Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jameson McCausland

NCAA passes new transfer and redshirt rules

Recommended Posts

The NCAA passed two new important rules changes onWednesday.

Beginning in October, players will no longer need permission from their coach or school to transfer. 

Via the NCAA

Beginning in October, Division I student-athletes will have the ability to transfer to a different school and receive a scholarship without asking their current school for permission.

The Division I Council adopted a proposal this week that creates a new “notification-of-transfer” model. This new system allows a student to inform his or her current school of a desire to transfer, then requires that school to enter the student’s name into a national transfer database within two business days. Once the student-athlete’s name is in the database, other coaches are free to contact that individual.

The previous transfer rule, which required student-athletes to get permission from their current school to contact another school before they can receive a scholarship after transfer, was intended to discourage coaches from recruiting student-athletes from other Division I schools. The rule change ends the controversial practice in which some coaches or administrators would prevent students from having contact with specific schools. Conferences, however, still can make rules that are more restrictive than the national rule.

In addition to the transfer rule, the NCAA also implemented a new redshirt policy. Beginning in the 2018 season, players can now play up to 4 games and still receive a redshirt year.

VIA the NCAA

Council chair Blake James, athletics director at Miami (Florida), said the rule change benefits student-athletes and coaches alike.

“This change promotes not only fairness for college athletes, but also their health and well-being. Redshirt football student-athletes are more likely to remain engaged with the team, and starters will be less likely to feel pressure to play through injuries,” James said. “Coaches will appreciate the additional flexibility and ability to give younger players an opportunity to participate in limited competition.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertise on HornSports

I don't like either rule. It appears the transfer thing could become as big as recruiting itself, except with fewer numbers (one would hope) but with proven names.

Play four games and still redshirt? I can see coaches using that to their advantage and still get the benefit of having the player a fifth year.

Its so different, I think you have to come up with an entirely different term. Playing four games isn't part of a redshirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The redshirt rule I am ok with. The transfer rule seems a little vague and open. On one hand with the conferences still having control, what will actually be allowed? And on the other hand, will this become open season the minute a kid gets his feelings hurt because he didnt start as a freshman? 

Overall I like the concept and freedom for the players to move around. Just hope there are some controls in place to keep this from becoming a circus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jameson McCausland said:

The redshirt rule is something Tom Herman lobbied for during the 2017 season. He said players like Kobe Boyce and Montrell Estell would have played towards the end of last season if they could have preserved their redshirt.

lol, well yeah. The same thing can be said for every redshirt there ever was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see some benefit in the transfer rule when a coach leaves/gets fired from the school. Athletes aren't bound to stay at the school. I always thought it was unfair that a coach can leave for greener pastures but a student-athlete could not. I would have liked to see it fleshed out a little more than. It seems to open ended and I can see a lot of gaming the system.

As for the redshirt change, I'm on the fence with it. I like that a coach can play a kid a couple of games to see what they can do. I can see where it will keep athletes more involved with the team. That is a definite plus. I think it also helps starters if they get hurt early in the season. They won't have to come back too fast. If you get a rash of injuries, you can play redshirted players for up to 4 games before pulling the redshirt. I see that helping with some QBs. The downside is we won't see non scholarship players as much. I kind of liked watching them play in blowouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UTfish said:

I'm worried about aggy.  What if they can't keep enough players to field the 11th man, much less the 12th?

I don't think it matters if the aggies can field 11 or not. You're assuming they can count that high. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12  :huh:

The next aggie up will be the 12th man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this means....a school can be figured to be loaded for the next year....if they just had a great,great running back or QB so the scouting staff looks around for the best QB or RB in college ranks and starts recruiting him to have his only possible chance at being on a national championship team.....Think that wont happen? It might even be a Hieseman hopeful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldhorn2 said:

So this means....a school can be figured to be loaded for the next year....if they just had a great,great running back or QB so the scouting staff looks around for the best QB or RB in college ranks and starts recruiting him to have his only possible chance at being on a national championship team.....Think that wont happen? It might even be a Hieseman hopeful.

