NCAA Considers Amending Transfer Rule for Non-Scholarship Players

This is encouraging for all the young men wanting to play D1 !!

Public pressure may be enough to get this passed even though they can participate.

The question is how to put pressure on them. Some aspiring report could do a great article/segment about how the NCAA refuses to accept input from the people most affected by their rules.

Good news that this is at least being considered...

This is a rule that really needs to be changed it really opens itself to litigation.

How can a non scholarship player be obligated to any institution when the college hasn't invested anything in the student athlete or the costs to attend.

My thoughts.

If the working group doesn't like this consideration, they will find a way to get around the rationale factor. "Recruited" is the key word here.

I know what might appear as logical (the consideration), but I don't think it is going to fly. If I am now a coach with only 27 to give out bb money, my best recruit may be able to get 75% academic aid where I might not be able to give him more than 25%. I do not want him having the opportunity to transfer to seek greener pastures. Just because he is now an academic guy only, doesn't mean he will not make a significant impact on my team. Some people appear to be equating lack of talent with lack of bb money. I know many very good players who are playing the D1 game on academic money only large part because not all programs fund through bb but other means and that was the only way the coach could make his numbers work. What about programs that don't bb fund, do you see much movement within their rosters? In some cases, this might mean the entire team can transfer whenever they desire.

Graduation is now more important than ever but so is stability, which helps in making a winning team. This still gives the opportunity for coaches who cut, the ability to still cut. I'll bet this is where this idea originates.

With this thought in mind, watch the working group work to change the rules of APR to include non scholarship players or give more than 27 max schollies. They are trying to improve graduation rates while eliminating the revolving doors with the sit out one year transfer rule. They need to find a better solution.

I would rather see amending rules for hardship that would include every player or a player that is actually a true walk on with nothing. Regardless, the solution has to be fair not just for the player but for the program as well.

When you gather 35 players on the field, you have no clue who is receiving what, and in what form ornothing at all. They even don't know among themselves. They don't even care about APR. RPI, SOS makes more sense to them and where they choose to play. They just want to know that the coach has given them an opportunity to be on the roster and to play for the everyday lineup and that coach gives everyone the opportunity everyday, bb money or no bb money.

JMO.

The purpose of the sit rule was to help bolster a College's APR. There is no need to restrict a non BB money player.

" desire for improved NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rates, and since nonscholarship student-athletes do not impact a team's Academic Progress Rate, it seems appropriate to permit nonscholarship student-athletes to use the one-time transfer exception."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
The purpose of the sit rule was to help bolster a College's APR.
" desire for improved NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rates, and since nonscholarship student-athletes do not impact a team's Academic Progress Rate, it seems appropriate to permit nonscholarship student-athletes to use the one-time transfer exception."QUOTE]

It's important to keep in mind that the APR is a statistic, and is only an approximate measure of the actual progress or graduation rate. Presumably the NCAA (and colleges, and we parents) want to optimize the likelihood that students will make progress toward and succeed in graduating. That's not necessarily the same as maximizing the APR.
Most people believe that transferring schools typically retards students' progress, and that is true whether they play baseball, and whether they are on scholarship or not. Allowing players to transfer because they happen to not impact the statistic basically misses the point of the rule.

I haven't made up my mind about the transfer rule, but I do think we need to keep in mind the difference between a statistic and the actual intent. It's a little bit like a batting average. If a hitter chose to never hit to the right side of the infield to score a runner on third, his BA would go up, but he wouldn't actually be a better hitter.

quote:

allow a one time transfer exception (i.e. no one year in residence) for kids who never received any athletic money.

i can see the good in this for walk ons, but same ole same ole for scholorship players.

Some comments and questions:
During the NCAAs last spring/summer, it was mentioned on multiple occasions that David Price did not receive any athletic money from Vandy. I never recall if they said he received academic or need based $$$, but they did mention his aid was non athletic.

What sports allow the one time transfer rule exception today? I know there have been a lot of issues of baseball's APR stats, but looking beyond that alone, what make baseball different than any other sport where the one time exception is allowed?

FINAL QUESTION: And I realize this is rare. Let's say a player reports to a D1 school his freshman year as a walk on. Tries out, but does NOT make the team. Completes his freshman year at this first school, but gets an opportunity to play at another D1 school the following year. So over the summer he transfers. Since he never was on the first D1 school's roster AND did not receive any aid, can this player transfer with serving the sit out rule?

quote:

transferring schools typically retards students' progress, and that is true whether they play baseball, and whether they are on scholarship or not. Allowing players to transfer because they happen to not impact the statistic basically misses the point of the rule.

