NCAA to end "hardship waiver"

[DavenportHawk8]

Wasn't this the same thing that Tyler Smith, Jake Kelly and others used to transfer? Seems kind of odd to do, but I guess with all the transfers moving.

I noticed they will allow it for this year, but starting in 2016 that will not be a possibility.

This is not a shot at Hoiberg or ISU, so please do not mention them in this thread. I just wanted to know everyone's opinion on this? I think it was a good idea for the NCAA to allow kids like this to transfer. IF they want to transfer closer to home because a parent is dying I say let them. I realize there were people taking advantage of it, but just set stricter guidelines and you won't have that. I realize Tyler Smith left because of his dad being sick (didn't pan out for him as he got into trouble). Jake Kelly lost his mother and wanted to be closer to home (and away from Lick) and he had a nice ending to his career at Indiana St.

I just think if the kid has probable cause and there is a family member dying, I say let them transfer. What will the NCAA do when UNC is sanctioned like Cuse?? Will allow them to transfer without penalty?

 

[StormHawk42]

Yeah when I first heard this, I thought it was a major coup and it was the end of graduate transfers, but then I read closer and realized that it was the hardship waiver and I'm not sure it sits well with me. In any system, you'll have players taking advantage of loopholes, but the extremes for actually benefitting from the waiver make it worth having IMO.

 

[iowalawhawk]

Frankly I think someone who needs to be closer to a dying relative (ie Tyler Smith) should use a redshirt season and actually spend time with that dying relative.

Instead, it seems like everyone dredges up a sick grandma or something to use as an excuse.

 

[anon_bb9wlf9kj42py]

I'd be for making all transfers sit out, but especially in cases where there is hardship. That seems like a situation where it would be better for the kid to sit. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to have them transfer closer to home to be near an ailing parent, and have them sit during that year so they can spend more time with them than spend a ton of time on the basketball court?

Grad transfers while good in theory, in practice most of the time it's a total sham. Plus, it seems like the flow is talented players from smaller conferences going to larger conferences, and never the other way around.

That said ISU has never had a kid get a hardship waiver.

 

[Mohawkeye]

Originally posted by iowalawhawk:
Frankly I think someone who needs to be closer to a dying relative (ie Tyler Smith) should use a redshirt season and actually spend time with that dying relative.

Instead, it seems like everyone dredges up a sick grandma or something to use as an excuse.

You don't think the dying parent might not want to get to see their son/daughter play?

I think coaches and players should have the same rules. Switch jobs and you sit out a year. Or, alternatively, if you get a new coach then everyone should get to transfer and immediately become eligible.

 

[BGHAWK]

Luke Recker was before Tyler Smith when he transferred from Arizona.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by iowalawhawk:
Frankly I think someone who needs to be closer to a dying relative (ie Tyler Smith) should use a redshirt season and actually spend time with that dying relative.

Instead, it seems like everyone dredges up a sick grandma or something to use as an excuse.

1. So what?

2. Who are you to decide who is "dredging" and what they should/shouldn't do in relation to being with their sick relative?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by Mohawkeye:

Originally posted by iowalawhawk:
Frankly I think someone who needs to be closer to a dying relative (ie Tyler Smith) should use a redshirt season and actually spend time with that dying relative.

Instead, it seems like everyone dredges up a sick grandma or something to use as an excuse.

You don't think the dying parent might not want to get to see their son/daughter play?

I think coaches and players should have the same rules. Switch jobs and you sit out a year. Or, alternatively, if you get a new coach then everyone should get to transfer and immediately become eligible.

I completely agree on the first point, curious about your reasoning on the second.

Why should a coach, who has no "student" aspect attached to him whatsoever be regulated on contractual issues? Would you extend this to all personnel, like trainers?

In theory only I like your last point, but boy would that lead to chaos....especially if they all just transferred to the coaches new school.

I'd like to see some different proposals about how this could be accomplished. Obviously basketball isn't wrestling, and I think that wrestling is much more dependent and connected to coaching, but what Virginia Tech did in (first promising to release if this occurred) not releasing the wrestlers to follow Tom Brands...quite obviously the only reason they went to that school in the first place.

 

[HawkLogic]

Originally posted by Mohawkeye:

Originally posted by iowalawhawk:
Frankly I think someone who needs to be closer to a dying relative (ie Tyler Smith) should use a redshirt season and actually spend time with that dying relative.

Instead, it seems like everyone dredges up a sick grandma or something to use as an excuse.

You don't think the dying parent might not want to get to see their son/daughter play?

