In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1679
Online now 1657 Record: 9097 (3/2/2012)
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink
Buy, sell or swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I'm a big fan of these changes. Makes a lot of sense. Here is a quick summary of proposed changes.
Athletes would still need to get permission to contact another school before transferring. But permission would be tied to practice and competition, not athletics aid. So even if permission was denied, the student-athlete would still be able to receive a scholarship.
Athletes who qualify for the transfer exemption in the APR would be permitted to play immediately at the new school. That would make a 2.600 GPA the magic number to play immediately.
Athletes who do not qualify to play immediately at the next school would still receive an extension of their five-year clock so they can use all their eligibility.
Tampering with an athlete by another school would be considered a severe breach of conduct, a Level I violation, the highest in the NCAA’s new enforcement structure.
Details are few, but there is enough information about a new NCAA transfer model to make educated guesses about what the rules would look like.
The tampering element of the rules is especially interesting.
Can't read the link at the moment. From reading your snipet, it seems players can transfer and play right away so long as their academics are in order. Is that correct? Awesome for the players if true and would explain why the tampering element is added.
And, chap, you are consistently one of the best BOLers. Just thought you should know.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
Thanks for the compliment. I'm just addicted to this place.
From the way I read the article that is correct. If a player has his academics in order then he can transfer and play immediately.
Also, a block on the transfer I think will only pertain to the immediacy of playing ability but won't limit financial aid which is also pretty cool for the players.
Lastly, if a player is blocked, therefore has to sit out a year then he will be granted another of eligibility by the NCAA.
I agree with these changes so much that I'm amazed this is the proposal.
So am I reading this right? Athletes no longer have to sit out a year if they have a certain GPA? If that is correct, hope this doesn't lead to guys giving up early because of lack of playing time.
Basically, yes that is what it is saying. Players can still be "blocked" from transferring to other schools that the previous team will face. So, a player can be blocked from transferring from LSwho to Texas AM if Les Miles wants to block him. If the block happens then that player will be eligible for financial aid but won't be able to play the following season.
If the kid is going to school and doing that part of things the right way and he wants to jump ship for something like playing time then I'm fine with it. Ultimately, a player that quits like that is not likely to ever reach their potential any way.
I don't like the rule about playing immediately. I think the deterrent having to sit out a year is needed to prevent frivolous transfers. Let them keep all their eligibilty (no need to burn a red-shirt) but make them sit a year.
I agree could lend to schools trying to get kids to transfer. I just think you walk a real fine line here.
New Member of The 247 Crew!
so 20 5* upperclassmen from around the country can transfer to ....lets say Bama, & play next year ?
wow, the Willie Lyles-types (bagmen) are gunna make a killing.
If a school tries to recruit a plAyer from another school that is a major violation equal to paying a player.
In theory yes but the current coach can block the player which would cause him to not be able to play next year.
The player wouldn't lose eligibility and would get financial aid but won't be able to play immediately.
Also player has to let their current school know where they are considering. Can't blind side anyone and that gives current school some strength to block.
^^^^^^^ This will be known as the TROOPA rule.
1984 300ZX Anniversary Model, 1970 Olds 442 W-30 & Pepper Bird
That's where the middle man comes in. I like it for the players, especially given the frequency of coaching changes, but It's gonna be even more like the Wild West than it is now.
I really like the rule, and I think there should really be a set list of schools players can't transfer too - schools currently on schedule w/ the present team, and schools in conference.
Why should we care if a player wants to transfer to, say, Oklahoma? If said player wants to go to A&M or the Barn, then yea, he should have to sit out a year. But if he is moving out of conference and to a team we aren't set to play the following year then good luck to him.
There are many reasons why players transfer, and many that the NCAA shouldn't have to legislate over (ie medical or family hardships). Sometimes a player comes in and just realizes he isn't cut out for our system, well get him out and to a team he'd like (that wouldn't be on our potential schedule) and let's both move on.
"Once in awhile you get shown the light in the strangest of places you have to look at it right."
why not use common sense / simplify by allowing any/all student atheletes to transfer if...
a) students grades are > x
b) sit out one year while on scholarship by new school
c) not count against 25/85 untill eligible to play
take away coaches consent rule.
they shouldnt have a say if a kid wants to leave. if i wanted to quit my job & my boss said i couldnt, i would tell him to go frock himself.
It's not about quitting. My company would not care if I quit. However my non-compete clause would force me to sit out quite a while if I wanted to go to a competitor.
This post was edited by scottchap 15 months ago
i like the sit out one year portion of the transfer rule.
- focus long and hard on original school of choice
- anyone (especially a 18 yr old) can make the wrong choice/ not get PT/ miss home/ coaches leave/ ect
and should be able to transfer any time they want but must sit as part of the equation. its worked for years & there is no sense
in changing anything outside of "the school or coaches" permission to leave.
- a HS prospect can choose any school that offers
- a college student should be able to change to any school that is willing to offer a ride
# however if you walk you sit
- you & i can go eat dinner tonight any where we choose
# however if we select a really good place we may have to sit (waiting list)
*** no one should have a say in any of the above except the individual involved ***
This post was edited by Crimson_Ghost 15 months ago
Problem is the real cheaters don't fear the NCAA. & until the NCAA actually bitch slaps one of these low life schools. Why would they stop bending & finding loop holes in their rules? This type of thing. While it can benefit kids & schools that do it the right way. I'm sure the cheaters are scheming ways to take advantage of it as well.
like banning assault rifles.
do you think a drug czar or local crook will abide by new regulations ?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports