Hardship Waiver Rule

[jumbo_peanuts]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...aa-proposal-force-hardship-transfers-sit-year

The NCAA Division I Leadership Council recently proposed a change to the policy regarding players transferring due to a hardship. This change would require transfer students to have to sit out a year before becoming eligible to play. According to the article: " The NCAA says the proposed change would give athletes a year to focus on academics and the circumstances that led them to transfer in the first place before they can play."

Could be very interesting if this change takes places.

 

[tbranden]

The rule is weird to begin with. What's a hardship? Clearly there are legit reasons for the hardship rule, but this seems like another way for the NCAA to control things. It's already such a subjective thing, with not timetable on decisions. Thus, just another piece of red tape for the NCAA to impose.

 

[NYCRedmen]

I hope the NCAA isn't wondering why so many players today want to leave early than ever before.

 

[austour]

Sounds like the NCAA is tired of having to decide what's a true hardship and what's total BS.

 

[Marillac]

The rule has been abused. I hope they still keep the graduate transfer rule, though. It's not fair to keep a kid from going elsewhere after they have fulfilled their academic obligations.

 

[jumbo_peanuts]

Sounds like the NCAA is tired of having to decide what's a true hardship and what's total BS.

I agree. I think this decision eliminates that potential grey area, and it prevents players from trying to claim a hardship because their 3rd cousin's wife's step daughter's mechanic is sick.

 

[austour]

What they could do, just to make it clear they "feel" for these kids having these "hardships" is grant them 6th years. Guys with money aspirations don't want 6th years, guys who just want to play hoops do. Might help separate out the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Marillac]

What they could do, just to make it clear they "feel" for these kids having these "hardships" is grant them 6th years. Guys with money aspirations don't want 6th years, guys who just want to play hoops do. Might help separate out the wheat from the chaff.

I think that would encourage more transfers. Play two to three years at one school, transfer and sit out a year, and then get 2-3 more at your second school.

I'd be all for this rule because it would kill the blue bloods.

 

[austour]

What they could do, just to make it clear they "feel" for these kids having these "hardships" is grant them 6th years. Guys with money aspirations don't want 6th years, guys who just want to play hoops do. Might help separate out the wheat from the chaff.

I think that would encourage more transfers. Play two to three years at one school, transfer and sit out a year, and then get 2-3 more at your second school.

I'd be all for this rule because it would kill the blue bloods.

Everyone already gets 5 years to play 4 which covers transfers and redshrits. My proposal was to make it 6 years to play 4 for hardships. All I thought was this might get kids who've been through a bad transfer and a bad life situation one last chance. After posting I realized this is a dumb idea because it would still keep the pressure on the NCAA to decide what's a legitimate hardship and what's not, something they appear to be trying to avoid.