Sorry, not to be a conspiracy theorist, because I know someone (in this thread?) was banging this drum.
But in reviewing the announcement from the NCAA about updating the transfer waiver guidelines ..... I did indeed see one of their highlighted criteria is with regards to disciplinary action on the previous team.
So it is plausible that while most other transfers could get waivers to be immediately eligible in 2020-21, those who did have discipline issues might be denied.
Yeah, I was the one pointing that out earlier. If you go back a couple pages, you can find my diatribe on that subject.
The short version is that if they pass the proposed rule change (on May 20, I think) then no sit-out-year is the new norm. The academic sub-rule is required anyway, so the only gotcha-type sub-rule is the no disciplinary action rule.
So (1) no-wait would be the new norm, so any denial of the benefits of that new rule would constitute an explicit punishment by the NCAA for something that never had any review by NCAA staff. Should the NCAA be in the business of implementing punishment for alleged past crimes for which there was no hearing or investigation, and is basically none of their business?
(2) The facts will be out there for new prospective coaches to see, so if a coach fears future disciplinary or attitude issues, they can act accordingly. There shouldn’t be the extra burden of, “gee, I have to wait an extra year for this player to play.”
(3) The past is the past, and that past history might be why the player wants to move. Without a hearing, there’s no guarantee the disciplinary action was even justified. Given the tenets of the US Constitution, putting the NCAA in the role of executor of a sentence for an alleged crime for which there was never any trial, and perhaps not even an opportunity for the student-athlete to confront her accusers, just stinks to the high heavens, and is perhaps even worthy of a law suit by the ACLU.
(4) Who the heck cares if they had some discipline issue? As noted, it should only be the business of the prospective new coach.
(5) How many transfers do you think involve disciplinary action, anyway? Do you think there’s 10 more besides Destiny? One more? Maybe nobody besides her, in women’s basketball anyway? Could very well be the latter. I don’t know that the transfer portal has a checkbox for that. I suspect that there are so-few/none such that this sub-rule about no disciplinary action is tantamount to a special sub-rule that punishes only (or mainly) Destiny Pitts.
(6) Therefore, I think that sub-rule is totally stupid, and adds nothing of any value to the proposed new rule, and ought to be simply stricken from the proposal.
(7) I pointed out recently that in practice (if approved) it might depend on how it’s administratively implemented. Does a questionnaire go to Minnesota, and do they have to answer “was there any disciplinary action involved?” If so, maybe Minnesota just signs it “no” because they have no desire to punish her further. Or, maybe they sign it “yes” simply for fear of NCAA disciplinary action to the program for not being truthful.
(8) In summary, that whole no-disciplinary-action sub-clause is just a big mess, and was not well thought out, and they should just delete that line.
(9) Meanwhile, latest rumblings out of the NCAA suggest that although they will allow the vote on it to proceed, some of the powers within the NCAA (besides the study committee) are recommending not to approve it.
So I guess we’ll see later on this month.
Meanwhile, Destiny Pitts is ranked number two among transfer portal (regular transfer) prospects. They say she’ll be a starter wherever she goes.