Transfer Rules

Two part answer, the scholarship player will have to sit out a year before he can play at another school.   The walk-on should be able to transfer and play.   Try searching "transfer rules" in the forums.

The walk on may have to sit a year as well. If the coach called him or had contact, even if he did not have a scholarship, that may be considered being recruited. If you were recruited by the scholl you attended, the NCAA, requires a year in residence.

When there was a coaching change at our son's school last year (D2) the new coach cut the entire team. The NCAA told our son that he could apply for a "one time transfer rule" and attend a different D2 if the request  was granted.  It may be worth it for your son's friends to check on the one time transfer rule through the NCAA.

There are contributors on this forum who know the transfer rules better than me, but a couple of thoughts.

BLD makes an important distinction. They need a year in residency at the new school, not just a year off. If they start this spring semester at their new school, they might be eligible for the 2017 season.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the boys would be subject to the transfer rules of the NCAA division that they're transferring to. So if that's DII or DIII, some of the rules are different.

If the walk on was recruited or made it past the walk on tryouts and practiced with the team through the end of the semester I believe he has to sit out a year. I believe Rick and Three Finger are the experts on this subject. Players may transfer down a level without sitting out. Do D3 to D3 transfers have to sit?

My son was a 'preferred walk-on' which is a bunch of crap and was let go two days before the season started in the spring.  He was guaranteed a roster spot in the spring before committing to a D1 school.  He had academic money that covered about 80% of his school.  He was already in the middle of the spring so couldn't do anything at that point.  He would have had to sit out a year if he transferred to another D1 school because he had gone on an official visit.  The visit put him in the same category as a full athletic scholarship player.  

He worked out on his own that spring and transferred to a D2 school the next year and is now a returning redshirt soph. and was all conference last year.  Good move to get away from a coaching staff with no morals.  

Thanks for all the responses.  I guess I'm surprised that there's a rule that makes kids sit out a year when they are cut by a school.  I don't understand the reasoning behind this.  Not that there's anything one can do about it.

pabaseballdad posted:

Thanks for all the responses.  I guess I'm surprised that there's a rule that makes kids sit out a year when they are cut by a school.  I don't understand the reasoning behind this.  Not that there's anything one can do about it.

 

I am in agreement, and I have tried to get my head around the reasoning for it.  Maybe its that although a player may not be receiving athletic money, they were in a more favorable position to receive other aid? (Academic, Merit, etc.)  Or even to just be accepted to the school, i.e. the coach helped them get in?

The bad thing is that a college coach has the power to hang a kid out to dry.  My son turned down several D1 offers to go to the school that shafted him.  He already had too many hours to attend jr college and then be able to return to another D1 school because of dual credit classes in high school.  My son will have to finish his career at the D2 school because he cannot transfer to a D1 without sitting out a year.  He was cut/released/redshirted two days before the first game in the spring his freshman year.  

The rule should be if you are not receiving athletic scholarship money you may transfer without penalty.

My opinion is that if the school cuts a kid, whether they received any type of money or no money at all, he should be free to do what he wants.  In my business, if I terminate someone, I typically can't expect them to honor a non - compete clause in their contract, unless there is some other consideration given.    It seems to me like the position the NCAA has taken here is asking for a lawsuit.  I'm surprised it hasn't happened, or maybe it has, not sure.  Just doesn't smell right. 

The NCAA transfer rules are very complex. I would suggest they contact Rick Allen at Informed Athlete (an occasional poster here and supporter of this site). I used him twice regarding transfer rules and the cost of a 30 minute consultation is minimal compared to the potential cost of making an uniformed decision. He gives great advice that goes beyond the rules.

lhprhp posted:

The NCAA transfer rules are very complex. I would suggest they contact Rick Allen at Informed Athlete (an occasional poster here and supporter of this site). I used him twice regarding transfer rules and the cost of a 30 minute consultation is minimal compared to the potential cost of making an uniformed decision. He gives great advice that goes beyond the rules.

