NCAA considers new transfer rule tied to GPA

[Gopher07]

Athletes who receive permission to contact other schools would be eligible to play immediately at their new school if their GPA is 2.6 or higher. Those who fall below that would follow today's rules (sit out a year, get additional year of eligibility).

Athletes would still need to get permission to contact another school before transferring. But permission would be tied to practice and competition, not athletics aid. So even if permission was denied, the student-athlete would still be able to receive a scholarship.

Athletes who qualify for the transfer exemption in the APR would be permitted to play immediately at the new school. That would make a 2.600 GPA the magic number to play immediately.

Athletes who do not qualify to play immediately at the next school would still receive an extension of their five-year clock so they can use all their eligibility.

Tampering with an athlete by another school would be considered a severe breach of conduct, a Level I violation, the highest in the NCAA’s new enforcement structure.

http://www.athleticscholarships.net...del-would-reduce-eligibility-consequences.htm

 

[Sportsfan24]

I like it, I hope they pass it.

My preference would be the current rule with one exception, if a head coach leaves all players can transfer and be immediately eligible.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Interesting in that it might give a coach the option of bringing star players along with him to a new school provided they are getting it done in the classroom as well. If a kid knows he doesn't have to sit a year he might be more likely to follow a head coach or favorite assistant coach in the event that coach is fired or decides to leave on his own.

 

[wait!what?]

imagine coaches hoping a kid does poorly in class so they stick with a program. this'll gut college football as we know it.

 

[skauma]

Its good for the players, but now schools that push academics to their players, are now at a bigger risk of losing players, whereas a team who doesnt care about the student part of student athlete, has a higher chance at retaining players. They should also implement something like...players with a 2.6 GPA can transfer without having to sit for a year, only to a program whoes cumulative GPA is 2.6.

 

[Ski U Master]

2.6 is laughably low considering all the help and structure available to players.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

2.6? Wow. The NCAA sure likes to drive their athletes towards excellence. Or is it mediocrity now?

 

[e.bigelow]

I like it, I hope they pass it.

My preference would be the current rule with one exception, if a head coach leaves all players can transfer and be immediately eligible.

Gosh, another thing I agree with you on! HAHA!

I like the, if a Head Coach leaves, players can leave and be immidiately eligible. But, my question would be, would that include JUST coaches that transfer to a new school, or would it encompass all types of coaching changes? I.E., firings, retirements, etc.

I think you would have to limit it to coaches that transfer to a new school. Although, that may be incredibly tough to enforce.

 

[Gopherpride13]

imagine coaches hoping a kid does poorly in class so they stick with a program. this'll gut college football as we know it.

Stupid comment. This would not gut college football as we know it.

 

[MNVCGUY]

2.6 is laughably low considering all the help and structure available to players.

And that isn't even the minimum standard. To be eligible you just need a 2.0 which if you just show up and do the minimum should be possible in most cases. I have a hard time feeling sorry for any kid that flunks out because they have tons of resources at their disposal if they are willing to just do a little bit of work.

But hey if having the ability to transfer incentivises some guys to pay more attention in the classroom it seems like a good idea to me.

One side effect of this would be that anyone with a 2.6 GPA would essentially be a free agent at that point. The mention in the OP about getting permission is a little confusing so maybe that would be there to keep players from openly shopping themselves to other schools if their current school doesn't want to let them go.

 

[Ski U Master]

And that isn't even the minimum standard. To be eligible you just need a 2.0 which if you just show up and do the minimum should be possible in most cases. I have a hard time feeling sorry for any kid that flunks out because they have tons of resources at their disposal if they are willing to just do a little bit of work.

Completely agree.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Gosh, another thing I agree with you on! HAHA!

I like the, if a Head Coach leaves, players can leave and be immidiately eligible. But, my question would be, would that include JUST coaches that transfer to a new school, or would it encompass all types of coaching changes? I.E., firings, retirements, etc.

I think you would have to limit it to coaches that transfer to a new school. Although, that may be incredibly tough to enforce.

I don't like it at all. This would really hurt low level programs like the MAC where coaches are moving all the time. For MAC schools, it sucks when coaches leave, but it's also usually a good sign for your program as it means you're hiring good coaches who end up moving on to greener pastures.

