šŸ“” Proposal to let athletes transfer instantly after a coaching change picks up steam

  • Thread starter Thread starter Google Inc.
  • Start date Start date
G

Google Inc.

Athletes would be allowed to transfer schools without restriction if their coach were fired or left for another job as part of sweeping proposal that is making its way through Division I, CBS Sports has learned. However, athletes would not be permitted to follow the departing coach to their new program.

The proposal, which originated from the Big 12, would also allow athletes to transfer without sitting out a season (as currently mandated by NCAA rules) in the event a postseason ban is handed down by the NCAA as punishment to their program.

The traditional academic "year in residence" for transfers in all other situations would still be in place and extended to every sport. Presently, that is only a requirement in five NCAA sports.

The proposal authored by the faculty athletic representatives at Baylor and Iowa State has received early support. Skeptics note it is merely a proposal, not the proposal. Still, the document shared with CBS Sports seems to be the most detailed offering to date as a means of fixing the NCAA's long-criticized transfer policies.

"Basically, we're saying kids can go anywhere they want," Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard said. "For the first time ever in college athletics, the student-athlete is empowered."

Changing the NCAA's entrenched transfer rules has become one of the most significant undertakings in the association's history.

Coaches have long been able to "block" where a transfer goes. Athletes also have to seek release from their scholarships to immediately get aid at another school. Frequently, they have to get "permission" from the school/coach to move on to their desired school.

Those practices would end if the aforementioned proposal is adopted.

"I haven't heard one person against [doing away with] the notification," Ohio State AD Gene Smith said.

The NCAA board of directors has basically mandated Division I to change its transfer rules in the next year.

An ongoing Division I Transfer Working Group is expected to push forward one or two proposals for legislation by June. The question then would be the effective date -- in time for either the 2018 or 2019 football seasons.

A source close to that situation stressed the preliminary nature of any proposals at the moment. The Big 12 proposal was finalized last month when conference officials met at the NCAA Convention in Indianapolis.

"Either try to accept [the process or] try to change it," Pollard said. "But quit bitching about it."

The Big 12 is in the process of distributing and talking up the proposal with other conferences. You can see the proposal here.

"I think it's a phenomenal idea," Pollard said. "There's holes in it. There will always be, but it's the best thing I've seen out there so far. It's a lot better than where we are heading."

Recent real-world examples show how sweeping such a rule change could be.


For example, players could have transferred from Florida State without restriction when Jimbo Fisher departed for Texas A&M in early December 2017 or when Rich Rodriguez was fired at Arizona on Jan. 2.

Those transferring players could not immediately follow the coach to their new school.

Rising seniors were allowed to transfer when the NCAA slapped Ole Miss with a second year of a postseason ban on Dec. 1, 2017. (The school had already self-imposed a one-year ban.) Under the proposal, any and all Ole Miss players could have departed for a new school without sitting out a year.

Currently, several transferring Ole Miss underclassmen are seeking waivers for immediate eligibility. There have been reports some of those players are basing their appeals on feeling they were misled by the school about the severity of the penalties.

Pollard admitted adjustments would have to be made in football recruiting limitations (25 scholarships per year) if a school lost transfers in any of the above scenarios.

Also, the subsequent impact on a departure to a school's Academic Progress Rate would have to be considered. Mass transfers could potentially put a program's postseason eligibility at risk.

Football and basketball coaches are currently concerned about possible "free agency," allowing athletes across the board to transfer without any restriction for any reason.

Men's basketball is arguably in crisis with a current transfer rate of 40 percent.

"It's a broken sport," a current Pac-12 AD told CBS Sports.

Anything still seems possible. The words "panic" and "wild, Wild West" we're tossed about by other AD types this weekend at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) mid-winter meeting in Sanibel Island, Florida.

"I hear it's all over the board right now," Smith said.

The Big 12 proposal at least contains academic components that legitimize it.

Part of the proposal's credibility comes from its authors and their obvious research. Jeremy Counseller is a law professor at Baylor. Tim Day is an Iowa State professor of molecular pharmacology and member of the NCAA Council.

Part of the proposal calls for uniformity. In the traditional transfer setting, athletes are required to sit out a year in only five sports: baseball, hockey, football and men's and women's basketball. Under the proposal, transfers in all sports would be required to sit out a year in the event of a traditional transfer. That means volleyball, softball, wrestling athletes and others used to immediate transfers would now have to sit out.