I think coaches and players should have the same rules. Switch jobs and you sit out a year. Or, alternatively, if you get a new coach then everyone should get to transfer and immediately become eligible.

The aim should be graduation rates in real degree fields for these athletes.

I like the part about coaches having to sit out a year....the NCAA has become this huge money machine and a big chunk of money is going to coaching salaries and AD bureaucrats and NCAA bureaucrats.

Good point about dying parent being able to see kid play. However, in Iowa's experience with Jake Kelly, his mother was already gone. The purpose of transfer appears to be he wanted to reunite with HS buddies at Indiana State and of course, get away from Lickliter. I don't think Jake's case was as much hardship as a way to get off the Titantic. Jake was an Alford/Neal recruit anyway...nobody good willingly sought out playing for Lickliter.

 

[iabcuda]

I am hoping this move is merely laying some ground work for changes to the transfer and grad transfer rules. That is what needs fixing.

 

[DanL53]

Just my opinion. I believe that the hardship waiver was often used to try to avoid a red shirt year. And, important...that is partly because coaches preferred having the players available immediately. Besides, regulating it in any fair way is impossible.

I don't see any problem with expecting all transfers to sit a year, and personally I think that should include fifth year seniors.

Now, as to my logic. I believe there would be many cases where it is beneficial for a player transferring, let's say for child care, or a sick relative (not facing imminent death), to actually redshirt and take the year to be a student and deal with the personal issues.

I recognize there may be EXTREME examples where this isn't true. Such as a dying relative who's only desire is to see a person play. Although just having the extra time to be together without the constraints of a basketball schedule? Think about it. "Son, I appreciate you being with me twice a week and I know you couldn't if you had to play games all over the conference. But I'm sick of you hanging around and dang but I really would have preferred watching the whole team play a game!"

I'm going to have to hear better reasons to not expect transfers to sit a year. Until then my opinion remains.

 

[Lone Clone]

I don't think it's abused enough to justify elimination.

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
I don't think it's abused enough to justify elimination.

It wouldn't be abused at all if it had never existed in the first place. I guess it is a matter of what is important, four years straight of uninterrupted basketball, or a chance to transfer and sit out a year while taking care of a personal issue?

Again, I need to hear examples of why not sitting out is a good thing? I never agreed with the idea of a hardship waiver to begin with. You and MoHawkeye are two smart posters. So I'm assuming I'm missing something here...what is it?

 

[2432Hawk]

Originally posted by BGHAWK:

Luke Recker was before Tyler Smith when he transferred from Arizona.

Luke's was a very special circumstance.

He did sit out a year xfr from Indiana to Arizona, and before playing at AZ had the terrible car accident in Colorado. He then opted to xfr closer to home and his dad lived in Washington, IA so he was able to play immediately as a walk-on (paid instate tuition) as at that time big ten had rule against in-conf. xfr. (that went away when Iowa released Brust to play at Wisc)

 

[FranklinHawk]

I don't know the details, but for the "sit out and tend to your sick relative" folks how much additional free time would that provide? Pretty sure they don't travel with the team for road games, but other than that don't the transfers that are sitting a year still partake in all other activities & practices?

 

[hwksforlife]

Originally posted by Mohawkeye:

Originally posted by iowalawhawk:
Frankly I think someone who needs to be closer to a dying relative (ie Tyler Smith) should use a redshirt season and actually spend time with that dying relative.

Instead, it seems like everyone dredges up a sick grandma or something to use as an excuse.

You don't think the dying parent might not want to get to see their son/daughter play?

I think coaches and players should have the same rules. Switch jobs and you sit out a year. Or, alternatively, if you get a new coach then everyone should get to transfer and immediately become eligible.

I agree that if a coach leaves you should have the option of an unrestricted transfer.

 

[NI hawk]

Originally posted by iowalawhawk:
Frankly I think someone who needs to be closer to a dying relative (ie Tyler Smith) should use a redshirt season and actually spend time with that dying relative.

Instead, it seems like everyone dredges up a sick grandma or something to use as an excuse.

This and I am glad it is ended. It was becoming a joke.

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by FranklinHawk:

I don't know the details, but for the "sit out and tend to your sick relative" folks how much additional free time would that provide? Pretty sure they don't travel with the team for road games, but other than that don't the transfers that are sitting a year still partake in all other activities & practices?


I think you've got a point. Not enough for me to change my mind as if all it would be is the time available while a team travels and plays away games, to me that is still worth it. Whatever a hardship issue is, I am assuming it is severe enough that ANY additional time should be welcome.