The player would still have to sit out a year (if they are not a grad-transfer). All that the new rule does is prevent a coach/school from restricting where a player is allowed to transfer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m fine with both rule changes. The redshirt rule prevents kids from having their redshirt years burned when they could really benefit from it and coaches can get creative with how they can get young guys involved while still preserving the redshirt. 

I knew many wouldn’t be fans of the Transfer rule, but I’ve never been okay with schools having the right to setup so many road blocks as far as restrictions go when a kid wants to leave. If a kid doesn’t want to be there then it’s pretty petty in my book to try to control where he goes afterwards. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daniel Seahorn said:

I’m fine with both rule changes. The redshirt rule prevents kids from having their redshirt years burned when they could really benefit from it and coaches can get creative with how they can get young guys involved while still preserving the redshirt. 

I knew many wouldn’t be fans of the Transfer rule, but I’ve never been okay with schools having the right to setup so many road blocks as far as restrictions go when a kid wants to leave. If a kid doesn’t want to be there then it’s pretty petty in my book to try to control where he goes afterwards. 

 

My problem with the transfer rule is this, how can you keep a coach from recruiting a player signed to another school without a tampering rule in place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Baron said:

My problem with the transfer rule is this, how can you keep a coach from recruiting a player signed to another school without a tampering rule in place?

I mean if we are being honest, coaches probably tampered before his rule was passed anyway. I don’t know if this rule will make it more blatant, but rules weren’t exactly stopping schools from bending the rules before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Daniel Seahorn said:

I mean if we are being honest, coaches probably tampered before his rule was passed anyway. I don’t know if this rule will make it more blatant, but rules weren’t exactly stopping schools from bending the rules before. 

If your assumption is correct and we're being honest, this opens the door for even more blatant tampering. Sorry, I don't want to be argumentative, but there needs to be a rule that there can be no contact with employees of another school until the student athlete has given his school a notice of transfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Baron said:

If your assumption is correct and we're being honest, this opens the door for even more blatant tampering. Sorry, I don't want to be argumentative, but there needs to be a rule that there can be no contact with employees of another school until the student athlete has given his school a notice of transfer.

I agree there needs to be rule, but there will always be people trying to find ways around it. At the end of the day if a kid wants out then he will leave and he won’t really need any motivation from folks elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Daniel Seahorn said:

I agree there needs to be rule, but there will always be people trying to find ways around it. At the end of the day if a kid wants out then he will leave and he won’t really need any motivation from folks elsewhere. 

I'm not worried about the kids that want to transfer on their own accord. I'm worried about coaches unduly influencing signed players. If this rule goes into effect as is, you're opening Pandorra's Box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Baron said:

I'm not worried about the kids that want to transfer on their own accord. I'm worried about coaches unduly influencing signed players. If this rule goes into effect as is, you're opening Pandorra's Box.

I can maybe see this being an issue if a kid signs and have some buyer’s remorse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Baron said:

My problem with the transfer rule is this, how can you keep a coach from recruiting a player signed to another school without a tampering rule in place?

Well, the way I read it is that a player would still have to decide on transferring first.  After that, his name goes into a database which is made available to other coaches after a waiting period.  So coaches still can't contact any kid signed with another team.  They technically have to wait until the name pops up in the DB.  I think that's correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, texbound said:

Well, the way I read it is that a player would still have to decide on transferring first.  After that, his name goes into a database which is made available to other coaches after a waiting period.  So coaches still can't contact any kid signed with another team.  They technically have to wait until the name pops up in the DB.  I think that's correct.