Actually I can ssure you that making a student who is cut, stay at the school will have a very negative impact on that student as will mking him sit.

quote:

Originally posted by jbbaseball:
Some comments and questions:
During the NCAAs last spring/summer, it was mentioned on multiple occasions that David Price did not receive any athletic money from Vandy. I never recall if they said he received academic or need based $$$, but they did mention his aid was non athletic.

If that is so that illustrates my point.

Here's a wrench thrown into the fire. Your son gets an opportunity to attend a D1 school with a good bb program. Under the old rules, he's a 10% player. Now he is recieving 25%, he is not putting his time into the classroom, he is having a difficult time adjusting everywhere. He is not on graduatuion track and his GPA is minimum, his contibution also is not what it should be for a sophmore player(let's use that as an example) or it's not what he would like it to be. A recruited walk on with academic or needs based (not bb money) has the starting spot, with a 4.0. Who do you think is going to go first?

I understand concerns. I would be too. If you are reading this it means you have visited this site and hopefully used what it has to offer (good advice). Take the knowledge you have been given (knowledge is power) and do your homework and help to guide your son to make the right choice which includes everything a school has to offer, not just baseball.

Gone are the days of only wanting to play where you bleed the colors, or to be on a top D1 roster, most won't get that opportunity under the new rules. Gone are the days of, if it doesn't work I will transfer (for whatever reason). Do your homework, make choices based on "fit" not just want (we all want to play for the best), watch APR scores, watch roster changes, get feedback regarding the coach your son will play for, not just because he appears to be a "nice" guy. Understand the coaches philosophy when choosing who plays and who doesn't (don't buy that I see you as our top starter next year) If you do all of that, you will look back and wonder why did you worry about it in the first place. If you haven't done any of the above, you most likely are gonna see your son not happy.

One other thought, transfer exception, coaching changes. This is a concern of ALL athletes, not just baseball players and their parents. I recently read where a football player was flippin' out, he thought the coach might leave. I know you commit to a school, but we all know the coach makes a big impact in your sport.

1. According to the NCAA Transfer Guide ALL sports allow the one time transfer exception EXCEPT D-1 football, D-1 basketball, D-1 mens hockey and, now D-1 baseball. It is allowed in all other sports and at all levels, D-1, D-2, and D-3.

2. In most cases no. Again, according to the NCAA Transfer Guide, a player can transfer without having to sit out IF: (1) he was never "recruited" by the school he wants to transfer to, (2) he did not receive athletic money at the original school, and (3) he did not practice with the team for more than 14 days.

quote:

Originally posted by jbbaseball:
1. What sports allow the one time transfer rule exception today? I know there have been a lot of issues of baseball's APR stats, but looking beyond that alone, what make baseball different than any other sport where the one time exception is allowed?

2. FINAL QUESTION: And I realize this is rare. Let's say a player reports to a D1 school his freshman year as a walk on. Tries out, but does NOT make the team. Completes his freshman year at this first school, but gets an opportunity to play at another D1 school the following year. So over the summer he transfers. Since he never was on the first D1 school's roster AND did not receive any aid, can this player transfer with serving the sit out rule?

quote:

Originally posted by RYNO:
This is a rule that really needs to be changed it really opens itself to litigation.

How can a non scholarship player be obligated to any institution when the college hasn't invested anything in the student athlete or the costs to attend.

How bout this rule and a bunch of others. I say we all email this Stephen Mallonee fellow. One voice is a chirp, many make the squeaky wheel get some grease. What say you?!

The obvious question that comes to mind is...
...how does this affect a D3 player who might have a shot at transferring to D1? Any guesses...educated or otherwise?

quote:

Originally posted by RYNO:
This is a rule that really needs to be changed it really opens itself to litigation.

How can a non scholarship player be obligated to any institution when the college hasn't invested anything in the student athlete or the costs to attend.

I agree 100%, RYNO. And I'll go a step further. If a kid's scholarship is cut or otherwise ammended the following year, he should be allowed to transfer, too.

JT doesn't affect him going in just on the way out. As long as he meets the eligibility he is like anyone else.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Bum:
...And I'll go a step further. If a kid's scholarship is cut or otherwise ammended the following year, he should be allowed to transfer, too.

ABSOLUTELY!...been thinking about this one all day.

You don't want them, why should they have to sit a year?