"That's not why we're dealing with this issue," Pollard said. "We're dealing with it because of football and basketball. Can you name me one high-profile athlete that's been blocked in another sport? Now we're going to treat everybody equally. Empower the student-athlete but help them make a sound academic decision."

The possibility could suddenly exist that, in the same college career, a player could redshirt, transfer, sit out a year and transfer immediately. That player would not lose any of their four years of eligibility.

Yes, it could also create the possibility -- though not likely -- of a six- or seven-year player, the former of which we rarely see today usually due to injury.

"If you don't do that, people will just make the emotional decision that it's all about athletics," Pollard said. "This makes you actually stop and think about academics but doesn't stop you from making an athletic decision."

Proposal to let athletes transfer instantly after a coaching change picks up steam
 
I have no problem with the change. Most, not all kids, choose a school because of the head coach or position coach. If it really was about getting an education, keep the rule. Just my opinion.
If this rule was in place today, what do you think would happen to programs that aren't blue bloods? Take UCF for example. How many would be taking off with Frost gone? Or, with the move of Taggert, what would Oregon look like? That's two coaches in two years.

I can see this as one step further separate G5 and P5 schools. I can see this making the AD's quick decisions more of a risk. They'll not like the ID of it meaning they could be sacrificing an entire roster versus one class, a huge buyout, and moving on to the next coach.

It'll need to be very detailed to work and it's still nothing more than free agency. A LOT of drawbacks just sitting out there.
 
Bad-bad......this is fixing something that is not broken....
Talking about something that gives HCs more demand power...
.a player commits to a school...period
Doesnt commit to a HC....
going to create chaos....
So does an nfl player contract become void if the HC leaves?????
No...he committed to a franchise....
Now..if a player hasn't stepped on campus and HC leaves....he should be free to start back up recruitment.... ( recruited under false pretenses)
But...no-no-no
 
If this rule was in place today, what do you think would happen to programs that aren't blue bloods? Take UCF for example. How many would be taking off with Frost gone? Or, with the move of Taggert, what would Oregon look like? That's two coaches in two years.

I can see this as one step further separate G5 and P5 schools. I can see this making the AD's quick decisions more of a risk. They'll not like the ID of it meaning they could be sacrificing an entire roster versus one class, a huge buyout, and moving on to the next coach.

It'll need to be very detailed to work and it's still nothing more than free agency. A LOT of drawbacks just sitting out there.


I have no problem with a kid transferring to another school if they sign out of high school and the coach leaves, should have stated my opinion better.
 
I have no problem with a kid transferring to another school if they sign out of high school and the coach leaves, should have stated my opinion better.
It'll need to be very detailed to work and it's still nothing more than free agency. A LOT of drawbacks just sitting out there.
We're on the same page here, Mike. Like quoted, "a lot of details to work out."

If this passes I'd like to see something like what you've suggested. A "free transfer," or release from the LOI, makes sense if they're not on campus or it happens before they see their first fall camp arrive. At that point it should be curtailed, or at least restricted in some form. What happens to a team like Arkansas that switches schemes from Bielma to Morris? How many of those offensive lineman were recruiting for a power system versus the mis-direction based scheme Chad brings to Fayetteville? Do we really want to see a situation where any school loses a lot of players due to a change? It could cripple some, kill others.
 
What a pickle for the NCAA... Making all this money in a system that everyone knows is busted the hell up. College football is so damn entertaining but the system is headed towards serious changes. Wish we could fast forward 20 years and see what it would look like!
 
What a pickle for the NCAA... Making all this money in a system that everyone knows is busted the hell up. College football is so damn entertaining but the system is headed towards serious changes. Wish we could fast forward 20 years and see what it would look like!


What's busted? The idea that a University makes money on sports is a troubling thought to you. If stability with the players is disrupted as some are suggesting, and free agency did happen, that will be the tipping point for stability and consistency among teams. And the players will have the same coins in their pocket as before, theoretically speaking.
 
We're on the same page here, Mike. Like quoted, "a lot of details to work out."

If this passes I'd like to see something like what you've suggested. A "free transfer," or release from the LOI, makes sense if they're not on campus or it happens before they see their first fall camp arrive. At that point it should be curtailed, or at least restricted in some form. What happens to a team like Arkansas that switches schemes from Bielma to Morris? How many of those offensive lineman were recruiting for a power system versus the mis-direction based scheme Chad brings to Fayetteville? Do we really want to see a situation where any school loses a lot of players due to a change? It could cripple some, kill others.