However. To support your point. Let me say that if we assume that participating in a college sport (basketball) is so time consuming that only studies for classes can be manageably fit into a schedule, and that condition would remain whether a player redshirt or not, than what is the point of a redshirt.

And I WAS going to say, that means a hardship waiver is useless. But that would be untrue. A player would still have September, April and May to be closer to home and deal with personal issues while the basketball season is over.

So the question is:

Hardship waiver. Worth it. The player will have no opportunity whether they redshirt or not to deal with private matters, so we might as well allow them to play without a redshirt so that for three months they can be closer to the problem.

or:

Hardship waiver. Not worth it. The coach will likely prefer a player play right away. If they didn't have to, if they couldn't be pressured into it, the player could automatically enjoy such free time as redshirting allows to handle their issues. And the three months? They get that anyway.

You know who I think needs to be asked? Ex-players. They'll know which would be better.

 

[Mohawkeye]

Originally posted by 2432Hawk:

Originally posted by BGHAWK:

Luke Recker was before Tyler Smith when he transferred from Arizona.

Luke's was a very special circumstance.

He did sit out a year xfr from Indiana to Arizona, and before playing at AZ had the terrible car accident in Colorado. He then opted to xfr closer to home and his dad lived in Washington, IA so he was able to play immediately as a walk-on (paid instate tuition) as at that time big ten had rule against in-conf. xfr. (that went away when Iowa released Brust to play at Wisc)

Did Luke sit out a year? My recollection is that he didn't, that he went directly to Iowa before enrolling at Arizona and played right away due to the crash. But I certainly could be wrong.

 

[FranklinHawk]

Originally posted by DanL53:

Originally posted by FranklinHawk:

I don't know the details, but for the "sit out and tend to your sick relative" folks how much additional free time would that provide? Pretty sure they don't travel with the team for road games, but other than that don't the transfers that are sitting a year still partake in all other activities & practices?




I think you've got a point. Not enough for me to change my mind as if all it would be is the time available while a team travels and plays away games, to me that is still worth it. Whatever a hardship issue is, I am assuming it is severe enough that ANY additional time should be welcome.

However. To support your point. Let me say that if we assume that participating in a college sport (basketball) is so time consuming that only studies for classes can be manageably fit into a schedule, and that condition would remain whether a player redshirt or not, than what is the point of a redshirt.

And I WAS going to say, that means a hardship waiver is useless. But that would be untrue. A player would still have September, April and May to be closer to home and deal with personal issues while the basketball season is over.

So the question is:

Hardship waiver. Worth it. The player will have no opportunity whether they redshirt or not to deal with private matters, so we might as well allow them to play without a redshirt so that for three months they can be closer to the problem.

or:

Hardship waiver. Not worth it. The coach will likely prefer a player play right away. If they didn't have to, if they couldn't be pressured into it, the player could automatically enjoy such free time as redshirting allows to handle their issues. And the three months? They get that anyway.

You know who I think needs to be asked? Ex-players. They'll know which would be better.

I wasn't really trying to change your mind Dan, just sharing thoughts and asking the question as I'm not certain.

On the bolded part above asking "what is the point of a redshirt" I'm not quite understanding unless you are using redshirt and not being granted a hardship waiver and having to sit a year upon transfer as the same thing (technically they may have already used a redshirt prior to the transfer). In my mind the vast majority of the time the purpose of the redshirt is to preserve a year of elgibility, whether that be to improve their skills or needing so sit a year in transfer situations, not as an opportunity to gain more free time to do other things.

 

[jhawkinaz]

It would be nice if they would deal with these transfer issues in the order of importance. The hardship waiver is abused for sure, but it seems that it is also helping some kids that are in very difficult situations.

The graduate transfer rule, on the other hand, is abused and then abused some more. It is such a joke. This needs to be fixed before anything else and it is not that hard to do. If you graduate in 3 years and want to finish your eligibility at a school so you can get a graduate degree that your current school does not offer then you sit out a year......period.

If you are going to get a graduate degree, how many of those degrees can be completed in 1 year? You sit, then you play and you have your degree in 2 years.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by NI hawk:

Originally posted by iowalawhawk:
Frankly I think someone who needs to be closer to a dying relative (ie Tyler Smith) should use a redshirt season and actually spend time with that dying relative.

Instead, it seems like everyone dredges up a sick grandma or something to use as an excuse.

This and I am glad it is ended. It was becoming a joke.

This, necessarily, means that you have examples, cases that you have read about that make it a joke.