I think it might be better if the rule was only if a coach left after a year or two.

 

[wait!what?]

Stupid comment. This would not gut college football as we know it.

making a static into a dynamic changes everything.

 

[Schnauzer]

I wonder if it is sort of a can of worms, considering with a wink - a 2.6 at one school is like a 3.0 at another - and so on...

 

[Sportsfan24]

Gosh, another thing I agree with you on! HAHA!

I like the, if a Head Coach leaves, players can leave and be immidiately eligible. But, my question would be, would that include JUST coaches that transfer to a new school, or would it encompass all types of coaching changes? I.E., firings, retirements, etc.

I think you would have to limit it to coaches that transfer to a new school. Although, that may be incredibly tough to enforce.

Your standards are getting pretty low!

I would limit it to head coaches who voluntarily leave with the exception being retirement.

 

[Sportsfan24]

And that isn't even the minimum standard. To be eligible you just need a 2.0 which if you just show up and do the minimum should be possible in most cases. I have a hard time feeling sorry for any kid that flunks out because they have tons of resources at their disposal if they are willing to just do a little bit of work.But hey if having the ability to transfer incentivises some guys to pay more attention in the classroom it seems like a good idea to me.

One side effect of this would be that anyone with a 2.6 GPA would essentially be a free agent at that point. The mention in the OP about getting permission is a little confusing so maybe that would be there to keep players from openly shopping themselves to other schools if their current school doesn't want to let them go.

I could not possible agree with you more.

It will never happen but I would love to see a rule that requires athletes to retroactively pay for their education if they flunk out. You have to work harder to flunk out of school than to work to remain in school. The academic support that's availible to these young men is incredible....all they have to do is show up and use it.

 

[Catechol]

Its good for the players, but now schools that push academics to their players, are now at a bigger risk of losing players, whereas a team who doesnt care about the student part of student athlete, has a higher chance at retaining players. They should also implement something like...players with a 2.6 GPA can transfer without having to sit for a year, only to a program whoes cumulative GPA is 2.6.

This is a good point. I also think it shoudl be higher than 2.6 to reward someone with immediate eligibility. Perhaps if they keep that low bar, they should be required to take at least one quarter/semester at the new school and achieve a 2.6 as well. This could mean taking a half load of summer credits if one transfers after the school year, and you woudl still be able to play that same fall.

 

[Gopherprof]

imagine coaches hoping a kid does poorly in class so they stick with a program. this'll gut college football as we know it.

*rolls eyes*

Yeah, it's the end of the world.

This is long overdue. The Bo Ryan episode shows how insanely hypocritical coaches and the NCAA are about player mobility. Coaches can leave whenever they want (and can essentially cut scholarships at their leisure) but players are heavily punished for doing the same thing.

 

[Gopherprof]

2.6 is laughably low considering all the help and structure available to players.

Depends on why they set it at that #. If the idea is that you don't want to reward players who are clearly messing around, a 2.6 is a pretty good standard (a student athlete with a 2.8 might not be a Rhodes Scholar, but that's not a terrible GPA by any means). It doesn't necessarily reward students who are great students, but it does punish students who clearly don't give a damn about their studies.

I can say from experience that there are plenty of students in college who do work very hard and can't do much better than a 2.6 (a 2.67 is a B-, so that's really not that bad). Not everyone is created intellectually equal, especially considering the putrid inner-city schools that many of these athletes come from.

 

[Killjoy]

Rules on Cutting Scholarships

*rolls eyes*

Yeah, it's the end of the world.

This is long overdue. The Bo Ryan episode shows how insanely hypocritical coaches and the NCAA are about player mobility. Coaches can leave whenever they want (and can essentially cut scholarships at their leisure) but players are heavily punished for doing the same thing.

I remember that there was a discussion here less than a year ago about whether a school could take away a scholarship from a scholarship recruited player later. What I recall from that discussion was that in the Big Ten there were a only a couple of schools, including Minnesota, that had rules that would allow that to do this. In addition, there was a discussion about he Big Ten was in the process of putting in rules in effect so no school could take back a scholarship back from a scholarship recruit without cause.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, when Barry Alvarez came to Wisconsin, he basically cleaned house of those players who didn't meet his requirements. Coach Kill stated that when he arrived here that he couldn't do this now even though he found out that there were several recruited scholarship players on the squad that were not division one quality players. I know that there is this belief that coaches can cut scholarship recruited players at their whim but it just isn't true. Another belief is that a coach can then make life so miserable for a player that they will just leave. I am sure this has happened in the past and it may still happen now but it is no longer the norm. If you believe it is, just look at next years junior and senior and see how many scholarship players you can identify that will probably never contribute but will must likely be on scholarship for one or two more years. I am sure Coach Kill has suggested that he could help them to find a better fit but ultimately it is the players' decision.

 

[Gopherprof]

I know that there is this belief that coaches can cut scholarship recruited players at their whim but it just isn't true.

Just isn't true in the Big Ten, which makes up about 10-15% of FBS football. Look into oversinging in most conferences and it tells a different story.

Another belief is that a coach can then make life so miserable for a player that they will just leave. I am sure this has happened in the past and it may still happen now but it is no longer the norm. If you believe it is, just look at next years junior and senior and see how many scholarship players you can identify that will probably never contribute but will must likely be on scholarship for one or two more years. I am sure Coach Kill has suggested that he could help them to find a better fit but ultimately it is the players' decision.

Again, I'm not sure why you thought I was only talking about Minnesota. There are far shadier programs out there.

 

[50PoundHead]

This really empowers the athlete and it may exacerbate the "have" v. "have not" issues currently existing. I'm maybe being too cynical, but "have not" teams could, in effect, become the AAA system for "have" teams.

 

[Killjoy]

Just isn't true in the Big Ten, which makes up about 10-15% of FBS football. Look into oversinging in most conferences and it tells a different story.


Again, I'm not sure why you thought I was only talking about Minnesota. There are far shadier programs out there.

For some reason we seem to be talking about two different things. I was responding to your statement that "Coaches can leave whenever they want (and can essentially cut scholarships at their leisure) but players are heavily punished for doing the same thing."

I was not talking about oversigning but talking about taking away a scholarship from a player already enrolled at the school, attending classes and on scholarship. Once this occurs at almost all Big Ten schools you can't take away the scholarship without cause. What I also stated was that Minnesota was one of the few Big Ten schools that didn't preclude this from happening. This is in the process of being changed by the Big Ten so that all schools must follow the same rules.

 

[Gopherprof]

For some reason we seem to be talking about two different things. I was responding to your statement that "Coaches can leave whenever they want (and can essentially cut scholarships at their leisure) but players are heavily punished for doing the same thing."

I was not talking about oversigning but talking about taking away a scholarship from a player already enrolled at the school, attending classes and on scholarship. Once this occurs at almost all Big Ten schools you can't take away the scholarship without cause. What I also stated was that Minnesota was one of the few Big Ten schools that didn't preclude this from happening. This is in the process of being changed by the Big Ten so that all schools must follow the same rules.

Yes, but those regulations don't exist in other leagues. Oversigning is dependent upon the ability to cut players, which happens frequently at schools like Alabama, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Florida State, LSU, etc. Steve Spurrier basically came out and said that he cut a kid because he wasn't very good, and that there was nothing wrong with that because scholarships are one-year deals (technically he was right). Again, I don't know why you're only using the Big Ten as an example, when that makes up 10% of FBS football.

 

[Sportsfan24]

Coaches run kids off all the time in every program.

You can make it known they will never play. Move them to bottom of the depth chart, even if they are better than those ahead them (you never admit it of course). Folks outside the program will assume the kid can't play and if he saids something he's just whiner....right?

You can berate, embarrass or verbally abuse them....or all of the above. Again if the kid saids something he is just a whiner, the coach was just showing tough love...right? The kid was too soft.

Kid gets an injury....say a concussion. Then he has a cronic concussion problem and he can never play football again. Presto, the scholarship becomes a medical scholarship. The kids gets to attend school for free and more importantly the school gets that scholarship count back so they can use it
again (it's actually being used twice but it counts as one. Back injuries are another favorite that's used for this purpose. This ones a win win for every one involved...but usually completely bogus.

My all time favorite is dismissing a kid from the team (pulling his scholarship) for misconduct. You better not be a red shirt junior who's a 4th team tackle and get caught jay walking! I find nothing wrong with this one either...if you're my wife and you are fat, ugly and you just lost your job? You better not roll your eyes or say ONE thing out of pocket!

My point? Folks seldom just say we took this kids scholarship because he sucks.

Disclaimer:
No; I'm not talking or insinuating anything about coach Kill or the U. I'm just an old athlete talking about things I know to be true over MY many years of sports involvement. Notice the word MY sports involvement...not daughter, friend, wife, husband (not that theirs anything wrong with it) and certainly most definitely not son.

 

[Killjoy]

Sportsfan24

Coaches run kids off all the time in every program.

Since you stated that this happens in ever program I assume that includes Minnesota. It also seems to be a subject where everyone has an opinion but there is little factual information used to back up these opinions. I expect that you're right that it happens in some programs but I don't believe it happens at Minnesota, especially all the time . The reason I say this is that (1.) Almost all of the Big Ten schools prohibit this practice and (2.) The data doesn't support this.

Therefore with great trepidation I am going to use real names to support my belief that it isn't happening at Minnesota. If it was, several of next year's junior and senior scholarship players who would have already been run off the program. Here is a partial list of next year's junior and senior players who appear to have very little chance of actually seeing playing time (I apologize again for having to resort to real examples to prove my point): James Gillum, Malcolm Moulton, Moses Alipate, K. Gregory-McGhee, Dan Orseski, Logan Hutton, Cameron Wilson. The list certainly may be incorrect but I am very comfortable in stating that a large majority of the players on this list will not be significant contributors here.

I also think it is important to note that Kill does encourage players to seek other opportunities if they are not a good fit with the program but ultimately it is their choice as to whether to leave or stay. Again, if it wasn't, many of the above players would have left by now. I am sure it is not easy for some of these scholarship players to stay, knowing that they have probably been written off, but as can be seen from the above list many do. The lucky ones hopefully get some help from coach Kill in finding a new school that is a better fit for talents.

I am not naive about this issue and I know that in other conferences there may be serious abuses out there. If you think this happens "all the time at every school," including Minnesota I would like to see some proof of this statement.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Coaches run kids off all the time in every program.

You can make it known they will never play. Move them to bottom of the depth chart, even if they are better than those ahead them (you never admit it of course). Folks outside the program will assume the kid can't play and if he saids something he's just whiner....right?

There is a gigantic difference between a coach putting a kid at the bottom of a depth chart and running him out of the school. I don't think there is anything immoral about putting a kid at the bottom of a depth chart, I think pulling a scholarship is atrocious.

I don't think anyone thinks a kid is a whiner if he says that he isn't going to get playing time and therefore, he wants to move on (see Max Shortell). Everybody said nice things about Max on his way out and most of us were really disappointed to see him leave. He essentially said, I'm behind someone on the depth chart and I think I can play. We all understood and he's moved on. Good luck to him.

You can berate, embarrass or verbally abuse them....or all of the above. Again if the kid saids something he is just a whiner, the coach was just showing tough love...right? The kid was too soft.

I realize what you've said at the end of your posting, but I've never seen a situation where this got brought up outside of the AJ Barker fiasco. Again, in that situation, it was about the FORM and TIMING of what AJ said that made him a weirdo, it wasn't about the content (except the mom's friend and refusal to ice an ankle).

My all time favorite is dismissing a kid from the team (pulling his scholarship) for misconduct. You better not be a red shirt junior who's a 4th team tackle and get caught jay walking! I find nothing wrong with this one either...if you're my wife and you are fat, ugly and you just lost your job? You better not roll your eyes or say ONE thing out of pocket!

I couldn't agree more. If a kid is misbehaving, I have no problem with a coach pulling his scholarship, even if he wouldn't have pulled the scholarship for the same misconduct by a star player.

My point? Folks seldom just say we took this kids scholarship because he sucks.

But none of the scenarios involve a coach pulling a kid's scholarship. Getting buried on the depth chart is really unfortunate for the upper classmen who might have gotten more PT on a different regime, but it has nothing to do with getting a scholarship pulled. Those students are still allowed to get a degree from their university, play on the football team (might not get into games), etc.

Players who aren't cutting it behaviorally (spelling?) and academically...well, it's their own fault. The coach didn't pull their scholarship, they essentially forfeited their scholarships with their own misconduct.

