Originally posted by theIowaHawk:
Let me try to respond to several posts at the same time re: the graduate transfer.
I think we/NCAA needs to figure out what it "wants" first. If a degree is at, or near, the top of its want list, then it should strive to encourage schools and students to achieve that goal.
If a person graduates with playing time left, we should want them to further their studies. They have already graduated, and (I guess I just presume this) they must take courses to actual keep their scholarship...they can't just be "done" and play football. Therefore we should want them to seek an advanced degree.
Imo, judging their "intention" is an irrelevant and peculiar thing for any regulating body to do. If one person (say Kane, brought up previously) is not "intending" to actually "get" a graduate degree at one school (ISU), how can one say there were "intending" to do so at the other school (Marshall)? Either way, the subjective determination of intent does not change what that player is going to do...unless you are simply going to stop a graduate from continuing playing. This would lead to the obvious result of players spreading out credits to graduate when they are done.
So I ask again: Why not reward a kid who graduates with playing time left?
The obvious reason, and the only one I can come up with (anybody else?) is that it isn't "fair" to the school. If the kid couldn't transfer while an undergrad, why should they be allowed to transfer as a post-grad? I guess the follow-up reason to that would be competitive advantage, if everyone could graduate early and transfer, it could, theoretically, negate the transfer rules altogether.
A) I don't see it as an urgent, or even prevalent issue;
B) How could that be a bad thing? If the negative result of allowing this is many, many more kids graduating early....where is the downside?
"I kind of think if the NCAA keeps allowing it, you
are going to see the NCAA turn into the NFL free agency market. Kids
leaving from schools and going elsewhere. It will be a mess. "
I repeat: How could kids graduating early and then seeking graduate studies ever be considered a mess?
I'm going to co-opt LC's post: "What you are
arguing is that a grad student -- somebody who already has demonstrated
some seriousness about academics, obviously -- should be held to a
stricter standard in terms of intent than an undergrad. That's just
backwards."
It is backwards, those students have "succeeded" and yet we want to judge their intent?
I have read, and understand, the many posts on here urging these transfers to sit a year. I would be on board with that if it wasn't a punishment, i.e. it didn't remove a "year" of playing time, regardless of redshirt. We could argue over the importance/necessity of a redshirt in general, but since we have them, I haven't considered this without them. So, to me, the next question is why do we require "5 to play 4" or that a kid lose/burn a year due to transfer?
Clearly the undergrad reason to burn a year is punishment/deterrence. If every kid could simply transfer without punishment, we would most certainly see many more transfers. We have decided we don't want that, so we put this punishment in to place. I can see how it benefits competitive advantage, I fail to see how it benefits any student. If the importance is to make them sit to acclimate to new surroundings, then the same should be true for freshman, in general, and there wouldn't be a reason to actually burn the year.
But, then what is the point of doing so for graduates? The idea of "student-athlete" is that "free college degree". i.e. "Come play for us and get your degree!" Ok, so they did that, they achieved what was bargained for, shouldn't they be "done" with that school, if they choose? At least at this point the graduate transfer rule is not prevalent enough to be a problem. Should it become a problem (again, how can too many people graduating be a problem?) then maybe it should be revisited.
How many grad transfers have there been in the last decade?
-----------------
Maybe someone with more knowledge of the history of the rule can explain this, but why do we care how long it takes to complete a playing career? Starting with the presumption that the schools/coaches can only work with a kid who is "officially" on the team, who cares if it takes them 8 years to play four? Presuming those players a) want scholarship while attending school and b) are counting against the school's scholarship limit, why do we require them to do it in 5?
---------------
Why do some of you think that a person who starts a grad degree is required to finish it? We don't require for anybody else. They are often quite expensive and demanding, and you'd be requiring it for kids who are on scholarship to begin with....who no longer have that scholarship.