Care to post any?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by jhawkinaz:

The graduate transfer rule, on the other hand, is abused and then abused some more. It is such a joke. This needs to be fixed before anything else and it is not that hard to do. If you graduate in 3 years and want to finish your eligibility at a school so you can get a graduate degree that your current school does not offer then you sit out a year......period.

If you are going to get a graduate degree, how many of those degrees can be completed in 1 year? You sit, then you play and you have your degree in 2 years.

How about seeing the graduate transfer as a reward? We want students to graduate, right? That should be a top priority. If so, why not reward them with this transfer rule?

Who is being hurt? NC State by not getting R. Wilson anymore? Washington State because they don't get their 10,000 yard passer for another season?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by hwksforlife:

I agree that if a coach leaves you should have the option of an unrestricted transfer.

I'll repeat my earlier question: does that include transferring to that coach's school?

Are kids signing up with a coach, or are they signing up with a school?

So many people want to put student athletes on the same plane as employees, so lets do it that way....would you not enforce a non-compete because the boss left? Were they there to work for the boss, or the employer?

 

[Hawkeye_4_Life]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by Mohawkeye:

Originally posted by iowalawhawk:
Frankly I think someone who needs to be closer to a dying relative (ie Tyler Smith) should use a redshirt season and actually spend time with that dying relative.

Instead, it seems like everyone dredges up a sick grandma or something to use as an excuse.

You don't think the dying parent might not want to get to see their son/daughter play?

I think coaches and players should have the same rules. Switch jobs and you sit out a year. Or, alternatively, if you get a new coach then everyone should get to transfer and immediately become eligible.

I completely agree on the first point, curious about your reasoning on the second.

Why should a coach, who has no "student" aspect attached to him whatsoever be regulated on contractual issues? Would you extend this to all personnel, like trainers?

In theory only I like your last point, but boy would that lead to chaos....especially if they all just transferred to the coaches new school.

I'd like to see some different proposals about how this could be accomplished. Obviously basketball isn't wrestling, and I think that wrestling is much more dependent and connected to coaching, but what Virginia Tech did in (first promising to release if this occurred) not releasing the wrestlers to follow Tom Brands...quite obviously the only reason they went to that school in the first place.

I don't agree on coaches being required to sit like the students, however, I do believe that if a school is sanctioned for any sport, and the coach leaves, then that coach should also be penalized even if he/she went to a new school. If a school is banned for x amount of post season play, then the coach should also be banned for the same x amount of years, regardless on if he is at a new school. It would put more pressure on the new schools hiring a coach with baggage and a win at all cost philosophy. Call it the Carol/Calipari rule.

 

[BGHAWK]

Originally posted by Mohawkeye:

Originally posted by 2432Hawk:

Originally posted by BGHAWK:

Luke Recker was before Tyler Smith when he transferred from Arizona.

Luke's was a very special circumstance.

He did sit out a year xfr from Indiana to Arizona, and before playing at AZ had the terrible car accident in Colorado. He then opted to xfr closer to home and his dad lived in Washington, IA so he was able to play immediately as a walk-on (paid instate tuition) as at that time big ten had rule against in-conf. xfr. (that went away when Iowa released Brust to play at Wisc)

Did Luke sit out a year? My recollection is that he didn't, that he went directly to Iowa before enrolling at Arizona and played right away due to the crash. But I certainly could be wrong.

I don't know if he sat a year between Ind and AZ, but he enrolled at AZ and before playing there, he transferred to Iowa. That's the way I remember it or part of it, but if someone wants to bet you on it, don't put up a lot of money on it.

 

[gojojo]

I think the only case a transfer should be allowed to play right away is in cases of the program being put on probation like Syracuse this year. I think hardships and graduate transfers should, without question, have to sit out a year

 

[jhawkinaz]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by jhawkinaz:

The graduate transfer rule, on the other hand, is abused and then abused some more. It is such a joke. This needs to be fixed before anything else and it is not that hard to do. If you graduate in 3 years and want to finish your eligibility at a school so you can get a graduate degree that your current school does not offer then you sit out a year......period.

If you are going to get a graduate degree, how many of those degrees can be completed in 1 year? You sit, then you play and you have your degree in 2 years.

How about seeing the graduate transfer as a reward? We want students to graduate, right? That should be a top priority. If so, why not reward them with this transfer rule?

Who is being hurt? NC State by not getting R. Wilson anymore? Washington State because they don't get their 10,000 yard passer for another season?

So let me get this straight.....you think, as a reward for graduating college (which should be expected mind you) that you can abuse a system created to further enhance a serious student's education?

