ADVERTISEMENT

Coaches can no longer block players from transferring to certain schools

Apr 8, 2003
111,247
248,852
113


https://www.ncaa.org/about/resource...er-rule-eliminates-permission-contact-process

New transfer rule eliminates permission-to-contact process
DI Council hopes change brings transparency and opens conversation between students and coaches
June 13, 2018 12:12pmMichelle Brutlag Hosick
Beginning in October, Division I student-athletes will have the ability to transfer to a different school and receive a scholarship without asking their current school for permission.

The Division I Council adopted a proposal this week that creates a new “notification-of-transfer” model. This new system allows a student to inform his or her current school of a desire to transfer, then requires that school to enter the student’s name into a national transfer database within two business days. Once the student-athlete’s name is in the database, other coaches are free to contact that individual.

“The membership showed today that it supports this significant change in transfer rules,” said Justin Sell, chair of the Division I Transfer Working Group and athletics director at South Dakota State. “I’m proud of the effort the Transfer Working Group put forth to make this happen for student-athletes, coaches and schools.”

The previous transfer rule, which required student-athletes to get permission from their current school to contact another school before they can receive a scholarship after transfer, was intended to discourage coaches from recruiting student-athletes from other Division I schools. The rule change ends the controversial practice in which some coaches or administrators would prevent students from having contact with specific schools. Conferences, however, still can make rules that are more restrictive than the national rule.

Additionally, the proposal adds tampering with a current student-athlete at another school to the list of potential Level 2 violations, considered a significant breach of conduct.

Nicholas Clark, a recent graduate of and former football player at Coastal Carolina who represents the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee on the Council, said the rule change promotes fairness and the well-being of college athletes.

“This creates a safe place for student-athletes to have a conversation with their coaches and makes the whole process more transparent,” Clark said. “This will clean the process up and give more influence and flexibility to the student-athlete.”

The Transfer Working Group first introduced the proposal in fall 2017, aiming to detach a student-athlete’s pursuit of transferring to a different school from the process of receiving a scholarship at the new college or university. The new rule was developed based on a series of principles the Division I Board of Directors developed for the working group, including any rule changes should support the academic success of student-athletes, be based on data and create the least restrictive environment possible for student-athletes.

Another financial aid element, autonomy legislation that governs when a school can reduce or cancel aid, may be adjusted next week by the autonomy conferences. Currently, a student’s notification of intent to transfer at the end of a term is not one of the listed reasons a school can use to cancel aid. The autonomy conferences will consider, by an electronic vote, two different proposals to allow schools to cancel the aid.

The rule change takes effect Oct. 15.

The Transfer Working Group will continue working on other transfer issues, including rules surrounding postgraduate transfers, and still is exploring the possibility of uniform transfer rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbrocket
Could this work out great for CFB in general? Particularly the fact that there's no longer any need to request permission. Skill-players in particular sitting on the bench at blue-bloods like tOSU are gonna be tempted to shift residence at moments notice. Another dagger into snakeoilsalesmen stockpiling talent. Sounds good to me.
 
Could this work out great for CFB in general? Particularly the fact that there's no longer any need to request permission. Skill-players in particular sitting on the bench at blue-bloods like tOSU are gonna be tempted to shift residence at moments notice. Another dagger into snakeoilsalesmen stockpiling talent. Sounds good to me.

I think they still have to sit out a year, don't they?
 
If they take away the year sitting out we will have true free agency. At that point you have to play the players IMO.

(Which I'm ok with since I fully believe some programs already do this)
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
It's about time. Sitting a year should be next to go.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one Aristotle. Kids need to do their due diligence when selecting their first school. We don't need the PJ Flecks of the world trying to persuade players from other teams to just "come on down!!"

The waiting period requires though on behave of the player. It's a good thing in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmhawks99
If they take away the year sitting out we will have true free agency. At that point you have to play the players IMO.

(Which I'm ok with since I fully believe some programs already do this)

I'm not for paying kids. And even if it's permitted, some schools will break the rules.
 
I would imagine a lot of players will not redshirt their 1st or 2nd year now and save the redshirt for the transfer year so they don't use a year of eligibility while they sit out a year
Not the players choice 99% of time
 
I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one Aristotle. Kids need to do their due diligence when selecting their first school. We don't need the PJ Flecks of the world trying to persuade players from other teams to just "come on down!!"

The waiting period requires though on behave of the player. It's a good thing in my opinion.
Agreed...the GPA requirement should also be put into place. I have no problem with schools making big money on college sports. The kids know what they are getting into when they sign the bottom line. They are getting a big time education....ect....ect....ect. I got a education and beyond that when we got a soft serve ice cream machine in the athletic dorm it made that scholarship worth every penny. Be a stud and play well...then get paid. 99.9% of the fans go to games to watch the team not an individual.
 
This is going to be fun to watch... :confused: We'll soon find out who's "loyal," and who isn't across the nation!
 
I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one Aristotle. Kids need to do their due diligence when selecting their first school. We don't need the PJ Flecks of the world trying to persuade players from other teams to just "come on down!!"

The waiting period requires though on behave of the player. It's a good thing in my opinion.

Thanks for your polite disagreement. I know a few...no, almost everyone...in DC who could learn from you.

But the reason I would support eliminating the rule that requires kids to sit out a year when transferring is foundational: People should have a right to change their minds without being penalized for it. In most cases, if I accept a new job, I can quit and move on at anytime...even if I've signed a contract that stipulates I'm employed for a specific number of years. And that includes, of course, college coaches who move around with impunity.

And no matter how much due diligence is done, it's impossible to know what a situation will truly be like until you're immersed in it. Being forced to stay in a job, or a school, you don't want to be in serves no one's best interests.

I like freedom of movement for everyone, including college athletes. But I certainly respect those who disagree.
 
Thanks for your polite disagreement. I know a few...no, almost everyone...in DC who could learn from you.

But the reason I would support eliminating the rule that requires kids to sit out a year when transferring is foundational: People should have a right to change their minds without being penalized for it. In most cases, if I accept a new job, I can quit and move on at anytime...even if I've signed a contract that stipulates I'm employed for a specific number of years. And that includes, of course, college coaches who move around with impunity.

And no matter how much due diligence is done, it's impossible to know what a situation will truly be like until you're immersed in it. Being forced to stay in a job, or a school, you don't want to be in serves no one's best interests.

I like freedom of movement for everyone, including college athletes. But I certainly respect those who disagree.

Thanks for the kind words Aristotle. It's not hard to be polite and if conversations like this don't take place, good decisions are seldom rendered.

I agree that regardless of due diligence. Mistakes will be made by some. However, there are consequences in leaving some jobs. Non compete clauses are common. And I don't view these as unethical. But I think it was wrong that coaches could block a player from going to where he wanted to compete.
 
Soooooo like if say a certain WR from Iowa city found themselves not playing as a sophomore for a "blue blood" they could in fact go to another program closer to home where it was more likely they could see some playing time, regardless of what his khaki wearing coach had to say...
kid-stirring-pot.jpg
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT