OT: Proposed One-time Transfer Exemption

[sleeperpick]

https://watchstadium.com/college-basketball-transfer-waiver-tracker-for-2020-21-10-02-2020/:
A-10:

Approved Waivers

James Bishop
6-2, 190, G, Fr., LSU – GEORGE WASHINGTON

Noah Fernandes
5-11, 175, G, Fr., Wichita State – UMASS

Jalen Carey
6-3, 185, G, Soph., Syracuse – URI

Malik Martin
6-6, 210, G, Soph., Charlotte – URI

Makhel Mitchell
6-10, 235, F, Fr., Maryland – URI

Makhi Mitchell
6-10, 235, F, Fr., Maryland – URI

Levi Stockard III
6-8, 240, F, Jr., Kansas State – vcu


Pending

Dahmir Bishop
6-5, 180, G, Fr., Xavier – SAINT JOSEPH’S

Anthony Roberts
6-4, 190, G, Soph., Kent State – ST. BONAVENTURE


Denied

None

Pray to any god you support that bishop doesn’t get his waiver so we can for sure be better than some team not named Fordham next year

 

[Pablo]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31069457/acc-now-allows-players-transfer-conference:

'The ACC eliminated its intraconference transfer rule on Monday in a unanimous decision by its board of directors.

The intraconference transfer rule, created in 1996, required student-athletes without a degree to sit out one year if they were transferring from one ACC school to another. The move does not come as a surprise, considering pending NCAA legislation that would grant student-athletes a one-time transfer with immediate eligibility in all sports.

In January, the NCAA Division I council delayed a vote that would loosen those restrictions but said it remains committed to making changes.

'The time has come for all student-athletes to have the opportunity to transfer and be permitted to compete immediately,' ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said in a statement Monday. 'This decision is in the best interest of our student-athletes as it allows greater flexibility during their collegiate career.'"

 

[Pablo]

Rule Change Prompts a Game of Musical Chairs in College Basketball (Published 2021)

Under a plan approved Thursday, Division I players who transfer will not need to sit out a year before they can play.

www.nytimes.com

"The rule, which allows just one unrestricted transfer per athlete, was tentatively approved by an N.C.A.A. panel on Wednesday, said a person close to the negotiations who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. Final approval is expected this month.

The rule change, which is expected to be permanent, has turned the college basketball off-season into something akin to N.B.A. free agency, with more than 1,400 men — about 30 percent of the players on all 357 Division I men’s programs — already in the N.C.A.A. transfer portal. Three years ago, just 882 male Division I basketball players entered the portal. On the women’s side, there are about 1,000 players in the portal — or about 18 percent of all Division I players.

Ordinarily, transfers would have had to sit out the 2021-22 season because of N.C.A.A. rules that apply to football, baseball, men’s and women’s basketball and men’s ice hockey. But the N.C.A.A.’s Division I Council approved a proposal granting first-time transfers in all sports immediate eligibility without restrictions. The change had been expected for some time, contributing to the extraordinary numbers of players in the portal.

The numbers may also be higher than usual because of accommodations made to account for disruptions related to the coronavirus: Any fourth-year senior who wishes to return to school and compete for an additional year will be granted the opportunity to do so, though that doesn’t guarantee a scholarship will be available. Generally, a player who graduates from one institution is often eligible to play at another as a graduate transfer."

"The new transfer rule also has a trickle-down effect on high school players.

Adam Berkowitz oversees the college-bound program at New Heights, a nonprofit, sports-based youth development organization in New York. He said he had several unsigned high school seniors he was trying to place with colleges this spring. He said that 28 of the 35 colleges he had contacted were focused on building through the transfer portal instead of recruiting high school seniors.

'That’s unprecedented,' Berkowitz said.

Tony Bozzella, the Seton Hall women’s coach, said he would have four scholarships to give out for next season.

'I’m not using them on four freshmen,' he said, 'because there will probably be transfers available with college experience.'"

Reports: Transfers won't have to sit out season

The NCAA Division I Council voted Wednesday to change the long-standing rule that forces transfer athletes in football and basketball to sit out a season at their new school, a report said.

www.espn.com

"Those in fall and winter sports must notify their schools by May 1 that they intend to transfer; in spring sports, the notification date will be July 1. The notification dates begin in 2022.

For this year, athletes in all sports will be required to notify their schools about their intent to transfer by July 1.