"Hey great job on graduating....since you are good, if you would like to go play somewhere else we can just find a place that offers a grad degree that this place doesn't. What? No, no don't worry you don't actually have to obtain that degree.....just go to class for one semester and keep your head above water and it's all good."

"Are you wasting a scholarship that could be given to someone else?, yeah I suppose but don't worry about that....just play ball and get us some wins son! Its your reward for doing what was expected of you in the first place"

How is that Vet degree working out for Kane? Like I said.....JOKE!

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by jhawkinaz:

So let me get this straight.....you think, as a reward for graduating college (which should be expected mind you) that you can abuse a system created to further enhance a serious student's education?

"Hey great job on graduating....since you are good, if you would like to go play somewhere else we can just find a place that offers a grad degree that this place doesn't. What? No, no don't worry you don't actually have to obtain that degree.....just go to class for one semester and keep your head above water and it's all good."

"Are you wasting a scholarship that could be given to someone else?, yeah I suppose but don't worry about that....just play ball and get us some wins son! Its your reward for doing what was expected of you in the first place"

How is that Vet degree working out for Kane? Like I said.....JOKE!

Why should graduating be expected? Iirc, the graduation rate for colleges is ~60%.

You can insert the word "abuse" in your framing of my statement all you want, it does not further the argument.

I would actually remove the restriction of requiring a grad program not offered. You spent that entire post repeating the same things that have already been posted, and not addressing my questions, so I will re-ask:

Why shouldn't they be rewarded for graduating, and often doing so early?

Who is being hurt?

I'm confused by your wasting scholarship comment, if the player transfers, what scholarship is being wasted?

You seem to, largely, be arguing for a rule requiring graduation. Is that what you want, all scholarship players must stay and graduate? All grad transfers must obtain that grad degree?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by gojojo:
I think the only case a transfer should be allowed to play right away is in cases of the program being put on probation like Syracuse this year. I think hardships and graduate transfers should, without question, have to sit out a year

With, or without, a loss of year (or redshirt)?

How about implementing your rule, but allow that year off to simply count as, you know, a year off. No use of redshirt, no loss of playing year?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_4_Life:



I don't agree on coaches being required to sit like the students, however, I do believe that if a school is sanctioned for any sport, and the coach leaves, then that coach should also be penalized even if he/she went to a new school. If a school is banned for x amount of post season play, then the coach should also be banned for the same x amount of years, regardless on if he is at a new school. It would put more pressure on the new schools hiring a coach with baggage and a win at all cost philosophy. Call it the Carol/Calipari rule.

I agree with this, coaches shouldn't be escaping punishment by leaving a school. Not that I've read much on these specific cases, but it seems wrong that Memphis was violating enough rules to vacate wins, but Cal was not punished in any way. (Second time for him).

I'm not sure how it would affect Carol, he left the NCAA entirely.

I'm not sure what I would implement, but more penalties need to be levied against coaches.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by DanL53:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
I don't think it's abused enough to justify elimination.

It wouldn't be abused at all if it had never existed in the first place. I guess it is a matter of what is important, four years straight of uninterrupted basketball, or a chance to transfer and sit out a year while taking care of a personal issue?

Again, I need to hear examples of why not sitting out is a good thing? I never agreed with the idea of a hardship waiver to begin with. You and MoHawkeye are two smart posters. So I'm assuming I'm missing something here...what is it?

I don't know that you're missing anything. I just don't think it's been abused all that badly. But I will add one thing: The NCAA has not been consistent in granting the waivers, and I think that's a very bad thing. If they're going to handle it the way they've been handling it, then doing away with the rule may be the better solution.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by jhawkinaz:
It would be nice if they would deal with these transfer issues in the order of importance. The hardship waiver is abused for sure, but it seems that it is also helping some kids that are in very difficult situations.

The graduate transfer rule, on the other hand, is abused and then abused some more. It is such a joke. This needs to be fixed before anything else and it is not that hard to do. If you graduate in 3 years and want to finish your eligibility at a school so you can get a graduate degree that your current school does not offer then you sit out a year......period.

If you are going to get a graduate degree, how many of those degrees can be completed in 1 year? You sit, then you play and you have your degree in 2 years.

I would agree the graduate transfer rule is abused (depending upon your definition of the word) but on the other hand, there aren't many of them, and besides, they are guys who have earned their college degree. That is what the NCAA claims to be all about.

