|
Post by standiego on Apr 18, 2014 7:32:12 GMT -8
The NCAA is proposing that students who graduate from a school yet have a year of eligibility still remaining be required to sit out the transfer year and not be eligible to play immediately ( i.e. Josh Davis ...) They would be allowed 6 years to play 4. Also a compromise for Cole Huff he can not transfer to MW school but can go to PAC or WCC school.
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Apr 18, 2014 7:41:30 GMT -8
and this is why the NCAA is a terrible organization who couldn't care less about students or athletes. I know it would not be a good thing for SDSU but things like this make me want the big 5 conferences to break away from the NCAA and form their own organization.
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Apr 18, 2014 7:46:29 GMT -8
The NCAA is proposing that students who graduate from a school yet have a year of eligibility still remaining be required to sit out the transfer year and not be eligible to play immediately ( i.e. Josh Davis ...) They would be allowed 6 years to play 4. Also a compromise for Cole Huff he can not transfer to MW school but can go to PAC or WCC school. What's the reasoning for the rule change? I thought it was intended to reward student athletes who graduate on time. A rule change will only benefit schools with 5th year seniors, since it's highly unlikely a player will choose to transfer and sit an entire year just to play a final year. It also means the school accepting the transfer has to give two years of scholarships for just one year of service, which won't happen except for the very best players. As for Cole Huff, I've never understood how Nevada can block his transfer to any West Coast D1 school.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 18, 2014 8:03:18 GMT -8
It should be the other way around. Athletic scholarships are renewable at the end of each year. The school can kick the athlete loose whenever they feel like it. The athlete should have the same option. They shouldn't have to sit out a year.
|
|
|
Post by oldasstech on Apr 18, 2014 8:16:58 GMT -8
It should be the other way around. Athletic scholarships are renewable at the end of each year. The school can kick the athlete loose whenever they feel like it. The athlete should have the same option. They shouldn't have to sit out a year. All the more reason the NCAA can kiss my @$$, they don't give a flying &@$% about the kids, it's all about controlling assets at this point for them. I hope the NCAA dies a painfull well earned death, I hate those bastards for what they've done to generations of kids. I know at least a handful of ex football players that got hurt, lost there scholarships and went in debt taking care of their medical bills. Where has the NCAA been for those people?! &uck the NCAA!!!
|
|
|
Post by RockNFish on Apr 18, 2014 8:18:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by biotec on Apr 18, 2014 8:35:13 GMT -8
The NCAA is proposing that students who graduate from a school yet have a year of eligibility still remaining be required to sit out the transfer year and not be eligible to play immediately ( i.e. Josh Davis ...) They would be allowed 6 years to play 4. Also a compromise for Cole Huff he can not transfer to MW school but can go to PAC or WCC school. The Huff deal is that he's still barred from Pac and WCC schools - except those in so cal (USC, UCLA, LMU, USD, Pepperdine)
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Apr 18, 2014 8:35:46 GMT -8
It should be the other way around. Athletic scholarships are renewable at the end of each year. The school can kick the athlete loose whenever they feel like it. The athlete should have the same option. They shouldn't have to sit out a year. Agree. If they drop or release you, you should be able to play immediately. If you leave on your own, that may be a gray area with arguments on both sides. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Apr 18, 2014 8:40:35 GMT -8
The NCAA is proposing that students who graduate from a school yet have a year of eligibility still remaining be required to sit out the transfer year and not be eligible to play immediately ( i.e. Josh Davis ...) They would be allowed 6 years to play 4. Also a compromise for Cole Huff he can not transfer to MW school but can go to PAC or WCC school. What's the reasoning for the rule change? I thought it was intended to reward student athletes who graduate on time. A rule change will only benefit schools with 5th year seniors, since it's highly unlikely a player will choose to transfer and sit an entire year just to play a final year. It also means the school accepting the transfer has to give two years of scholarships for just one year of service, which won't happen except for the very best players. As for Cole Huff, I've never understood how Nevada can block his transfer to any West Coast D1 school. I suppose the NCAA is trying to do away with 5th year transfer rule as they see it as a recruiting war between D1 schools. They the NCAA does not have much control over this process like they do over high school recruiting so they just decided to stop it. You know the NCAA wants total control over all things related to college athletics. As for Cole Huff, he is a basketball player? He is a 5th year transfer? Sorry I don't know the story. I've never heard of a college blocking where a student athlete decides to transfer. Is it legal? I thought once the athlete puts in for transfer, gives up their scholarship that that pretty much ends the relationship between the two, and the athlete is free to go where ever they want.