Great minds thinking alike. LOL I agree 100% if a coach leaves then a kid should be released from his LOI if they have not enrolled in school.
 
What's busted? The idea that a University makes money on sports is a troubling thought to you. If stability with the players is disrupted as some are suggesting, and free agency did happen, that will be the tipping point for stability and consistency among teams. And the players will have the same coins in their pocket as before, theoretically speaking.

Show me how many universities are actually making money on sports.....?

Lots make money on football... Lose their ass on every other sport besides mens hoops. Title 9 kills the idea of the majority having any hopes of actually making money.

It's busted. Blame Title 9. College football is a part of that system. Now that these coaches are getting paid like they cured cancer, it's bad PR for their current system when the players are made out to be poor/broke/struggling kids.

Comprende?
 
I really don’t think it will be as bad as we think it will be.
Only so many spots on a team. So if a coach leaves it’s not like he can fill his new team with a slew of former players.
Personally, a lot of these kids join because of the coaches. There are very few colleges now that kids go to just because of the name.
 
I really don’t think it will be as bad as we think it will be.
Only so many spots on a team. So if a coach leaves it’s not like he can fill his new team with a slew of former players.
Personally, a lot of these kids join because of the coaches. There are very few colleges now that kids go to just because of the name.
What we don't know is what's going to happen. I've seen a few mention the players at Penn State and how many chose to stay when their sanctions were announced. I've seen fewer mention how many stayed at Bama. I see both of those as very poor analogies.

Hypothetical numbers here just to walk through the suggestions.

Let's say Coach Football leaves and is replaced by Coach Pigskin. The first is a spread attack, the second going to something that doesn't translate to the league very easily. So, we see an exodus of 40 players with the coaching changes.

If they were at 85, now they are at 45 with 40 new frosh. In three years when that's a junior class we could see a team with 40 Jr's, 25, Sophomores, and 20 frosh. The next year we're at 40 Sr's, 25 Jr's, 20 Soph's, and how many initials? Yes, a new rule could satiate the loss of so many but it also assures they'll be right back where they were in a matter of three or four years. In my miniscule mind, that just doesn't add up. It seems like a band-aid over a place where there should have been a few stitches.

To add another speed bump: This is only going to separate the P5's from the G5's to a greater extent. Why? Schools that can afford it are going to hire more people--in essence, a recruiting staff. Recruiting will never be over for any kid no matter where they are or how happy they are in their current situation. We'll see these staff's hired solely to see which players they can grab. They won't be in evaluation roles, or be actually recruiting and developing these kids, they'll serve one purpose: who can we poach?

Is that what NCAA football wants? Needs?
 
One more thing here.

We see a lot of anger over kids dealing with a coaching change and the repercussions of some losing their spot due to new schemes, etc. With the current state let's not forget this is a zero sum game. If a school signs 25 on NSD, the coach leaves after signing day, and players can leave where are they going? Are we to expect other schools to leave spots open because Coach Football might leave?

We'll see players lose their spots, be relegated down to D2 or JUCO ball. If they're choosing JUCO ball, now they aren't playing until they graduate (if we're talking SEC type schools.)

I see the cart WAY before the horse here and a lot of knee jerk reactions to sentiment. These knee jerk reactions are doing nothing more than kicking the horse in the balls.
 
Show me how many universities are actually making money on sports.....?

Lots make money on football... Lose their ass on every other sport besides mens hoops. Title 9 kills the idea of the majority having any hopes of actually making money.

It's busted. Blame Title 9. College football is a part of that system. Now that these coaches are getting paid like they cured cancer, it's bad PR for their current system when the players are made out to be poor/broke/struggling kids.

Comprende?


Which is the biggest obstacle to paying players. If you pay one, you have to pay all, it's the American way. I'll give you that University athletics, for the big boys, is a poorly run business, but for power 5 programs it's nothing short of an arm's race and much like the cold war, profits be damned. It's a constant investment in the biggest and badest stuff in the land. Much of that stuff the players benefit most from. But that being said, profits still exist and much of the income reported from power 5 could be filed under creative writing.