Joe Dunk goes to Silo Tech on scholarship, redshirts as a freshman, plays three years, gets his BA......at that point he's the model of what the NCAA is supposed to be wanting. Why should the NCAA care if he chooses to play his final year elsewhere? Why should anybody care?

 

[jhawkinaz]

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by jhawkinaz:

So let me get this straight.....you think, as a reward for graduating college (which should be expected mind you) that you can abuse a system created to further enhance a serious student's education?

"Hey great job on graduating....since you are good, if you would like to go play somewhere else we can just find a place that offers a grad degree that this place doesn't. What? No, no don't worry you don't actually have to obtain that degree.....just go to class for one semester and keep your head above water and it's all good."

"Are you wasting a scholarship that could be given to someone else?, yeah I suppose but don't worry about that....just play ball and get us some wins son! Its your reward for doing what was expected of you in the first place"

How is that Vet degree working out for Kane? Like I said.....JOKE!

Why should graduating be expected? Iirc, the graduation rate for colleges is ~60%.

You can insert the word "abuse" in your framing of my statement all you want, it does not further the argument.

I would actually remove the restriction of requiring a grad program not offered. You spent that entire post repeating the same things that have already been posted, and not addressing my questions, so I will re-ask:

Why shouldn't they be rewarded for graduating, and often doing so early?

Who is being hurt?

I'm confused by your wasting scholarship comment, if the player transfers, what scholarship is being wasted?

You seem to, largely, be arguing for a rule requiring graduation. Is that what you want, all scholarship players must stay and graduate? All grad transfers must obtain that grad degree?

OK, right here is where we split. Graduating, or at least working with the intent of, should be expected IMO. Maybe you think that is naive in this day and age....but if that no longer is a goal then why not just toss out the whole student-athlete concept all together and pay these guys?

Do you have any kids? When they go to college (if they haven't already) do you expect them to graduate? Or do you just consider that a bonus, and if they fall short then pat them on the back and say hey 40% don't graduate no big deal. My kids will be expected to graduate (if they go to college).

If they can make millions after a year of college in professional sports, great, they do not have to graduate. But what are those %'s? Less than 1/2 percent probably?

Question 1: Because you do something good, you do not get rewarded by being allowed to take advantage of a rule that was created to help someone if you do not have the proper intent. You are rewarded by having doors opened for you because you have a DEGREE.

Question 2: the kid who didn't get a scholorship because the grad transfer skirted the system and took it.....there are only so many ships, eventually some kid is hurt by it.

The wasted scholarship is the one that would have went to someone else if the graduate transfer had not come in to go to class for 1 semester and just play ball on scholarship.

Again, I am not suggesting everyone that goes to school has to get a degree or else, that is impossible. Intent is the big sticking point. Do I think they should go there intending to graduate? Without question I do.

 

[ichawk24]

Recker played 97-98 and 98-99 at Indiana. Did not play 99-00. Played at Iowa in 00-01 and 01-02.

I don't have details on registration at schools.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/luke-recker-1.html


http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/luke-r

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by jhawkinaz:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

Originally posted by jhawkinaz:

The graduate transfer rule, on the other hand, is abused and then abused some more. It is such a joke. This needs to be fixed before anything else and it is not that hard to do. If you graduate in 3 years and want to finish your eligibility at a school so you can get a graduate degree that your current school does not offer then you sit out a year......period.

If you are going to get a graduate degree, how many of those degrees can be completed in 1 year? You sit, then you play and you have your degree in 2 years.

How about seeing the graduate transfer as a reward? We want students to graduate, right? That should be a top priority. If so, why not reward them with this transfer rule?

Who is being hurt? NC State by not getting R. Wilson anymore? Washington State because they don't get their 10,000 yard passer for another season?

So let me get this straight.....you think, as a reward for graduating college (which should be expected mind you) that you can abuse a system created to further enhance a serious student's education?

"Hey great job on graduating....since you are good, if you would like to go play somewhere else we can just find a place that offers a grad degree that this place doesn't. What? No, no don't worry you don't actually have to obtain that degree.....just go to class for one semester and keep your head above water and it's all good."

"Are you wasting a scholarship that could be given to someone else?, yeah I suppose but don't worry about that....just play ball and get us some wins son! Its your reward for doing what was expected of you in the first place"

How is that Vet degree working out for Kane? Like I said.....JOKE!

I don't know what Master's program Kane was in, but I can guarantee it wasn't veterinary medicine.

 

[DanL53]

Originally posted by FranklinHawk:

I wasn't really trying to change your mind Dan, just sharing thoughts and asking the question as I'm not certain.