Great advice. I think there is some kind of "run off" rule that sometimes works for players who have been cut. You need an expert to navigate these waters if you're looking for the best possible outcome.

sportsdad&fan posted:

The rule should be if you are not receiving athletic scholarship money you may transfer without penalty.

I believe if a coach cuts a player he's free to transfer and play anywhere.

So which is more complex? The US tax code or NCAA rules?

Overthehill posted:

The bad thing is that a college coach has the power to hang a kid out to dry.  My son turned down several D1 offers to go to the school that shafted him.  He already had too many hours to attend jr college and then be able to return to another D1 school because of dual credit classes in high school.  My son will have to finish his career at the D2 school because he cannot transfer to a D1 without sitting out a year.  He was cut/released/redshirted two days before the first game in the spring his freshman year.  

I just hate stories like this.  I know it happens, but this kid only gets one shot at this thing, meanwhile the coach goes on without any consequence at all.  OTH - sounds like he landed on his feet at the D2, but may not be having the college experience he had envisioned for himself.

AS unfair as these rules are (seem). They were put in place for a reason. There used to be a one time transfer exception. It was removed for Baseball and I think Basketball, be caused the mass transfers going on. It was the Wild, Wild West. If an athlete did not like their role they quickly transferred with the one time exception.  The thinking may have been that players who did not like there role, and wanted to transfer may do all in there power to get cut so they could transfer. 

The pendulum has swung the other way. Were much of the power used to be in the athletes hands, now it is all in the schools. 

BishopLeftiesDad posted:

AS unfair as these rules are (seem). They were put in place for a reason. There used to be a one time transfer exception. It was removed for Baseball and I think Basketball, be caused the mass transfers going on. It was the Wild, Wild West. If an athlete did not like their role they quickly transferred with the one time exception.  The thinking may have been that players who did not like there role, and wanted to transfer may do all in there power to get cut so they could transfer. 

The pendulum has swung the other way. Were much of the power used to be in the athletes hands, now it is all in the schools. 

 

I would imagine here is a high correlation between transferring and delayed or no completion of one's degree and since the NCAA cares all about the student-athlete they go to that (rolling eyes emoji here)

PABaseballDad, 

There is some incorrect information on this thread.

All of these players will have to sit out a year before they can play at another D1 school.  For D1-to-D1 transfers of baseball players, it doesn't matter whether they are on scholarship, whether they are recruited athletes, or whether they were cut. 

In addition, even though they were cut, the athletic department at their current school must grant permission to contact before prospective schools can discuss transferring to them.

And, yes, the rule does seem unfair.

The NCAA's official rationale for the "year in residence" rule is to ensure that transfer decisions are motivated by academics as well as athletics. That rationale does not explain why the rule applies only to D1 transfers or why athletes in head count sports have more ways to get around the year in residence. Cynics may be forgiven for suspecting the rule was designed to keep the market inefficient by discouraging walk-ons and minimum scholarship players at power conference schools from jumping to lower tier D1 schools where they might be starters and able to command larger scholarships.  

BishopLeftiesDad posted:

AS unfair as these rules are (seem). They were put in place for a reason. There used to be a one time transfer exception. It was removed for Baseball and I think Basketball, be caused the mass transfers going on. It was the Wild, Wild West. If an athlete did not like their role they quickly transferred with the one time exception.  The thinking may have been that players who did not like there role, and wanted to transfer may do all in there power to get cut so they could transfer. 

The pendulum has swung the other way. Were much of the power used to be in the athletes hands, now it is all in the schools. 

 

I agree.  Another big concern was that transfer students were not maintaining credit requirements and therefore not graduating on time. 

While so many complain about the NCAA not caring about their student athletes, why then was this rule created?   

The consequence for the coach is that if he doesn't turn out a winning product he also gets cut.