 

[Sportsfan24]

Since you stated that this happens in ever program I assume that includes Minnesota. It also seems to be a subject where everyone has an opinion but there is little factual information used to back up these opinions. I expect that you're right that it happens in some programs but I don't believe it happens at Minnesota, especially all the time . The reason I say this is that (1.) Almost all of the Big Ten schools prohibit this practice and (2.) The data doesn't support this.

Therefore with great trepidation I am going to use real names to support my belief that it isn't happening at Minnesota. If it was, several of next year's junior and senior scholarship players who would have already been run off the program. Here is a partial list of next year's junior and senior players who appear to have very little chance of actually seeing playing time (I apologize again for having to resort to real examples to prove my point): James Gillum, Malcolm Moulton, Moses Alipate, K. Gregory-McGhee, Dan Orseski, Logan Hutton, Cameron Wilson. The list
certainly may be incorrect but I am very comfortable in stating that a large majority of the players on this list will not be significant contributors here.

I also think it is important to note that Kill does encourage players to seek other
opportunities if they are not a good fit with the program but ultimately it is their
choice as to whether to leave or stay. Again, if it wasn't, many of the above
players would have left by now. I am sure it is not easy for some of these
scholarship players to stay, knowing that they have probably been written off, but
as can be seen from the above list many do. The lucky ones hopefully get some
help from coach Kill in finding a new school that is a better fit for talents.

I am not naive about this issue and I know that in other conferences there may be
serious abuses out there. If you think this happens "all the time at every school,"
including Minnesota I would like to see some proof of this statement.

I have had no problem being critical of coach Kill. Here it is....you can feel
good about the gophers and coach Kill on this topic (most topics actually).

Speaking in general terms. Run off players may be the wrong adjective. Mutually reclaiming scholarships may be better; and yes it happens at every program....and that's a good thing for all involved.

 

[Sportsfan24]

There is a gigantic difference between a coach putting a kid at the bottom of a depth chart and running him out of the school. I don't think there is anything immoral about putting a kid at the bottom of a depth chart, I think pulling a scholarship is atrocious.

I don't think anyone thinks a kid is a whiner if he says that he isn't going to get playing time and therefore, he wants to move on (see Max Shortell). Everybody said nice things about Max on his way out and most of us were really disappointed to see him leave. He essentially said, I'm behind someone on the depth chart and I think I can play. We all understood and he's moved on. Good luck to him.



I realize what you've said at the end of your posting, but I've never seen a situation where this got brought up outside of the AJ Barker fiasco. Again, in that situation,
it was about the FORM and TIMING of what AJ said that made him a weirdo, it
wasn't about the content (except the mom's friend and refusal to ice an ankle).

I couldn't agree more. If a kid is misbehaving, I have no problem with a coach pulling his scholarship, even if he wouldn't have pulled the scholarship for the same
misconduct by a star player.

But none of the scenarios involve a coach pulling a kid's scholarship. Getting buried
on the depth chart is really unfortunate for the upper classmen who might have
gotten more PT on a different regime, but it has nothing to do with getting a
scholarship pulled. Those students are still allowed to get a degree from their university, play on the football team (might not get into games), etc.

Players who aren't cutting it behaviorally (spelling?) and academically...well, it's
their own fault. The coach didn't pull their scholarship, they essentially forfeited
their scholarships with their own misconduct.

Great points. In the end I think we agree it's just the semantics of how we get there.

 

[Unregistered User]

This really empowers the athlete and it may exacerbate the "have" v. "have not" issues currently existing. I'm maybe being too cynical, but "have not" teams could, in effect, become the AAA system for "have" teams.

^This.

Imagine a situation like the MAC, and assume they also adopt a rule put forth by Sportsfan24 where a player can transfer is the coach voluntarily leaves (which is a rule I would like to see adopted).

They have a lot of players that would have preferred to go to a BCS conference, they could view the non-BCS conferences as a proving grounds. It could also delay the upward movement of good coaches, because they'll have to re-stock the transfers with more and more younger, unproven players.

I like that they're considering some measures to have the student/athletes consider their academic career in conjunction with their athletic career, but this might turn into a classic study in unintended consequences.