OT: Proposed One-time Transfer Exemption

[gmubrian]

Also, if I am one of their professors, I am one of their advisors, and I make sure that they don’t forget about the academic side of the equation. It’s all I’m saying. Transferring schools, especially multiple times, is just not good for learning outcomes.

And yes, it is different if they graduated already and are leaving as a grad transfer. Totally different academic situation.

Yes, of course they should be advised of that. They should also be advised of your bias as well that you pointed out earlier, the desire to keep the revenue in your department.

 

[GMUgemini]

Yes, of course they should be advised of that. They should also be advised of your bias as well that you pointed out earlier, the desire to keep the revenue in your department.

How many student-athletes do you think are English majors? It wouldn't be a bias of mine, because they wouldn't matriculate up into the 200/300 level classes. Once they are done with me, they are usually done with English.

Also, our classroom revenue streams in FYC (first year comp) suck, because we keep caps low, so even though we serve 20,000 students we get like zero revenue from our 101 and 102 classes, because we have 200 professors teaching those 20,000 students.

Also, I'm not administration, and it's not my job to care about revenue streams. That's the department chair, the dean, and the president's job to worry about those.

 

[gmubrian]

OK. So what happens after they exhaust their one/time transfer, go to a new school and the coach is fired or leaves for another job? What if they get recruited over? What if they made a bad choice and don’t like the new school? You going to give them another free transfer?

If it were up to me, yes. Unfortunately, it sounds like this is a one time thing. Why are you so against allowing the students to having more freedom of choice?

Since you seem to be an “I know what is best for others” type of person, how about I appeal to you on the bleeding heart aspects of this. I suspect this will benefit the lower end athletes more than the higher end ones. Right now. A coach has to ask himself if the player is worth an extra scholarship year (the year he has to sit). That means the coach will be less likely to take on a lesser player. This reduces the overall cost of bringing on these less talented players who get pushed out of another program and have little chance of earning a living at pro basketball. This gives them a chance to continue their education.

 

[gmubrian]

How many student-athletes do you think are English majors? It wouldn't be a bias of mine, because they wouldn't matriculate up into the 200/300 level classes. Once they are done with me, they are usually done with English.

Also, our classroom revenue streams in FYC (first year comp) suck, because we keep caps low, so even though we serve 20,000 students we get like zero revenue from our 101 and 102 classes, because we have 200 professors teaching those 20,000 students.

Also, I'm not administration, and it's not my job to care about revenue streams. That's the department chair, the dean, and the president's job to worry about those.

And yet lost revenue to your department was what you put in your first rebuttal...

 

[GMUgemini]

And yet lost revenue to your department was what you put in your first rebuttal...

I was trying to explain how the academic side of the university loses money whenever any student transfers from their school, that retention is really important to the academic side (from both a cost side, but also an academic side). You said the university doesn't lose revenue. I explained how it does. There is also a cost incurred university-wide that a dean could explain to you that I can't. But again, these are low numbers overall (Mason is 30,000+, so 10 athletes transferring a year isn't going to really dent their budget that much, but there is a cost to each one leaving).

And then there's the classroom cost, meaning if you are a junior and transfer sometimes you have to go and retake 100 and 200 level classes, or classes that were not prereqs at one school become prereqs at another, etc. Or moving from one kind of teaching philosphy (R1) to another (Liberal Arts) or vice versa (someone who starts off at a school like Davidson and then goes to a school like Ohio State might get culture shock in the classroom).

None of this is in the discussion for any proposed rules around player movement, it's only the athletics side that ever gets talked about.

And, yes, I'm worried that a player who chooses, say, Michigan as their dream school and gets a scholarship to go there to play basketball getting pushed out because they aren't as good as the next 5 star athlete coming in and this rule makes that easier, because, hey, you won't have to sit out a year anyway. I think this also makes it easier for a coach leaving for a bigger job to take the athletes he wants with him when he goes.

Call me skeptical that this is giving more power to student-athletes and less power to coaches.

 

[FreeGunston12]

I was trying to explain how the academic side of the university loses money whenever any student transfers from their school, that retention is really important to the academic side (from both a cost side, but also an academic side). You said the university doesn't lose revenue. I explained how it does. There is also a cost incurred university-wide that a dean could explain to you that I can't. But again, these are low numbers overall (Mason is 30,000+, so 10 athletes transferring a year isn't going to really dent their budget that much, but there is a cost to each one leaving).

And then there's the classroom cost, meaning if you are a junior and transfer sometimes you have to go and retake 100 and 200 level classes, or classes that were not prereqs at one school become prereqs at another, etc. Or moving from one kind of teaching philosphy (R1) to another (Liberal Arts) or vice versa (someone who starts off at a school like Davidson and then goes to a school like Ohio State might get culture shock in the classroom).

