View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009 Posts: 8957
Back to top |
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18038 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 04/26/15 8:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
...just how many years of college education does the NCAA want to pay for?
_________________ Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7855 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 04/27/15 9:54 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Queenie wrote: |
...just how many years of college education does the NCAA want to pay for? |
They probably don't want to pay ANY, but really, making graduate transfers sit out a year is ridiculous. They only have one year left, in almost all cases, just let them play already.
_________________ Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
NickDMB
Joined: 04 Mar 2015 Posts: 66
Back to top |
Posted: 04/27/15 2:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
summertime blues wrote: |
Queenie wrote: |
...just how many years of college education does the NCAA want to pay for? |
They probably don't want to pay ANY, but really, making graduate transfers sit out a year is ridiculous. They only have one year left, in almost all cases, just let them play already. |
Making undergrads sit out for a year is ridiculous too, IMHO.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7855 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 04/27/15 3:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
NickDMB wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
Queenie wrote: |
...just how many years of college education does the NCAA want to pay for? |
They probably don't want to pay ANY, but really, making graduate transfers sit out a year is ridiculous. They only have one year left, in almost all cases, just let them play already. |
Making undergrads sit out for a year is ridiculous too, IMHO. |
I actually agree that undergrads should sit out for some period of time, otherwise there would be unlimited transferring for possibly trivial reasons. I think perhaps two semesters would be long enough, and if a player enrolls in summer school at their new school, the two semesters could start from then and they would be eligible the following January. Or if they transfer midyear and enroll immediately and carry a full load in spring semester and summer school, they could play the following year.
_________________ Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66958 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/27/15 3:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
My prediction is that you would actually see fewer transfers if players didn't sit out a year. Most transfers are done for academic reasons, to get an extra scholarship year.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16365 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 04/27/15 4:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
My prediction is that you would actually see fewer transfers if players didn't sit out a year. Most transfers are done for academic reasons, to get an extra scholarship year. |
That strikes me a pretty dubious claim. Do you have any data to back it up?
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7855 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 04/27/15 8:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
My prediction is that you would actually see fewer transfers if players didn't sit out a year. Most transfers are done for academic reasons, to get an extra scholarship year. |
I call bullpucky.
_________________ Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 14111
Back to top |
Posted: 05/01/15 4:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
summertime blues wrote: |
Queenie wrote: |
...just how many years of college education does the NCAA want to pay for? |
They probably don't want to pay ANY, but really, making graduate transfers sit out a year is ridiculous. They only have one year left, in almost all cases, just let them play already. |
Since a good portion of players who will be transferring to a grad school will have already redshirted and the NCAA basically has a 5 years to play 4 years policy it sounds like this is a way to eliminate graduate transfers unless the NCAA is going to start handing out 6th years to all graduate transfers who have previously redshirted.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 14111
Back to top |
Posted: 05/01/15 4:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
summertime blues wrote: |
NickDMB wrote: |
summertime blues wrote: |
Queenie wrote: |
...just how many years of college education does the NCAA want to pay for? |
They probably don't want to pay ANY, but really, making graduate transfers sit out a year is ridiculous. They only have one year left, in almost all cases, just let them play already. |
Making undergrads sit out for a year is ridiculous too, IMHO. |
I actually agree that undergrads should sit out for some period of time, otherwise there would be unlimited transferring for possibly trivial reasons. I think perhaps two semesters would be long enough, and if a player enrolls in summer school at their new school, the two semesters could start from then and they would be eligible the following January. Or if they transfer midyear and enroll immediately and carry a full load in spring semester and summer school, they could play the following year. |
In all sports other than baseball, men's and women's basketball, football and men's ice hockey, there is a one time transfer exception that allows players to not sit out a year if they transfer. I don't see why that wouldn't be workable in women's basketball as well. Sure there will be some that transfer for "trivial reasons" as you say, but I don't think there will be a lot more transfers than that currently are now. In all of the other sports that have the one time transfer exception there doesn't seem to be a extreme amount of yearly transfers that it would warrant rethinking the rule.
|
|
|
|