own choice to go One-and-Done. And maybe Carolina too.
Whatever. Shocked that it took this long.
If a player is on-time or ahead on degree progress, has at least (for arguments sake) a 2.0, it should be OK. Often times degree progress gets reset from institution to institution because the student athlete never took his core courses (just eligibility bullshit). For someone like that, they need that year off.
A player like Jurkovec (who was on track to graduate in 3 years) will have no problem staying on track academically, and ought to play immediately, without requiring a waiver.
within 4 years, transfers should be unlimited with no required period of ineligibility.
If the player is not on track to graduate, and transfers, the player should be athletically ineligible until such time as he or she gets back on track to graduate in the remaining period of athletic eligibility. The school from which the player transferred should still be on the hook for the scholarship (at least from a numbers standpoint) until the player gets back on track.
I'd also support declaring players athletically ineligible if they are not on track to graduate within their remaining period of athletic eligibility.
Player tampering & the prevention thereof occurs at every level of elite sports. No current transfer penalty is overly burdensome. An athlete plays & is compensated by an institution, not a coach. Part of an athlete's decision process should include evaluating a coach's plans for the years that player will attend.
Removing the waiting period for transferring will benefit unethical recruiting.
Institutions that receive violations penalties often have their athletes receive freebies to go elsewhere. That's how I like it. If an athlete gets hosed by an institution, they get the option. Removing all the waits will be an open invitation.
No student is stopped from transferring. This is only regarding athletes. So I will not weep if an athlete faces consequences for changing his or her mind.
Who is it designed to protect, and from what?
The point of NCAA athletics is to allow athletic competitions among eligible students at participating colleges and universities. Why should a student in good academic standing be prohibited from competing?
I might be talked into a rule in which a scholarship isn't permitted for a one-year waiting period. Maybe. But this should be about student athletes competing during their education. The fact that it's allowed in all but five sports already demonstrates the real reason for the rule -- to protect institutions, not to benefit students.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In professional team sports, tapping up (British English) or tampering (American English) is an attempt to persuade a player contracted to one team to transfer to another team, without the knowledge or permission of the player's current team.
a student is "contracted" to a University? If a University has made a binding, enforceable, five year commitment to the student, perhaps I'd be more sympathetic to this argument.
But, in the case of one year renewable scholarships, I don't see how the student is contracted to the University.
At ND (and other elite schools) the vast majority of students, including athletes graduate in 4 years.
That's not true at most schools though. So linking athletic eligibility to 4 year graduation track just doesn't seem fair or realistic.
Also did you mean that those who are on track can transfer every year and play right away if they are on track? I'd hate that.
_______________________________________________________________________
The official four-year graduation rate for students attending public colleges and universities is 33.3%. The six-year rate is 57.6%. At private colleges and universities, the four-year graduation rate is 52.8%, and 65.4% earn a degree in six years.
The first search results I see suggest the NCAA has been granting waivers about 70% of the time. Much better to make it a blanket rule. What's fair about denying the 30%?
1-time without sitting out seems fine with me.
When required to sit, were the players on scholarship for the year they had to sit out?
applied to us over the years. Players leaving ND get to play immediately, while players transferring to ND have to sit out.
Given how football schedules are made some years out, I've always thought that allowing players to transfer to a school that isn't in the same conference or on the non-conference schedule during the remaining eligibility of the player would be fair.
from transferring to future opponents? Would you treat football different from other sports in that regard?
I wouldn't restrict it, but I think there would be a lot less whining from the coaches if that were the case.
Coaches (or often their new employer) can and will pay the buyout. Student-athletes don't have that option.