On the bolded part above asking "what is the point of a redshirt" I'm not quite understanding unless you are using redshirt and not being granted a hardship waiver and having to sit a year upon transfer as the same thing (technically they may have already used a redshirt prior to the transfer). In my mind the vast majority of the time the purpose of the redshirt is to preserve a year of elgibility, whether that be to improve their skills or needing so sit a year in transfer situations, not as an opportunity to gain more free time to do other things.




I know you weren't. And it irks me to no end that smart posters don't change my mind as it would save me the effort.

Good point, a redshirt may be gone by the time a person transfers, such as what happened to Uthoff. And I don't think the point behind a redshirt was ever more than due to injury to begin with was it? No point in not expanding the reasons ever further since simply improving performance has already become part of the idea.

There are two competing issues, the way I see it. Preventing transfers just to play sports at a different school or for a different coach. Even high schools have rules to prevent that.

And, concerns for some kind of fair life experience for a student/athlete while at school.

"My Mom is in a coma, I want to play closer to home.", we get that, go ahead. If you find a school, we allow transfers.

"But I want to avoid losing a year of eligibility.", we get that, if your coach agrees you can redshirt.

"But I used my redshirt, if I sit a year I'll lose one year of eligibility!", we understand, that doesn't mean you can't have a scholarhip unless your league has a rule like what happened to Jared Uthoff. So though you will lose one year of four actually playing your sport, you will still be a student and can use the time to visit your ill Mom! Maybe your coach will be understanding and let you have all the time you want?

"But I'll lose a year of eligibility!!!!!!", we thought you were worried about your Mom in a coma?

"No!! Don't you get it! I want to play right away! And you keep saying whatever my coach says, well, HE wants me to play right away!"

This post was edited on 3/25 2:12 PM by DanL53

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by jhawkinaz:

Originally posted by theIowaHawk:

OK, right here is where we split. Graduating, or at least working with the intent of, should be expected IMO.

Well we need to start here then. Why is it expected? If it IS, in fact, expected, what are we (NCAA, Big Ten, Iowa) doing about that? If nothing is being done (I don't see anything other than, maybe, the GSR requirement to make postseason bball), than how can it be expected?


Maybe you think that is naive in this day and age....but if that no longer is a goal then why not just toss out the whole student-athlete concept all together and pay these guys?

I guess I don't quite understand your logic here. Graduation isn't the only goal of college, there is much to be learned, and there are many places to learn it. If the person chooses not to continue, or gains the education necessary to obtain their wanted employment, or choose to attend another school, why are these a problem? I don't follow your leap of "if it is not about graduating, then pay them." It does not need to be an either/or.

Do you have any kids? When they go to college (if they haven't already) do you expect them to graduate?

Yes and yes, I sure hope so, but there are too many factors to try and determine now whether or not that expectation is actually warranted. Throwing out some, maybe, obvious examples. Kid attends college, the United States is attacked, kid enlists in the military. Seems like a reasonable course to take, I don't know why "expectation" would play any part. Or, how about, kid attends school, gets gainful employment, leaves school to continue that employment. Is that bad? I think not.

Or do you just consider that a bonus, and if they fall short then pat them on the back and say hey 40% don't graduate no big deal. My kids will be expected to graduate (if they go to college).

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. I urge you to go back to my first part of this post, and then consider this: Why shouldn't an "expectation" be rewarded? I expected Logan Streebler to win his 4th NCAA Title last Saturday, it would be really shtty if he couldn't be rewarded for obtaining it. If a student graduates college in three years, why not allow him to transfer? I ask again: Who is being harmed?

If they can make millions after a year of college in professional sports, great, they do not have to graduate. But what are those %'s? Less than 1/2 percent probably?

Question 1: Because you do something good, you do not get rewarded by being allowed to take advantage of a rule that was created to help someone if you do not have the proper intent. You are rewarded by having doors opened for you because you have a DEGREE.

Wait, now intent is important? So if a kid really is smart and seeking a grad degree, say Jake Rudock, he should be allowed to, but someone we think is not, say Russell Wilson, shouldn't? Jesus, you want the NCAA, I repeat the NCAA, to determine someone's intent?

Question 2: the kid who didn't get a scholorship because the grad transfer skirted the system and took it.....there are only so many ships, eventually some kid is hurt by it.

Except this lacks even the basic semblance of logic, and you should be able to see that. There is no net loss. School 1 loses the transfer, School 2 gains the transfer = 1 scholarship. School 1 now takes on a new student due to open scholarship = No net loss. Think about it.

