Potential New NCAA transfer rules

by **PurpleAcesFootball** » January 18th, 2018, 7:50 pm

https://www.fanragsports.com/rothstein-ncaa-to-meet-soon-about-immediate-eligibility-for-transfers/

Talk of a potential change to NCAA transfers has been making its way through the sports talk radio world today. The basic idea is that the NCAA would remove the one year required red-shirt if a player transfers and he would be immediately eligible.

Of course the talking heads are in favor. I’m not so sure, as a fan of a non-P5 school. I could situations like Rayvonte Rice (Drake transfer to Illinois) become more common. Maybe if it was a one time thing - use it whenever, and not just after graduation.

I just would hate to see the MVC become a farm league for P5 schools - and you could argue with situations like Mikyle McIntosh it already is.

Thoughts?

**Sponsor**

by **ptownbraves** » January 18th, 2018, 9:48 pm

This article has some quotes from Valley coaches on the potential change: http://www.pjstar.com/sports/20180118/r ... al-on-hold

A lot of the gut reaction is fear that players would basically be free agents and you'd have a chaotic mess of transfers across all levels. Duke raids Davidson, Davidson raids Drake, Drake raids Delaware. The NCAA knows where their bread is buttered, and it's not with mid-majors.

by **TheAsianSensation** » January 18th, 2018, 9:54 pm

On the other hand, it transfers power to the players, who have long-deserved to have that power. Everyone knows the system hurts the players, so let them have more power. On the other other hand, it's the mid-majors that get hurt; the big boys will survive the new system.

That's the crappy thing about this - the NCAA system is abused by the power 6 programs. Therefore, the NCAA is contemplating a rule change or not that will hurt one of the mid-majors and the players. The people who deserve to have power taken away are the one group who's guaranteed not to have that power taken away.

I'd do a modified version of this where a player is allowed to transfer without penalty only in year 1.

by **ptownbraves** » January 19th, 2018, 9:16 am

The problem I have with it is they are loosening restrictions on the players under the guise of giving student athletes more choice, and that’s true on the face of things, but it’s also creating a massive incentive for schools to go and get top players from lesser programs to benefit their programs.

Does the NCAA care about the student part of student athlete? They say they do, but I have my doubts. It’s treating college kids more and more like professionals, but without the money. If you attend a well-regarded academic school, it likely won’t make a big difference what the name is on the diploma, unless you’re set on being in a specific market once you graduate.

Is creating an incentive for college kids to “upgrade” schools with better athletic programs going to help them be successful once they graduate or is it about pleasing your biggest customers? Maybe for the few that go on to play sports professionally, but for the majority, I doubt it.

by **Jsnhbe1Birds** » January 19th, 2018, 9:57 am

No point to sign an NLI anymore. If they can just decide to nullify their contract whenever they want they what's the point.

by **glm38** » January 19th, 2018, 11:38 am

I like that this would give some power back to the players too. But I do fear it would hurt mid major programs like ours. I could see the P6 poaching our best players even more than happens now.

by **Kyle@MOState** » January 19th, 2018, 4:30 pm

I understand wanting to give the power to the players. They are ambassadors of the University, and they exactly paid a wage, but I believe most if not all Valley schools pay for the full cost of attendance now, and there needs to be something there to hold players accountable to their commitment. Every industry has rules, and this just happens to be one of them. I think this will turn the mid-major programs in to farm clubs, and the creepy AAU types will be trickling in to college even more than they already are. I don't know if the NCAA wants the FBI always snooping around looking at allegations of player tampering that would surely go on. The one sticking point for many of the proponents of this is that they say if the coach can leave for a bigger and better job, why can't the players. I say if the coach leaves, players can become immediately eligible for transferring after meeting with the new staff.

by **AndShock** » January 20th, 2018, 2:01 pm

This wouldn't just be some rule that helps the P5, this would completely ruin college athletics.

by **Jsnhbe1Birds** » January 20th, 2018, 2:11 pm

AndShock wrote:This wouldn't just be some rule that helps the P5, this would completely ruin college athletics.

Correct. The dukes of the world wont be afraid to take from low p5s like ole miss or rutgers and probably not even higher ones like Oklahoma or purdue. In football do you think Alabama cares if they take from texas.

by **Khan4Cats** » January 20th, 2018, 9:00 pm

At the same time, it could also benefit the mid-majors as tweener players that they could have recruited but chose p5 names over the mids only to have buyers remorse later would be able to transfer out without penalty if they don't feel their getting a fair chance at the bigs. I'm thinking Wes Washpun and Paul Jesperson from UNI, for example.