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Apr 18, 2014 9:00:03 GMT -8
What's the reasoning for the rule change? I thought it was intended to reward student athletes who graduate on time. A rule change will only benefit schools with 5th year seniors, since it's highly unlikely a player will choose to transfer and sit an entire year just to play a final year. It also means the school accepting the transfer has to give two years of scholarships for just one year of service, which won't happen except for the very best players. As for Cole Huff, I've never understood how Nevada can block his transfer to any West Coast D1 school. I suppose the NCAA is trying to do away with 5th year transfer rule as they see it as a recruiting war between D1 schools. They the NCAA does not have much control over this process like they do over high school recruiting so they just decided to stop it. You know the NCAA wants total control over all things related to college athletics. As for Cole Huff, he is a basketball player? He is a 5th year transfer? Sorry I don't know the story. I've never heard of a college blocking where a student athlete decides to transfer. Is it legal? I thought once the athlete puts in for transfer, gives up their scholarship that that pretty much ends the relationship between the two, and the athlete is free to go where ever they want. My guess is it's a case of they won't release his scholarship until he says he's transferring to a school that Nevada approves of. If that is the case, that's pretty shady on the school's part. But I haven't looked into any details, this is only a wild guess.
|
|
|
Post by RockNFish on Apr 18, 2014 9:04:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 18, 2014 9:26:04 GMT -8
RockNfish maybe correct it may be for undergrad athletes transferring due to "family illness " issue . While they also will be looking at the grad school transfer in a separate ruling . The group gets together April 24 for a vote .
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Apr 18, 2014 10:16:32 GMT -8
I kinda like the idea...
Right now...any transfer player must sit out a year when transferring...EXCEPT for hardships when they can play immediately...however...in most cases hardships are a sham...
If there is a case where there really is a family illness...then a red-shirt season would benefit the "student- athlete" by allowing him extra time to spend with that ill family member is the supposed reason he transferred in the first place...
As far as graduated players...keep it the way it is...
One last point...how does BYU/USU/Utah circumvent the eligibility rules...taking 6 or 7 years to complete 4 (1 normal red-shirt year + 2-year mission + 4 eligible years = 7 years...doesn't seem fair to the other "non-mission" schools...is it because the "mission" students aren't actually enrolled in school during the 2-year period...or is it a freedom of religion thing?
|
|
|
Post by kozy on Apr 18, 2014 10:37:26 GMT -8
Athletes are university slaves. They have no rights only the right to serve their master, the university. Northwestern is just the tip of the iceberg in the unionization of athletes. Who stands up for their rights? Do they have any rights? Union athletes, It's coming to the university near you. Would you cross a union line at Viejas?
|
|
|
Post by NYCaztec on Apr 18, 2014 12:22:28 GMT -8
I don't know if this was already discussed:
Many academic Masters programs are 1 year or 1.5 in duration. Sitting out a yr and causing 2 post-bac yrs will academically pose a problem.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Apr 18, 2014 13:47:35 GMT -8
Athletes are university slaves. They have no rights only the right to serve their master, the university. Northwestern is just the tip of the iceberg in the unionization of athletes. Who stands up for their rights? Do they have any rights? Union athletes, It's coming to the university near you. Would you cross a union line at Viejas? Wow. Not sure if you are facetious or serious. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|