capitalistic world. The NBA is willing to pay them millions of dollars to play. Why not take it since that is the goal?

 

[RoseHeel]

This is the rub to me. The other points you guys are making really are food for thought, BUT the only thing that really matters is what is in the best interest of the kid in question. I think the athlete and his/her parents should be able to determine this for themselves and the NCAA should stay out of it! If you can claim that the U cannot give any benefit that is not offered to all other students; then how can you deny the athlete the same rights as the other students? IE: The right to make money off their images or skills; the right to transfer with no penalty; the right for a teammate's father to buy you a freaking ice cream cone if you travel with them to a freaking amusement park! (OK the last one might be personal, lol)

NCAA hypocrisy knows no bounds!

While I always agree doing what's in the best interest for the kid is what matters, this is arguing to change a rule that only helps on a basketball level.

For once, I feel the NCAA is in the right. Kids can transfer anywhere they want, but have to sit out a year. Keeps the sanctity of the game intact and doesn't infringe on any of the kids' rights.

This rule only benefits the "athlete", not the "student-athlete".

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Unless of course the family believes the coach has lied to them or the university they want to go to has a better academic reputation or the coach that promised to take care of their son moves on and a rat or a Pitino is hired. If commitment was a 2-way street, (coaches/universities having to follow the same level of commitment), I would have less of a problem with it.

The rule has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a scholarship, but everything to do with the quality of the overall experience. College is supposed to be about more than just learning specific content. It prepares you to handle the real world and establishes a network of peeps that can help you in life.

Changing the rule would not benefit the athlete over the student, but it would put the athlete and student on the same level. Students can move around all they want with no penalty whatsoever, while student-athletes must hope that a capricious governing body known for inconsistency might somehow treat them fairly!