None of this is in the discussion for any proposed rules around player movement, it's only the athletics side that ever gets talked about.

And, yes, I'm worried that a player who chooses, say, Michigan as their dream school and gets a scholarship to go there to play basketball getting pushed out because they aren't as good as the next 5 star athlete coming in and this rule makes that easier, because, hey, you won't have to sit out a year anyway. I think this also makes it easier for a coach leaving for a bigger job to take the athletes he wants with him when he goes.

Call me skeptical that this is giving more power to student-athletes and less power to coaches.

I mean, I wouldn't say this rule makes pushing out athletes easier. What penalty is there for doing it now? Maybe there is a slightly larger base of players to replace one that you push out if the rule goes through.

Also, look what we went through with Grayer. This rule gets him out one year earlier.

 

[GMUgemini]

I mean, I wouldn't say this rule makes pushing out athletes easier. What penalty is there for doing it now? Maybe there is a slightly larger base of players to replace one that you push out if the rule goes through.

Also, look what we went through with Grayer. This rule gets him out one year earlier.

I mean that’s if you believe he was trying to leave and not finish playing for Mason. I mean he could have been lying when he said he considered coming back for a fifth season here but decided not to ultimately.

I don’t want anyone pushed out. I wouldn’t want us to push Mar out even if he’s regressed to the point of being almost unuseable (in the same way L never push Konate out). If a player leaves it should be their decision.

 

[gmubrian]

Also, look what we went through with Grayer. This rule gets him out one year earlier.

No it doesn't. He sits for the extra year at the new school, not the school he leaves. He leaves his current school just as fast, just has to spend an extra year on the bench at the new school.

 

[gmubrian]

I was trying to explain how the academic side of the university loses money whenever any student transfers from their school, that retention is really important to the academic side (from both a cost side, but also an academic side). You said the university doesn't lose revenue. I explained how it does. There is also a cost incurred university-wide that a dean could explain to you that I can't. But again, these are low numbers overall (Mason is 30,000+, so 10 athletes transferring a year isn't going to really dent their budget that much, but there is a cost to each one leaving).

And then there's the classroom cost, meaning if you are a junior and transfer sometimes you have to go and retake 100 and 200 level classes, or classes that were not prereqs at one school become prereqs at another, etc. Or moving from one kind of teaching philosphy (R1) to another (Liberal Arts) or vice versa (someone who starts off at a school like Davidson and then goes to a school like Ohio State might get culture shock in the classroom).

None of this is in the discussion for any proposed rules around player movement, it's only the athletics side that ever gets talked about.

And, yes, I'm worried that a player who chooses, say, Michigan as their dream school and gets a scholarship to go there to play basketball getting pushed out because they aren't as good as the next 5 star athlete coming in and this rule makes that easier, because, hey, you won't have to sit out a year anyway. I think this also makes it easier for a coach leaving for a bigger job to take the athletes he wants with him when he goes.

Call me skeptical that this is giving more power to student-athletes and less power to coaches.

Worry is one thing, feel free to discuss the pros and cons with him, but forcing them to sit for an additional year is hampering the students ability to freely move as he sees fit. They know they are having to take additional classes in this process. Losing a class or two versus a year of their life may be a trade off they want. They may not care about the academic side. They could still redshirt at the receiving end if the coach wanted that as well (to learn the system). This just gives both the option of not taking an extra year. I doubt most athletes are going to their dream academic school in the first place. Most are going to one of a couple that offered them a scholarship.

I don't think it necessarily benefits all coaches one way or another. I think it benefits one type of coach and is detrimental to another type of coach. And why can't there be something that benefits both the coaches and the students.

I am for giving the student more control over their destiny. You seem to want restrictions on their movement to protect them from themselves. I guess we just have a different view on life and will have to agree to disagree.

 

[FreeGunston12]

No it doesn't. He sits for the extra year at the new school, not the school he leaves. He leaves his current school just as fast, just has to spend an extra year on the bench at the new school.

He grad transferred. So he didn't sit at TCU. So he did in fact sit at Mason (kinda). He just had to wait a year at Mason to graduate.

Now, he probably would still need to graduate first due to credits not transferring. So maybe it wouldn't have actually made a difference. I don't know.

 

[gmubrian]

Uh . . . He grad transferred. So he didn't sit at TCU. So he did in fact sit at Mason (kinda). He just had to wait a year at Mason to graduate.

Excellent point. I was thinking of transfers in general where this rule change would apply. This rule doesn't apply to grad transfers since there is no requirement to sit.

 

[FreeGunston12]

Excellent point. I was thinking of transfers in general where this rule change would apply. This rule doesn't apply to grad transfers since there is no requirement to sit.