Thanks all for your replies.  learned quite a bit about this, but still don't agree.   I'm hoping never to have to worry about it with my own son.  As for the two kids I mentioned in the original post.  One ended up at a very competitive DII school in the area, and he's happy both baseball wise and academically as the school has a great program in the area of study he is interested in pursuing.  The other young man is staying at the school and pursuing his studies.    Again, as always, very informative discussion and thanks for your input. 

pabaseballdad posted:

Thanks all for your replies.  learned quite a bit about this, but still don't agree.   I'm hoping never to have to worry about it with my own son.  As for the two kids I mentioned in the original post.  One ended up at a very competitive DII school in the area, and he's happy both baseball wise and academically as the school has a great program in the area of study he is interested in pursuing.  The other young man is staying at the school and pursuing his studies.    Again, as always, very informative discussion and thanks for your input. 

Not really sure why you do not agree, but maybe when your son goes off to play in college, you may.

I do realize that most think this unfair, but in reality, this rule has eliminated some parity in college baseball, years ago you never saw smaller D1 programs in the playoffs. And rarely did baseball players actually graduate after 4 years. Its really hard to build a program with a revolving door and I think that this rule makes coaches and players think twice about who wears their uni and who will not.

FWIW, I think what is going to happen is that year after year players will show up at the field on all D1 programs and there will be about 5-6 other guys there who will never make that spring roster.  40-45 in fall will not be out of the question anymore.  Don't ever buy into the guaranteed walk on spot for spring either, everyone has to compete for an opportunity, even scholarship players.

I am glad that things worked out for them both. But, usually the program many players chose wasn't really the right fit for them to begin with.  BTW, the player with the scholarship, if he signed an NLI he gets to keep that scholarship until the end of the academic year.  As far as the walk on, well, that is a discussion we have had for years and years, and IMO,  its never really  a very good idea unless the player is willing to understand all of the implications.

My feeling is that if a player chooses to leave a school on their own, the sit-out rule should apply.  If a coach decides to cut a player, the player should not have to do that.  If a coach makes the effort to recruit someone, whether promises are made or not, and then cuts the player, why should the player be penalized?  Especially if the player received a scholarship...  That's a pretty big promise that the player should expect to at least be on the roster in the spring.  If he's not good enough, that is the coach's mistake.  

Why would a player think that they are not pursuing the appropriate level of competition when the coach thinks they are good enough to give him a scholarship?  We always say on here that the schools will let you know the appropriate level of play.  If a scholarship is offered, that's a pretty good sign the player is at the right place.

Once again.  If the player chooses to leave, sit out. That closes the revolving door issue.  If a player is cut, he should be able to go where he wants...  JMO.

bballman posted:

My feeling is that if a player chooses to leave a school on their own, the sit-out rule should apply.  If a coach decides to cut a player, the player should not have to do that.  If a coach makes the effort to recruit someone, whether promises are made or not, and then cuts the player, why should the player be penalized?  Especially if the player received a scholarship...  That's a pretty big promise that the player should expect to at least be on the roster in the spring.  If he's not good enough, that is the coach's mistake.  

Why would a player think that they are not pursuing the appropriate level of competition when the coach thinks they are good enough to give him a scholarship?  We always say on here that the schools will let you know the appropriate level of play.  If a scholarship is offered, that's a pretty good sign the player is at the right place.

 

Once again.  If the player chooses to leave, sit out. That closes the revolving door issue.  If a player is cut, he should be able to go where he wants...  JMO.

This sums up my feelings exactly...

Did the new transfer rules really change the movement of players? I would like to see the numbers if they exist. A player isn't going to sit around and not play. I believe the only thing that changed is there are more 4-2-4 transfers and less 4-4 transfers. There may be more D1 to ranked D2 transfers than in the past. The new transfer rules are good for business for the JuCos.

The player may transfer just not to a D1.  Players always lose credits in transfer. 

While I agree, why would a player wish to remain somewhere sitting on a bench?  