The council also voted to let the current dead period in recruiting in all sports expire June 1. A ban on in-person recruiting has been in place for more than a year because of the pandemic. Coaches will again be permitted to visit recruits off campus, hold camps on campus and welcome prospective student-athletes on official recruiting visits."

 

[HoopsAdmin]

Wow. I don't follow the sausage-making of the NCAA, so making this rule permanent surprised me. Clearly it benefits the P5 schools the most. It will also benefit the A10 to a somewhat lesser degree as low-major/mid-major stars move up and P5 under-performers move down for a second chance.

I suppose the players are for the rule change being permanent and that's the most important thing. This does fundamentally change how you think about your team from season to season, however.

 

[Pikapppatri8]

Wow. I don't follow the sausage-making of the NCAA, so making this rule permanent surprised me. Clearly it benefits the P5 schools the most. It will also benefit the A10 to a somewhat lesser degree as low-major/mid-major stars move up and P5 under-performers move down for a second chance. I suppose the players are for the rule change being permanent and that's the most important thing.

I am not sure this is necessarily a good thing as it puts a LOT of instability in the conferences and teams. I think it should be made a bit more restrictive as it makes it more like a minor league/quasi-professional league than an organization of student athletes.

 

[tblack33]

I am not sure this is necessarily a good thing as it puts a LOT of instability in the conferences and teams. I think it should be made a bit more restrictive as it makes it more like a minor league/quasi-professional league than an organization of student athletes.

I think it will all even out in the end. Still only 13 scholarships per team. A bit more pressure on mid majors to dance to keep their stars but end of the day every P5 that takes a mid major transfer has one last scholarship to give to an incoming freshman. I don’t think this hurts competitive mid majors in the long run and is certainly better for players. Look at the A10, top teams who were dancing or close to dancing lost almost no one to transfer.

College Athletics is one of the only places we tell a 17 year old kid to sign on the dotted line and expect that decision to be the best decision for that kid when he’s 21-22. This was the inevitable last step and the NCAA has to pass this is they want a snowballs chance in hell to not get destroyed by the upcoming players pay lawsuits. They need to try to buy whatever little good will they can and this is an easy step one.

 

[Old Man]

College Athletics is one of the only places we tell a 17 year old kid to sign on the dotted line and expect that decision to be the best decision for that kid when he’s 21-22. This was the inevitable last step and the NCAA has to pass this is they want a snowballs chance in hell to not get destroyed by the upcoming players pay lawsuits. They need to try to buy whatever little good will they can and this is an easy step one.

I think the rule change is fine, so I don't have issues with it, but if the NCAA thinks this will appease the pay for play crowd, they're just plain dumb. Appeasement NEVER works; read a history book once in a while. There is no such thing as 'buying goodwill' when people are already fired up to 'get what they deserve.'

If players think they deserve to get paid, fine, go pro, start a minor league, or go play in Europe or China or Israel or Russia or ... wherever. Otherwise, enjoy your FREE education, FREE room for four years, FREE food while at school, and tons of FREE merch so they won't need to buy shoes and clothes for years.

 

[sleeperpick]

I think it will all even out in the end. Still only 13 scholarships per team. A bit more pressure on mid majors to dance to keep their stars but end of the day every P5 that takes a mid major transfer has one last scholarship to give to an incoming freshman. I don’t think this hurts competitive mid majors in the long run and is certainly better for players. Look at the A10, top teams who were dancing or close to dancing lost almost no one to transfer.

College Athletics is one of the only places we tell a 17 year old kid to sign on the dotted line and expect that decision to be the best decision for that kid when he’s 21-22. This was the inevitable last step and the NCAA has to pass this is they want a snowballs chance in hell to not get destroyed by the upcoming players pay lawsuits. They need to try to buy whatever little good will they can and this is an easy step one.

Only 13 unless your Duquesne

 

[gmujim92]

I think the rule change is fine, so I don't have issues with it, but if the NCAA thinks this will appease the pay for play crowd, they're just plain dumb. Appeasement NEVER works; read a history book once in a while. There is no such thing as 'buying goodwill' when people are already fired up to 'get what they deserve.'

If players think they deserve to get paid, fine, go pro, start a minor league, or go play in Europe or China or Israel or Russia or ... wherever. Otherwise, enjoy your FREE education, FREE room for four years, FREE food while at school, and tons of FREE merch so they won't need to buy shoes and clothes for years.