Let 'em go...

44

quote:

Originally posted by JT:
The obvious question that comes to mind is...
...how does this affect a D3 player who might have a shot at transferring to D1? Any guesses...educated or otherwise?

JT, that is one I know.
If there is a transfer from DIII to DI, your son cannot be offered any athletic aid for the first year at the DI institution. Even if he might be recruited, highly recruited, promised the world, he cannot receive any athletic scholarship money for the first year of his DI baseball competition.
I am sure there are good reasons that are in the best interests of the student/athlete.

quote:

If there is a transfer from DIII to DI, your son cannot be offered any athletic aid for the first year at the DI institution.

true but moot, as under the new rules he'll be sitting a yr

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Originally posted by JT:
The obvious question that comes to mind is...
...how does this affect a D3 player who might have a shot at transferring to D1? Any guesses...educated or otherwise?

JT, that is one I know.
If there is a transfer from DIII to DI, your son cannot be offered any athletic aid for the first year at the DI institution. Even if he might be recruited, highly recruited, promised the world, he cannot receive any athletic scholarship money for the first year of his DI baseball competition.
I am sure there are good reasons that are in the best interests of the student/athlete.

Then, does that mean one would NOT have to sit out a year transferring from D3 to D1?

That's the most ridiculous rule that's ever been put in place for baseball. Baseball is totally different than Basketball and Football. We are talking about an equivalency sport with a roster of 35 last time I checked, right? No need to rehash this again.

No Clue At All

If a proposed rule change makes sense, and this one does, assume it will not be adopted. A rule making sense would be out of place among all the nonsensical rules.

Writing on a clear slate, how could you NOT allow a player receiving no scholarship money from transferring to where he will get scholarship money...isn't the whole idea to get him educated, and doesn't having some scholarship money make it more likely he an afford college?

I suspect the "Big Boys" fear what they see as a "play me or lose me" threat from players. As much as I love football, the number of scholarships allowed, almost enough to allow a 5 deep roster at every position is just silly, but football brings home the bacon big time, and gets to maintain an incredibly deep bench.

If a player isn't playing, and getting no money, he ought to be able to go anywhere he wants and play almost immediately. Any other rule is not designed to benefit the "student-athlete".

I think we could live with the rule IF there were more scholorships available. That would allow the coaches more flexibility to spread the wealth around a bit more, give kids that might not play much MORE scholorship money, allow more kids to play the game and go to college and benefit everyone while doing so......I guess all of the D1 universities can't afford more than 11.7??

Let me take a step back for a second. Isn't it true that college coaches keep WAY too many players on a roster? Can't a college get by with a 25 player cap. Thus allowing all 25 to be partial scholorship guys? If you have 25 guys on a roster and you set your position players to be static, then you've got 16 other guys to include pitchers that are sitting on their butts not playing. So 35 is just way, way too many.

quote:

Originally posted by Bee>:

quote:

If there is a transfer from DIII to DI, your son cannot be offered any athletic aid for the first year at the DI institution.

true but moot, as under the new rules he'll be sitting a yr

The sit rule is only D1 to D1, so not moot, he can play his first year.

JT, for the first transfer from D3, there is immediate eligibility to play.
However, I know of a player who went D3 to D3 to D1.
He is now confronted with sitting for one year since this is the second transfer. Last I heard he has appealed the NCAA determination arguing the D3 to D1 doesn't count.
The NCAA says it does and he used his one time transfer.
The DI's 2008 roster was just posted and he isn't part of it so I assume the NCAA isn't budging.

Justbaseball recently posted the 2007-08 tranfer rules.
A D3 player can transfer to D1 and if he makes the requirements (academic and baseball) he can play right away.

IND's example is correct, you got ONE tranfer free pass no matter which division and you still do in other divisons other than D1.

.
The 2nd transfer sit/wait regardless of division appears to be pretty universal...

We know a DI..DI..DII who is NCAA required to wait out a year.

44
.

I do not believe that the entire set of new rules is correct yet I have not heard one comment from any of us that maybe the kid needs to stick it out,work hard in the off season and try to win a spot. After a kid transfers twice it would appear to me that he is looking for something that is not out there or at least to his liking.At that point I look at it like I do someone who has been married a bizillion times.At some point somebody needs to take a look at themselves. What that point is for a baseball player should be considered before he signs on the dotted line.

quote:

do not believe that the entire set of new rules is correct yet I have not heard one comment from any of us that maybe the kid needs to stick it out,work hard in the off season and try to win a spot.