The wasted scholarship is the one that would have went to someone else if the graduate transfer had not come in to go to class for 1 semester and just play ball on scholarship.

This even further demonstrates a lack of logic. If that guy is just there to "play ball", what is the guy there that would have taken it? You are presuming one is there to "play ball", but the other, somehow, isn't.

Again, I am not suggesting everyone that goes to school has to get a degree or else, that is impossible. Intent is the big sticking point. Do I think they should go there intending to graduate? Without question I do.

So, then under your thinking (without question), all schools should be punished for players who don't have the "intent" to graduate...determined by, well, you, or maybe the NCAA?

Easy final question: How are you pigeon-holing this to the grad-transfer rule? How is this not applicable to every scholarship?

Also, let me throw in one last thought. A person utilizing this grad-transfer rule has, what, one year to attend grad school while on scholarship? So, that scholarship runs out, are you wanting to require those students to pay out-of-pocket to continue that grad degree, even if they then choose not to?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Originally posted by DanL53:

Originally posted by FranklinHawk:

I wasn't really trying to change your mind Dan, just sharing thoughts and asking the question as I'm not certain.

On the bolded part above asking "what is the point of a redshirt" I'm not quite understanding unless you are using redshirt and not being granted a hardship waiver and having to sit a year upon transfer as the same thing (technically they may have already used a redshirt prior to the transfer). In my mind the vast majority of the time the purpose of the redshirt is to preserve a year of elgibility, whether that be to improve their skills or needing so sit a year in transfer situations, not as an opportunity to gain more free time to do other things.




I know you weren't. And it irks me to no end that smart posters don't change my mind as it would save me the effort.

Good point, a redshirt may be gone by the time a person transfers, such as what happened to Uthoff. And I don't think the point behind a redshirt was ever more than due to injury to begin with was it? No point in not expanding the reasons ever further since simply improving performance has already become part of the idea.

There are two competing issues, the way I see it. Preventing transfers just to play sports at a different school or for a different coach. Even high schools have rules to prevent that.

And, concerns for some kind of fair life experience for a student/athlete while at school.

"My Mom is in a coma, I want to play closer to home.", we get that, go ahead. If you find a school, we allow transfers.

"But I want to avoid losing a year of eligibility.", we get that, if your coach agrees you can redshirt.

"But I used my redshirt, if I sit a year I'll lose one year of eligibility!", we understand, that doesn't mean you can't have a scholarhip unless your league has a rule like what happened to Jared Uthoff. So though you will lose one year of four actually playing your sport, you will still be a student and can use the time to visit your ill Mom! Maybe your coach will be understanding and let you have all the time you want?

"But I'll lose a year of eligibility!!!!!!", we thought you were worried about your Mom in a coma?

"No!! Don't you get it! I want to play right away! And you keep saying whatever my coach says, well, HE wants me to play right away!"

This post was edited on 3/25 2:12 PM by DanL53

Dan, and others:

I think you are projecting your own feelings and opinions on to others as some type of objective, instead of subjective, thinking of what a person in their situation should do.

If my wife gets cancer and gets sick, should I "want" to quit work and spend every moment with her? Sure, seems like a nice thought up front, but think it all the way through. Is that what your wife would want? Would you be happy?

Think about it inversely, would you want to continue spending your life away from her, in another city? Imo, of course not. Many people, every day, return "home" to spend time with loved ones, they don't simply quit work and spend all of their time with them.

The important question: Why should someone lose a year out of the 4 for this reason?

The regular transfer rule is to lessen transfers, especially those on a whim. This exception is to allow those (who the NCAA deems acceptable) have a "hardship." How many hardships have there been in the last decade?

I echo Lone: There hasn't been enough "abuse" for this to even be concerned over.

 

[Red87]

Originally posted by ichawk24:
Recker played 97-98 and 98-99 at Indiana. Did not play 99-00. Played at Iowa in 00-01 and 01-02.

I don't have details on registration at schools.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/luke-recker-1.html

Recker left IU after the 1999 season and transferred to Arizona. The car accident happened that summer of 1999. He enrolled and attended Arizona that fall semester of 1999-2000, but then decided to transfer to Iowa. At issue was whether he would have to sit an additional full year from this transfer date (in essence, missing a year and half from spring 1999 to January 2001). He was granted a waiver to simply sit the remainder of the 1999-2000 season and be eligible in the fall of 2000.

The controversy back in Indiana was that Recker was always planning on Iowa because he was close with Alford, but he went to Arizona first to skirt the intra-conference transfer rules. In other words, people believed he was bound for Iowa long before the accident.