I don’t think it’s appeasement to let athletes profit from their own name, image and likeness — another reform that is long overdue by the NCAA — and it hopefully will forestall efforts to turn intercollegiate athletics into a de facto minor league system, which would suck for all but the blue bloods (who already are paying players).

But pining for the days when young people should be oh so grateful for their athletic scholarship and free sneakers in a billion-dollar industry with coaches making millions off their labor is antiquated thinking. Evolve or die, Old Man.

 

[Old Man]

I don’t think it’s appeasement to let athletes profit from their own name, image and likeness — another reform that is long overdue by the NCAA — and it hopefully will forestall efforts to turn intercollegiate athletics into a de facto minor league system, which would suck for all but the blue bloods (who already are paying players).

But pining for the days when young people should be oh so grateful for their athletic scholarship and free sneakers in a billion-dollar industry with coaches making millions off their labor is antiquated thinking. Evolve or die, Old Man.

I'm not 'pining for the days' of anything. I don't think it's wrong for athletes to profit from their own likeness, etc. Great! Go profit all you want by going pro (see my previous post for location details).

Most of these kids would be unknowns without the college providing the opportunity, coaching, facilities, time, and room and board for their efforts at no financial cost or risk to the players. If players want the money, go get the money, but stop pretending to be college students.

PS I don't care about the blue bloods and the effect it would have on them.

 

[GMU79]

I don’t think it’s appeasement to let athletes profit from their own name, image and likeness — another reform that is long overdue by the NCAA — and it hopefully will forestall efforts to turn intercollegiate athletics into a de facto minor league system, which would suck for all but the blue bloods (who already are paying players).

But pining for the days when young people should be oh so grateful for their athletic scholarship and free sneakers in a billion-dollar industry with coaches making millions off their labor is antiquated thinking. Evolve or die, Old Man.

I'm not 'pining for the days' of anything. I don't think it's wrong for athletes to profit from their own likeness, etc. Great! Go profit all you want by going pro (see my previous post for location details).

Most of these kids would be unknowns without the college providing the opportunity, coaching, facilities, time, and room and board for their efforts at no financial cost or risk to the players. If players want the money, go get the money, but stop pretending to be college students.

PS I don't care about the blue bloods and the effect it would have on them.

I thought the "adapt or die, old man" was unneccesarily personal.

 

[Leesburg Chankenstank III]

I thought the "adapt or die, old man" was unneccesarily personal.

If you're going to point out all of the "unnecessary" stuff on the boards, that's ALL you will be doing. Message boards are in and of them selves unnecessary.

 

[gmujim92]

I thought the "adapt or die, old man" was unneccesarily personal.

His username is Old Man. Nothing personal about my post at all ‍

 

[GMU79]

If you're going to point out all of the "unnecessary" stuff on the boards, that's ALL you will be doing. Message boards are in and of them selves unnecessary.

I have no interest in doing that. This one just struck me. Thought I would express my opinion...like everyone else on here.

 

[bravesfan]

Seems like the new play is hunt the lower leagues for the under-recruited ones that shine, and convince them to transfer to Mason. Get an immediate player who won't have any incentive to transfer again.

 

[GMU79]

His username is Old Man. Nothing personal about my post at all ‍

I know that is his user name. But as posted, it appeared you were targeting him personally, not the idea of evolving in general. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

 

[HoopsAdmin]

Had this rule been in place in the years leading up to 2006, would our Final Four ever have happened?

 

[gmujim92]

I know that is his user name. But as posted, it appeared you were targeting him personally, not the idea of evolving in general. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

It’s why I capitalized Old Man. Guess I should’ve tagged him to make it clearer

 

[gmujim92]

Had this rule been in place in the years leading up to 2006, would our Final Four ever have happened?

Probably ... none of our core guys had really done anything of note prior to 2006 to warrant being poached

 

[Old Man]

Had this rule been in place in the years leading up to 2006, would our Final Four ever have happened?

Leave it to the admins to bring this topic back on topic.

As for your question, nope. I think one or two of the guys would have been gone before the season started, OR one of the P5 schools we took to school those illustrious two weekends would have improved themselves so the matchups would have been different. It's all really hard to say.

PS thanks GMU79 for your concern over the comment you took directed maliciously toward me, but I've been on these boards for over 25 years, in all it's versions, so nothing personal was taken, as it never is, nor should be, when people are using anonymous names to converse.