Kansas Crimson

Ous is right, that is why the rule was first enacted in late 40's, early 50's. Coaches were recruiting other school's players.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:12 pm LOL

I thought it was something to do with players and/or coaches not shopping around for the best rosters every year or something, but for the ncaa that makes perfect sense.

Which is to say, it don’t make sense at all.

My proposal would be that if a kid's scholarship (and other stuff) isn't a five-year (four playing years in five) commitment from a school, then the kid should be able to transfer freely.

Geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:13 pm Ous is right, that is why the rule was first enacted in late 40's, early 50's. Coaches were recruiting other school's players.

Not sure what was true 80 years ago, but the current stated rule is that it's because of academics. Only way they can justify having it in 2 sports only.


The recruiting other players concern is just a copout argument by guys like Doug Gottlieb. There's no reason to punish players for bad coach behavior.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:20 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:12 pm LOL

I thought it was something to do with players and/or coaches not shopping around for the best rosters every year or something, but for the ncaa that makes perfect sense.

Which is to say, it don’t make sense at all.

My proposal would be that if a kid's scholarship (and other stuff) isn't a five-year (four playing years in five) commitment from a school, then the kid should be able to transfer freely.

Seems like you're arguing for contractual rights. Room & Board and that degree, what else do these kids want?!

Sure - add a head coaching change (or NCAA troubles in which the player was uninvolved) to my list.

Perhaps demonstrably poor academic performance should be the only reason a transferring player should be subjected to sitting out?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:18 am Perhaps demonstrably poor academic performance should be the only reason a transferring player should be subjected to sitting out?

I don't know - I think there's definitely harm to the game where guys are changing spots on a yearly basis. However, I am uncomfortable arguing hard against freedom of movement where the guys are getting fucked over on how the sport's economics work.

Make the scholarships guaranteed for fours years and I would have no issues with the current transfer rules. Don't mess with the grad-transfer rule. Anyone who gets a degree should be rewarded.

Jfish I just read your earlier post...same thought

Yeah, its really tough to defend any forced sit out rule when a player is on a one year scholarship.

Make them multi-year, they should be anyway, independent of transfer rules.

Make scholarships one-year with rollover...if they school that the player is transferring from wants the player to sit out a year then that school can't fill the scholarship, if the school gives a waiver then the player is eligible immediately and the can replace the scholarship...13 scholarships still but with a twist. You have one transfer and then the window is closed unless you are a grad transfer...college degrees count as a get out of scholarships free card