I think any guy who gets that far knows this already.

quote:

by cplz: The sit rule is only D1 to D1, so not moot, he can play his first year.

unfortunatly it is not the loophole some are wishing for

you're getting tangled in semantics ... someone transferring INTO a DI school is considered a DI transfer by ncaa transfer guidelines

1) 4-4 NCAA transfers always did & still must meet requirements of the "certifying school" - the school (or division) they are transferring INTO ...

the difference now being certification rules have eliminated the "one time exemption for DI baseball"



kinda logical really, why would the ncaa destroy ncaa DII & DIII APR/Grad-rates trying to help DI APR/Grad-rates

Maybe it's just me, tell me, but this whole issue revolves around 2 factors. Ofcourse not counting the NCAA is in effect a monopoly unchallengeable even in court.

1. One year scholarships and
2. Only 11.7 total scholarships (max not min.).

The baseball culture is driven to try-em out on the field, and if they don't work out run em off, or hope they "get the message." This was all good when a coach could help them, or they could help themselves, transfer. Now NOT GOOD - we all agree!

Football and basketball players are in a different boat entirely, but oops the NCAA forgot that nuance. Full scholarships mean you think twice about transferring and are happier to sit the bench. In football, you play in a system -- need to learn plays etc. Plus they don't tend to miss on football players unless they are QBs whose "skill in throwing and thinking" are intangibles in scouting.

Plus, since scholarships are full and mandatory whose gonna take a cast off football player and give him a scholly??? Or, what kid is gonna give up his full scholly to walk on at another school and pay full price (football kids often don't have the economic backing baseball kids do - but that's another story)...answer a few QBs and that's pretty much it!

Basketball has 12 kids 2 know they'll never play and knew it when they signed. 2 are walk ons. The other 8 play alot. Same deal on the scholarship caveat. Baskeball kids don't have as much money as baseball kids either.

The irony here is the NCAA has created this whole mess because why????? Because the root cause of the whole problem is economics. Can't Pony up full baseball scholarships because the sport is essentially non-revenue generating.

Sooooo...! less scholarships and 1 year rule make for many transfers and low grad rates as a result. Simple formula that can't be changed unless the two driving factors change as well. For you math types, you can't balance this equation...EVER...unless you change the two factors I've mentioned.

What will be the end result. baseball kids won't transfer as much (obviously) they mostly just quit or get discouraged....hey but that's OK because they aren't "members" of the NCAA with a vote!

I agree with Bee and pointed thisout earlier, justbaseball posted teh transfer rules. Transfering into D1, you have to meet ALL of the requirements the school sets for transfers, no matter where you transfer to, and especially have to be on target (credit hours) by the FALL.
I do beleive that the nature of baseball creates the issues, from LL to ML. You have an opportunity to play, the best 9 out of 35 for that season are in. That's about it in a nutshell.
There are many players and families that take their time in the process and consider all factors, some with the mindset, I don't play, I am out of here. There are many coaches that take their time in the process, some very careful not to create revolving doors which in turn creates lower grad rates and bad reputatuons. The rules were created to deter all.

Why dont we stop worrying about all the periphery stuff and let the kids play ball and earn their spot on the college lineup as well as do what they have to do to adjust as a normal college freshman in the classroom and socially

Obviously the coach liked him to bring him in--NO ? If so he has to do what he has to do as a player trying to earn a spot in the lineup

Now if it doesnt work out is the coach at fault? -Not necessarly so !

Freshman college students do stupid things, be they an athlete or just a student

SW wouldn't that be nice.

I think most times you don't get advanced notice.

Bobblehead

Do employees get advance notice when they are about to be fired ?---I think not

A college baseball player is an employee---the school is paying for the player to be there---produce or be gone---no different than the corporate world

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
Bobblehead

Do employees get advance notice when they are about to be fired ?---I think not

A college baseball player is an employee---the school is paying for the player to be there---produce or be gone---no different than the corporate world

A college player is a student and a pro player is an employee.

The school is dishing out a few bucks for his athletic talent as a representative of the school and its athletics, just like they dish out a few bucks for academic talent for their colleges.

An employee.............yeah right !!

15 hours a day for 180 days is 2700 hours comitted to baseball, class, etc. IF A KID GOT A $10K GRANT, then you do the math. Less than $4 per hour, so go and call the Feds and report them all under the Minimum Wage Act

TR my comment was meant to be sarcastic. I must be losing my touch.