NCAA Instant Eligibility Proposal
- Thread starter paultzman
- Start date
I would be opposed to this idea .I can't see putting an academic criteria for transfer students The demands ( Athletic and academic ) are very demanding and some students always have difficulty getting good grades during their playing seasons . Why give special treatment to the better academic achievers ? If the student is academically eligible at his school let him transfer and keep the idea of finishing in the five year period .
How about this weird possibility .if the instant eligibility idea is put into effect and higher academic achievers would not have to sit out a year would athletic departments begin pressuring teachers to be very strict on athletes and not pad grades . With the lower grades they would have to sit out a year and might think twice about transferring . Just saying.
I see nothing but trouble for a school like SJU if this rule is adopted. The combination of instant eligibility and the strong possibility of the elite high school seniors being allowed to go pro would make players like Ponds, Bullock,Delgardo, Foster and others from the Big East and comparable leagues very appetizing to the Dukes, Ky, Kan. etc of the college bb world.
They would probably prefer an experienced very talented player to a high school recruit and would promise not a shot at a NCAA bid but an opportunity at a final four and a national championship. SJU could then poach on the better mid major players but would lose more than they would gain with this change. The top programs would only pick up another advantage if this change is adopted and the number of transfers would increase dramatically.
They would probably prefer an experienced very talented player to a high school recruit and would promise not a shot at a NCAA bid but an opportunity at a final four and a national championship. SJU could then poach on the better mid major players but would lose more than they would gain with this change. The top programs would only pick up another advantage if this change is adopted and the number of transfers would increase dramatically.
[quote="matt105" post=279894]I would be opposed to this idea .I can't see putting an academic criteria for transfer students The demands ( Athletic and academic ) are very demanding and some students always have difficulty getting good grades during their playing seasons . Why give special treatment to the better academic achievers ? If the student is academically eligible at his school let him transfer and keep the idea of finishing in the five year period .[/quote]
I hate this impending rule change. It threatens to widen the gaping maw between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ and—as you State—will invite gimmicks to game the System.
Transfers are at flood water levels as is. This could make it a tsunami.
But I like the GPA requirement—if properly and fairly monitored across all schools.
It might work potentially as a natural ‘governor’ of transfer rates and—perhaps—ultimately reduce the volume of transfers.
Probably not—because games will be played—but maybe if violators are penalized, the GPA rule could help stabilize college hoops.
I hate this impending rule change. It threatens to widen the gaping maw between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ and—as you State—will invite gimmicks to game the System.
Transfers are at flood water levels as is. This could make it a tsunami.
But I like the GPA requirement—if properly and fairly monitored across all schools.
It might work potentially as a natural ‘governor’ of transfer rates and—perhaps—ultimately reduce the volume of transfers.
Probably not—because games will be played—but maybe if violators are penalized, the GPA rule could help stabilize college hoops.
[quote="Enright" post=280184]I see nothing but trouble for a school like SJU if this rule is adopted. The combination of instant eligibility and the strong possibility of the elite high school seniors being allowed to go pro would make players like Ponds, Bullock,Delgardo, Foster and others from the Big East and comparable leagues very appetizing to the Dukes, Ky, Kan. etc of the college bb world.
They would probably prefer an experienced very talented player to a high school recruit and would promise not a shot at a NCAA bid but an opportunity at a final four and a national championship. SJU could then poach on the better mid major players but would lose more than they would gain with this change. The top programs would only pick up another advantage if this change is adopted and the number of transfers would increase dramatically.[/quote]
Agree Enright, that that is the great risk—although the Duke’s and KY’s will still pimp for the ‘1 ‘n done’ HS elites.
This seems like it will pass though. So just hoping the GPA threshold is set at 3.3: and tightly monitored across all schools. That’s our last chance for any thing resembling a fair system.
They would probably prefer an experienced very talented player to a high school recruit and would promise not a shot at a NCAA bid but an opportunity at a final four and a national championship. SJU could then poach on the better mid major players but would lose more than they would gain with this change. The top programs would only pick up another advantage if this change is adopted and the number of transfers would increase dramatically.[/quote]
Agree Enright, that that is the great risk—although the Duke’s and KY’s will still pimp for the ‘1 ‘n done’ HS elites.
This seems like it will pass though. So just hoping the GPA threshold is set at 3.3: and tightly monitored across all schools. That’s our last chance for any thing resembling a fair system.