That's how I understand it also. Hands off until you appear in the DB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  


Franchise Quest


  • Latest Posts

    • There Is Nothing Remotely Controversial About Jim Harbaugh's Urban Meyer Comments       By JOAN NIESEN  July 19, 2019 CHICAGO — More than a day after Jim Harbaugh offered up a few thoughts on a podcast, I’m still looking for the controversy, still wondering how the college football world has nuked the coach’s lukewarm take into something so scorching. Here’s what Michigan’s coach told The Athletic’s Tim Kawakami. Brace yourself. Or don’t. “Urban Meyer's had a winning record,” Harbaugh said on the podcast. “Really phenomenal record everywhere he's been. But also, controversy follows everywhere he's been.” Let’s see, then: A year after Meyer was being excoriated over how much he knew (which was a lot more than he initially claimed) about the allegations of domestic abuse against former assistant coach Zach Smith, on the heels of the coach’s three-game suspension and eventual retirement, Harbaugh dared to suggest Meyer’s career was controversial. Meyer—the man who spent last fall talking himself in circles until most fans were too dizzy to realize everything he’d ignored, who saw 31 of his players arrested in six years at Florida, 10 of them charged with felonies. But certainly, instead of taking Harbaugh’s words in stride, or even acknowledging them as accuracy from one of the game’s more bombastic sets of vocal cords, let’s drum them up as controversy. Instead of thinking, wow, a college coach actually speaking the plain truth, let’s expound upon the fact that Harbaugh’s teams at Michigan never beat Meyer’s Ohio State squads—because one must beat another coach in order to point out obvious truths about him, it seems. By that logic, then, is Harbaugh allowed to point out Meyer’s “really phenomenal record”? Or is that kind of analysis also restricted only to the coaches of the 32 squads lucky enough to put up Ws against Utah, Florida and Ohio State during Meyer’s tenure?   ADVERTISING inRead invented by Teads   This might be the silliest piece of “news” to come out of college football in 2019, but it also offers a lens into the sport today, where coaching is supposed to be some sacred fraternity where winning trumps morals and the truth is better delivered watered down, or not at all. The Big Ten without Meyer has a controversy vacuum, and so in looking to fill it, we’re creating a hubbub over a coach acknowledging Meyer’s own controversial past. Unpack that. “I don't think it was anything that was anything new or anything of a bombshell,” Harbaugh said Friday in his morning media availability, when the first question he fielded was about his treatment of Meyer on the podcast. “It's things that many of you all understand and have written about.” Later in the day, he doubled-down, asserting (correctly) that Meyer’s off-field legacy is “well-documented.” Sure, Harbaugh didn’t need to say what he did. And he knew before uttering that sentence, innocuous in any world but this one, that it would turn heads. Really, it’s just a shame he didn’t have the guts to utter it a year ago, when Meyer was defending his own indefensible conduct. That would have held more weight, but it doesn’t make what Harbaugh said Thursday any less true. What does cheapen his take is his further treatment of the subject of Meyer—or rather, the coach’s absence. Asked later on Friday if his team has an opening in a Big Ten East without its winningest coach this decade, Harbaugh offered first a stare and then a recalcitrant answer: “That’s something I don’t know.” Strictly speaking, yes, but the coach would have served himself better by doing anything other than playing dumb. Sure, a rookie head coach, or any change that major, might work in our favor. Or even: Ryan Day has proven he has what it takes to keep Ohio State competitive. In part by Harbaugh’s doing, the Big Ten has been Urban vs. Jim for the past four seasons, and his most recent comments extended that rivalry beyond the end of Meyer’s coaching career. So if Harbaugh is going to style himself as a truth-teller, that should extend further than just pointing out the easy critiques. https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/07/19/jim-harbaugh-urban-meyer-comments-michigan-ohio-state-big-ten-media-days
    • Jumping back in time a bit here, but does it seem likely that Ja'Quinden Jackson was a silent commit for a while, and the coaches waited for an opportune time for him to go public?  If so that proved to be a genius move, as it reversed a bunch of bad press at the time.
    • We need to really focus on LVBS, AC, QJ
    • Hope Johnston jumps on board.
×
×
  • Create New...