Do we know all of the circumstances involved?  We are getting second hand info.

Most good programs don't cut scholarship players the first year.

Agree bballman!

Coaches suffer zero consequences if a prettier girl shows up to the dance then his current date. I understand that its a business, but if the coach no longer likes his dance partner, why should the player suffer after dancing without missing a step.

The NCAA needs to look at these types of cases to determine the best outcome. I would also suggest that the school should suffer some sort of penalty for breaking the contract. 

JMHO.

This doesn't occur as often in baseball. It bothers me a coach can get his program penalized yet skip out of town to a new, bigger, better contract. Yet the players have to stay, deal with the penalties or sit a year to transfer.

I believe that there are exceptions when a new coach arrives for the player to be released froom their NLI.

TPM posted:

I believe that there are exceptions when a new coach arrives for the player to be released froom their NLI.

If my memory serves me, the NLI clearly states that you are comitting/signing with the school, not the coach.

RJM posted:

Did the new transfer rules really change the movement of players? I would like to see the numbers if they exist.

Excellent point. I'm guessing that another consequence of the rule is to increase the transfer's college years from 4 to 5. Seems like kids who transfer out of top programs usually go to a lower level DI program and accept the year in residence.

I'm hopeful that PO Jr will graduate on time and begin his graduate study with one remaining year of eligibility if he choices to play. 

I know of a DI guy who graduated with one year eligibility remaining & is now enrolled at a different DI working on his masters and playing ball.

Picked Off posted:

TPM posted:

I believe that there are exceptions when a new coach arrives for the player to be released froom their NLI.

If my memory serves me, the NLI clearly states that you are comitting/signing with the school, not the coach.

That is correct and that is why it is important to make sure that you are making the decision based on many factors.  As an example, son did sign with a program because he loved the pitching coach, but he also loved everything else about it and he understood what he could major in and what he couldn't major in.

I know this will make some people angry, but personally I have no issue with the transfer rule. If the coaching staff feels that they have to let someone go, they did for a reason.  College sports is all about winning. Even more so on the elite level.  We all want our sons to be on a competitive team and we all want the season to be extended no matter what level they play at.   I want the coach to put together the best team possible to reach that goal.

D1 baseball is like playing for a professional team, and yes academics on most of these teams is very, very important. The competition gets better and better each year.  

Son was expected to attend every class unless excused for travel and the first semester is 10 hours of study hall per week.  Just like after the draft, more and more talent enters the programs.  If your sons coach doesnt care about academics and get uo their you  know what, then he isn't a very good coach.  That is about 75% of his job.

I dont know about what happened to these players, why they were cut. Maybe the coach felt that it was too much for them to handle, maybe they just didn't show as well as they did last year when he saw them play.  Maybe they didn't follow the team rules.  There are circumstances to every situation.

Picked Off posted:

I'm hopeful that PO Jr will graduate on time and begin his graduate study with one remaining year of eligibility if he choices to play. 

I know of a DI guy who graduated with one year eligibility remaining & is now enrolled at a different DI working on his masters and playing ball.

Good for him!

"I know this will make some people angry, but personally I have no issue with the transfer rule. If the coaching staff feels that they have to let someone go, they did for a reason.  College sports is all about winning. Even more so on the elite level.  We all want our sons to be on a competitive team and we all want the season to be extended no matter what level they play at.   I want the coach to put together the best team possible to reach that goal".

TPM, with all due respect, you comment above has nothing to do with the transfer rule. I'm totally cool with coach doing what is best for his team, thats why he is the HC. Assuming the player does everything that is required, athletically, academically and with regard to team rules. If the HC decides to go in a different direction & chooses to cut/release player, said player should have the opportunity to play without penalty. Zero consequences for coach, real tough situation for player. 

Personally, I think the NCAA could better refine the way the rule is written so not to penalize the player.