You're right. It's a rare situation that probably wouldn't be affected by this rule.

 

[Pablo]

https://buckeyeswire.usatoday.com/2020/02/02/big-ten-proposal-one-time-transfer-mixed-consequences/:

"If you stopped watching college football, or college sports in general about ten years ago and decided to pick it back up this past year or two, there’s a good chance you’d be shocked by all the changes. One of the movements that’s changed things drastically is the transfer portal.

It’s now easier to transfer thanks to the ability to simply put your name in the portal rather than going through the red tape of engineering discussions with opposing programs and coaching staffs through your own athletic department. It’s also has become easier to get waivers approved for the NCAA’s undergraduate transfer rule that makes athletes sit out a year.

What has resulted is not exactly free agency in college sports, but something moving closer towards it. Heck, just last year alone, three of the four Heisman finalists were kids that transferred to greener pastures and carved out a better situation for themselves. That, of course, will do nothing to curb some of the transfer of top-end athletes.

It’s been a management nightmare though for coaches, players and administrators. You now have to try and figure out how many scholarships are available, manage to any defections, and even recruit players out of the transfer portal that could make a difference for your program."
'"The 'year-in-residency' rule has been in place since 1951, but it currently only pertains to five sports — football, baseball, men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and hockey. Now, the Big Ten believes it’s time to make it uniform and make things more transparent and understandable.

We’ll see where this goes, but there are pros and cons that are evident on the surface. While instituting a one-time transfer would take away the ambiguity of when and who can get an exception to the one-year in residency rule, it would further open the flood gates for kids to transfer. Given the opportunity to move on instead of develop and stick things out, many might pull the rip-chord early and miss out on a better situation in front of them.

There will be two schools of thought. Many will push the benefits of sticking with something, working through adversity and coming out the better end with a life lesson. There will be another — and perhaps more vocal — side of the argument that will praise the advocate for the individual’s freedom of choice. Yes, there will be Twitter fights.

Anyway, there’s going to more come out on this. Other conferences, and the NCAA itself, will need to study and weigh in on this proposal. The earliest the Big Ten could adopt the rule would be in 2021, so there’s at least a little bit of time, though that’ll be here before you know it."

 

[GSII]

And then come the super teams that kids will emulate from guys like LeBron. Remember, Rome fell from within and was never the same.

 

[Pablo]

https://watchstadium.com/no-decision-made-yet-on-ncaas-one-time-transfer-waiver-04-08-2020/:

"No decision has been made regarding whether a one-time transfer waiver in which student-athletes in all sports could transfer and play immediately will go into effect for this coming season.

MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, the chairman of the working group that came up with the proposal, told Stadium the he will send a report to the Division 1 Council on April 24, and that a vote will be held at the council’s next meeting — which he’s hopeful will be sometime in May.

'Contrary to any speculation, nothing has been determined yet,' said Steinbrecher, who is also the vice chairman of the Division I Council. 'There’s been no decision made, no date attached to it yet.'

All signs pointed to the change going into effect for the 2020 season, but the coronavirus shutting down college sports has caused uncertainty whether it could wait until the following season.

'There’s still work to be done,' Steinbrecher added."

 

[rf1]

This confirms what I had thought about the high number of transfers from the A-10 (more than any other conference). Just imagine how much higher it could go with no waiting period.

https://twitter.com/GoodmanHoops/status/1247872023923175426

 

[Pablo]

Jeff Goodman
@GoodmanHoops
·
4h

MAC commissioner Jon Steinbracher told me that the vote for the potential one-time waiver is now slated for May 20. He also reiterated that nothing is done as to when it will go into effect.

 

[p8triotfan4life]

https://twitter.com/AdamZagoria/status/1251141236720914433

Source: The NCAA will institute a one-time adjustment of academic eligibility standards for incoming college freshmen due to the coronavirus pandemic. There is no SAT or ACT test currently available. "That will speed up a lot of these reclass kids," the source said.

 

[tblack33]

https://twitter.com/AdamZagoria/status/1251141236720914433

Source: The NCAA will institute a one-time adjustment of academic eligibility standards for incoming college freshmen due to the coronavirus pandemic. There is no SAT or ACT test currently available. "That will speed up a lot of these reclass kids," the source said.

This is a pretty big deal. I wonder if there’s any kids who were going to reclass/JUCO who we could swoop in on now.

 

[Pablo]

Brett McMurphy
@Brett_McMurphy
·
1h

One-time transfer waivers are dead until at least 2021-22 academic year, sources told
@Stadium, as NCAA Division I Council approved a resolution to develop legislation regarding transfer eligibility for January 2021 that would not be effective until 2021-22 academic year