But that doesn't change my point, free agency is no substitute for what a University has or doesn't have. It will be nothing short of a feeding frenzy in college football if transfers don't continue to be regulated by a one-year, sit out penalty. Anything within that can be, and some things should be, tweaked for the players. For example, coaches leaving immediately after a player signs is nothing less than a conspiracy to deceive and should allow the player to open up his recruitment. A fired coach or just leaving for a perceived better job is way to complicated to be consistent with a player transfer rule and again would be impossible to regulate fairly. Tweaks are fine, trying to reinvent the transfer wheel is stupid.
 
Which is the biggest obstacle to paying players. If you pay one, you have to pay all, it's the American way. I'll give you that University athletics, for the big boys, is a poorly run business, but for power 5 programs it's nothing short of an arm's race and much like the cold war, profits be damned. It's a constant investment in the biggest and badest stuff in the land. Much of that stuff the players benefit most from. But that being said, profits still exist and much of the income reported from power 5 could be filed under creative writing.

But that doesn't change my point, free agency is no substitute for what a University has or doesn't have. It will be nothing short of a feeding frenzy in college football if transfers don't continue to be regulated by a one-year, sit out penalty. Anything within that can be, and some things should be, tweaked for the players. For example, coaches leaving immediately after a player signs is nothing less than a conspiracy to deceive and should allow the player to open up his recruitment. A fired coach or just leaving for a perceived better job is way to complicated to be consistent with a player transfer rule and again would be impossible to regulate fairly. Tweaks are fine, trying to reinvent the transfer wheel is stupid.

Fair enough. Agreed on most all that, particularly paying players in relation to the actual sport's value. It's not going to work because of Title 9.

My pain point was in 20 years I think there will be a much different landscape. What could fix many issues very simply is to force universities and coaches to actually uphold the terms of agreement (barring character/criminal issues). And why not? They're the ones that actually agree to the contract lol... Might force certain schools to actually see the big picture when they hire these guys
 
Fair enough. Agreed on most all that, particularly paying players in relation to the actual sport's value. It's not going to work because of Title 9.

My pain point was in 20 years I think there will be a much different landscape. What could fix many issues very simply is to force universities and coaches to actually uphold the terms of agreement (barring character/criminal issues). And why not? They're the ones that actually agree to the contract lol... Might force certain schools to actually see the big picture when they hire these guys

That's a tweak that other conferences and even Alabama back in 2012 say that they have changed. They're supposedly offering guaranteed 4-year scholarships. I say supposedly because there are always loopholes and because I simply don't know how ironclad that agreement actually is in practice.

I've watched Universities and individual players play this system they are in for all it's worth. It's no doubt mercenary in nature and at times extremely selfish. If anyone is smart enough to figure this one out, he should be King.
 
That's a tweak that other conferences and even Alabama back in 2012 say that they have changed. They're supposedly offering guaranteed 4-year scholarships. I say supposedly because there are always loopholes and because I simply don't know how ironclad that agreement actually is in practice.

I've watched Universities and individual players play this system they are in for all it's worth. It's no doubt mercenary in nature and at times extremely selfish. If anyone is smart enough to figure this one out, he should be King.

I was referring to the COACHES and schools upholding their agreement. If a school is going to offer a coach 7 years and 60 Million... Actually having to see that through would make schools think twice. It's not so much about the money, more about the length of the deals. I mean, how often does a coach actually work the length of his contract before leaving or getting fired, and peacefully leaves for another job? Honestly I can't think of a single one in recent history lol
 
I was referring to the COACHES and schools upholding their agreement. If a school is going to offer a coach 7 years and 60 Million... Actually having to see that through would make schools think twice. It's not so much about the money, more about the length of the deals. I mean, how often does a coach actually work the length of his contract before leaving or getting fired, and peacefully leaves for another job? Honestly I can't think of a single one in recent history lol

Would you have wanted to be stuck with Shula with Saban dangling out there?
 
Would you have wanted to be stuck with Shula with Saban dangling out there?

I think the Miami Dolphins would have wanted Saban to finish his contract... And more relate-ably LSU before that.

The double standard between coaches and players is the bigger issue. I'm fine with the free agency aspect for players considering how their scholarships are only good on a yearly basis. But it's going to impact the game in a huge way... Including a lot more players getting cut if new transfers can now transfer in without penalty on a yearly basis.
 

Similar threads

    • Roll Tide!
    • Like
Replies
0
Views
130
S
Replies
0
Views
601
SEC Sports
S
S
2 3
Replies
58
Views
6K
Back
Top Bottom