JMHO

Picked Off posted:

"I know this will make some people angry, but personally I have no issue with the transfer rule. If the coaching staff feels that they have to let someone go, they did for a reason.  College sports is all about winning. Even more so on the elite level.  We all want our sons to be on a competitive team and we all want the season to be extended no matter what level they play at.   I want the coach to put together the best team possible to reach that goal".

TPM, with all due respect, you comment above has nothing to do with the transfer rule. I'm totally cool with coach doing what is best for his team, thats why he is the HC. Assuming the player does everything that is required, athletically, academically and with regard to team rules. If the HC decides to go in a different direction & chooses to cut/release player, said player should have the opportunity to play without penalty. Zero consequences for coach, real tough situation for player. 

Personally, I think the NCAA could better refine the way the rule is written so not to penalize the player.

JMHO

Picked Off,

I understand your point. My only issue is with those incoming players with NLI,  that should be upheld, not just the scholarship but also given a chance to prove himself.  If this occurs the player should be allowed to transfer to another D1 immediately, if they are cut after the first semester.  How many incoming scholarship players are actually cut in fall?   In spring?

Here is the thing. One of the reasons for this change was because players were transferring left and right, they didnt like the lessor role they were used to in HS.  After 4 years their eligibility was up and so was the scholarship, many did not graduate.  This affected the APR and programs were being punished because the player wasn't happy.

Players were also redshirt more often as well. I do believe those rules changed? Not sure if that player was counted on the total roster, as they are now.  

Players got a chance to grow and mature a bit with a redshirt year. Most don't get that chance to do that anymore.  So the transfer sit out rule does allow for a player to mature where otherwise he could be burning a year on the bench.

The player now has the opportunity to sit out a year (redshirt) giving him 5 years of eligibility and a chance to finish his degree (the reason you go to college in the first place). If they reverse the rule, players will once again be creating that revolving door and the APR and grade rates will suffer.

People think that the coaches should be penalized, why? The rule allows the coach to be a coach and make those decisions.

My gut feeling is that players being cut didn't really belong there in the first place. Not a good fit, maybe a late sign. Maybe a rush to judgement on both parts, I don't know. I hope that doesn't make people angry.

Of course, this has nothing to do with those programs who continually ask more than necessary to attend, but that happens in a walk on situation, usually.

JMO

Sorry guys!  I haven't been on the site for awhile or I would have commented sooner.  Without giving away all of my information and "secret sauce" that our business is built on, I'll make a few comments.

1. An athlete who becomes a member of a team (in any sport) will have to follow all of the steps in the transfer process to move to another college.  It doesn't matter if they are a walk-on or scholarship player, if a new coach has been hired, or if the former coach left on his own (rather than being fired) for another school.  We frequently walk athletes and parents through the steps in that process, inform them of their rights and potential pitfalls.

2. Even if a player is cut from their team, they still have to follow all of the same steps in a transfer to another four-year program (including getting permission to talk to coaches at another college).

3. if a baseball player is transferring from a four-year college to a Division I program, it's important to know if they are defined as a "recruited" athlete (also important in the Division I sports of basketball, football, and men's ice hockey).  The term "preferred walk-on" has no meaning under the NCAA rules.  It is simply "coach-speak."  Here's a fairly recent article that I posted on "Preferred Walk-ons:"

http://informedathlete.com/nca...rred-walk-on-status/

4. To follow up on the point above, if a baseball player (or the other sports noted) isn't going to be offered a baseball scholarship, it may be better for them to be "non-recruited."  Here's a link to an article from our website about this:

http://informedathlete.com/to-...ted-or-nonrecruited/

Rick,

Very informative, thank you for responding.  The young men I mentioned in the OP are all set at this point, but their situation had me thinking about the future of my own son.  Hope to never have to deal with this situation, but one never knows.   This is just one more example of the resources available on this site- I am grateful to those that started it years ago, and to those who keep contributing.   You all have been invaluable to us as we go through this process.