Perhaps they should be able to transfer in the same way that other students can transfer. It puts pressure on coaches, but players that are handled well and are happy with the choices that they made will stay loyal. Players that are buried on the bench or that are unhappy should be able to transfer just as a kids on academic scholarships do so.
No doubt it increases transfers, but overall it looks like a better deal for the players. The coaches will adjust.
No doubt it increases transfers, but overall it looks like a better deal for the players. The coaches will adjust.
L J S A
Well-known member
I'd be all for something wacky, like five years of eligibility for everyone, but you lose a year for every transfer. Kids can still graduate on a university's dime if they are unhappy with first choice, but it forces everyone who isn't a sure-fire draft pick to stick to two schools.
beast of the east
Active member
How about giving kids the option of signing up for 1, 2, 3, or 4 year scholarships. Whatever you sign up for you are committed to the school for that period. If you are good enough, the school has the option to renew, and if you commit to 4 you cannot transfer in that period.
In essence, college kids for marquee sports are semi-professional players. Why not treat them as such since a commitment really isn't that at all.
In essence, college kids for marquee sports are semi-professional players. Why not treat them as such since a commitment really isn't that at all.
RedStormRising
Well-known member
[quote="Beast of the East" post=280224]How about giving kids the option of signing up for 1, 2, 3, or 4 year scholarships. Whatever you sign up for you are committed to the school for that period. If you are good enough, the school has the option to renew, and if you commit to 4 you cannot transfer in that period.
In essence, college kids for marquee sports are semi-professional players. Why not treat them as such since a commitment really isn't that at all.[/quote]
The big difference is they don't get paid. And even if they start getting paid the salary is likely to be low. The majority of jobs are employment at will. It seems unreasonable to me to make a college athlete standards stricter than the job market in general, then not pay them, then only commit a scholarship for one year.
Let them go where they please to find the spot best for them. Get the NCAA's greedy hands away from the kids' wallets.
In essence, college kids for marquee sports are semi-professional players. Why not treat them as such since a commitment really isn't that at all.[/quote]
The big difference is they don't get paid. And even if they start getting paid the salary is likely to be low. The majority of jobs are employment at will. It seems unreasonable to me to make a college athlete standards stricter than the job market in general, then not pay them, then only commit a scholarship for one year.
Let them go where they please to find the spot best for them. Get the NCAA's greedy hands away from the kids' wallets.
Last edited:
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="RedStormRising2" post=280250][quote="Beast of the East" post=280224]How about giving kids the option of signing up for 1, 2, 3, or 4 year scholarships. Whatever you sign up for you are committed to the school for that period. If you are good enough, the school has the option to renew, and if you commit to 4 you cannot transfer in that period.
In essence, college kids for marquee sports are semi-professional players. Why not treat them as such since a commitment really isn't that at all.[/quote]
The big difference is they don't get paid. And even if they start getting paid the salary is likely to be low. The majority of jobs are employment at will. It seems unreasonable to me to make a college athlete standards stricter than the job market in general, then not pay them, then only commit a scholarship for one year.
Let them go where they please to find the spot best for them. Get the NCAA's greedy hands away from the kids' wallets.[/quote]
Professional baseball restricts player's ability to become a free agent. Minor league players have no mobility, and mlb players (such as mets starting rotation) must complete a term to move freely in the market.
If what you suggest become reality, the competitive balance of the ncaa would be destroyed. Every great player who emerges from mid major and sputtering high level d1 programs would be targeted to transfer. That happens now, even with sitting out 1 year..
In essence, college kids for marquee sports are semi-professional players. Why not treat them as such since a commitment really isn't that at all.[/quote]
The big difference is they don't get paid. And even if they start getting paid the salary is likely to be low. The majority of jobs are employment at will. It seems unreasonable to me to make a college athlete standards stricter than the job market in general, then not pay them, then only commit a scholarship for one year.
Let them go where they please to find the spot best for them. Get the NCAA's greedy hands away from the kids' wallets.[/quote]
Professional baseball restricts player's ability to become a free agent. Minor league players have no mobility, and mlb players (such as mets starting rotation) must complete a term to move freely in the market.
If what you suggest become reality, the competitive balance of the ncaa would be destroyed. Every great player who emerges from mid major and sputtering high level d1 programs would be targeted to transfer. That happens now, even with sitting out 1 year..