If someone offered to pay for a year of Medical School, would you attend? With it paid for, sure. Without it paid for? Most, probably not. So why should we require them to attend on their own dime?
As I type this, this thought popped up: How about requiring a school receiving a grad transfer must guarantee, say, a three-year Graduate scholarship? Therefore they tie up fairly significant money, and the grad can use it beyond their final year of athletics.
I don't see regulations on undergraduate graduation (GSR rates, for example) even comparable to completion of a grad degree, mostly for the reason above, they don't get any money to finish their degree. Getting graduate school education, even if for one year, is quite valuable, often much more valuable than a year of undergrad. Just because it doesn't end with a piece of paper, doesn't make it less valuable than that 4th year of undergrad.
-----------------
DanL: "To me, the important thing is ensuring a kid get a four
year degree."
If the degree is the important thing, why not incentivize it? Your next paragraph is:
"In fact, I see opportunity to play as a privilege and one
that should be revoked or suspended for transfers. They do that in
high school for a reason."
How can you use this sentence with your previous one? If the important thing is a degree...why would anyone be punished for transferring? They are seeking a degree, whether at School A or School B. You seem to see this as more of a contractual issue than anything else, their decision prior to attending is all that matters to you. i.e. "You signed up, live with it or else." I fail to see how that does anything to encourage obtaining a degree.
"As to graduate degrees go back to my first
two paragraphs and tell me how having access to graduate courses is
fair. If kids that never redshirted aren't afforded the
opportunity...this can't really be about education."
I disregarded that previous post above, because its logic largely fails. You seem to be saying that Redshirts graduate in 4, and can then transfer and do "unfair" graduate courses, while Non-Redshirts graduate in 4 and don't have playing time left. Ok, so? This isn't a complaint about the grad transfer rule, and has nothing to do with "being about education", your issue is with the redshirt rule (or, alternatively, limiting playing years to 4). The grad transfer has nothing to do with it, a Non-Redshirt could graduate in 3 years and transfer. Either way they only have 4 years to play. The only change would be removing redshirt entirely. Is that what you are suggesting?
---------------------------
DavenportHawk: "They are not finishing step 4 and getting a free year of tuition.
That's where I have problem with it. They are getting a Free ride and
essentially taking up a spot in some graduate program and then they
don't even finish it. They are using it as an excuse to play another
year of sports. "
I don't get how using the term "free year of tuition" is thrown around here like it serves some purpose. By definition, each and every athlete on scholarship is receiving that free year. If the person doesn't transfer, isn't he still required to attend classes/grad program? And wouldn't he be doing it for free? The only difference is School A vs. School B.
Then you seem to feel bad for, I guess, other students who don't get in because of the athlete? I guess I don't understand this. Either the athlete is accepted to the program, like everyone else, or they wouldn't be there. Are you concerned about athletic privileges? Why would this begin in grad school?
You have now, without basis, determined that all grad-transfers are using it as an excuse to play sports. Even if true, how are you differentiating that from their previous years of college football? They were serious students before, but now that they are in grad school they aren't?
"I would offer that the player has to redshirt or sit out a
year and complete at least 50% of the graduate program before they can
play."
So now you put a more onerous standard on graduates than you do on undergrads? There must be a reason...what is it?
"I know some graduate programs only have limited number of seats
and these athletes get to enroll because they are athletes. I realize
people start something and don't finish it, but these guys are not even
trying. They enroll to play another year and then move on. Its a joke. "
Care to back up any of this speculation with some sort of facts, link, citation, whatever? You say you realize some start and don't finish...and then immediately decide that they aren't there to actually be in the grad program. Weird justification.
--------------------------
DanL again: "You think this is about rewarding players? No! It's
about using that fourth year on the court. Take that out of the
equation and this debate doesn't exist."
Please explain how the grad transfer rule has anything to do with your above statement. Are you pushing for a rule that eliminates a player from "using that fourth year on the court" once they have graduated early?
Phew.
