NCAA passes new transfer and redshirt rules

[Jameson McCausland]

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.”

 

[Sirhornsalot]

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.

 

[Jameson McCausland]

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.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

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.

 

[drgilbert]

I like both new rules. If they play four games and get redshirted will they be draft eligible in two more years or have to wait another year. 

 

[Sirhornsalot]

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.

 

[UTfish]

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

 

[hookemhorb]

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.

 

[hookemhorb]

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.

 

[dillohorn]

The transfer rule opens up a bad can of worms. Did Starbucks have a hand in this decision? 

 

[oldhorn2]

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.

 

[R00T4UT]

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. 

 

[oldhorn2]

ok   thanks....that helps a lot... I just read it wrong.......Which it the first time I ever did that.....

 

[TB14]

I like it both. Kids should be able to transfer wherever as long as coaches and administrators can. Never liked that double standard!

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

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. 

 

[Baron]

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?

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

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. 

 

[Baron]

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.

 

[Daniel Seahorn]

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.