RebKell's Junkie Boards

[GlennMacGrady]

The subject of transfer "releases" is coming up in the Leti Romero and Diamond DeShields threads. I thought I'd consolidate the issue to capture additional research and comments.

I have stated my assumption that many or most schools have written release policies like KSU's. My initial research is not confirming that, as I am 0-2 in finding written policies as definitive as KSU's.

The UConn Student-Athlete Handbook doesn't state a policy. It merely suggests that the Athletic Director has discretion to grant or deny permission-to-contact ("release") letters and that student-athletes have the right to appeal a denial to an independent committee. This appeal right is required at all schools by the NCAA D1 Regulations.

Next, I found the University of North Carolina's Student-Athlete Handbook. It is ambigous and opaque. It says:

"The Department of Athletics’ philosophy regarding a student-athlete transferring from UNC to another institution is that the student-athlete will be required to fulfill a one-year residence requirement prior to being eligible to participate in outside competition."

It goes on to say the AD's decision can be appealed.

This statement of "philosophy" makes sense in terms of the "one-time transfer" (OTT) exception to the NCAA one-year residency requirement. I haven't discussed the OTT exception because it doesn't apply to basketball athletes. Where it does apply, the OTT athlete will not have to sit out a year if the current school grants a "release" from the residency requirement. This UNC statement seems clearly to say that UNC will not generally grant releases in OTT situations. This means UNC wants to preserve the one-year residency requirement as a deterrent to OTT-eligible athletes, which are those in sports other than basketball, football, baseball and hockey.

However, basketball athletes at UNC would not be eligible for OTT, and hence must sit out one year under the general transfer rule. So, does this statement mean that UNC is also "philosophically" inclined against regular (permission-to-contact) transfer releases or, alternatively, that UNC is neutral or even favorable to regular transfer releases because regular transfers all have the one-year residency requirement? Fancy lawyers could probably argue it both ways. The key is to know UNC's practice in interpreting this statement of philosophy, which I don't.

I have asked Beknighted whether he has access to the Rutgers transfer release policy, assuming it's written.

Based on what I'm reading about MCBB, it looks like free transferability would be chaotic, but I'll save that issue for a later post.

[beknighted]

Rutgers has a multi-step procedure, but the policy contains no specific guidance on when releases will be granted except that they won't be granted for AAC schools (which apparently is an AAC rule) for football and basketball. Presumably that provision will be altered soon.

As noted in another thread, I'm not aware of someone asking for a release from the RU WBB program and not having it granted.

Here's a link to the policy document. The transfer language starts at section 11.6.

It's our policy

[GlennMacGrady]

Policy, policy, where art thou?

Looking at Student-Athlete handbooks, which seem to be very common, Stanford and Duke don't even mention the subject of transfers.

Rutgers essentially says releases are at the discretion of the coach or "if necessary" the AD. (I'm looking at a different version than the one I just noticed Beknighted posted.)

Tennessee says releases will be consdered on a "case-by-case basis".

However, the UTenn handbook then goes on to specify: "Granting permission to contact does not mean that the student-athlete will be released to transfer to another institution under the one-time transfer exception . . ." Hence Tennessee seems to want the deterrent effect of the one year residency requirement for OTT-eligible athletes.

I recall around the time Sa'de Wiley Gatewood was fighting with Tennessee about a transfer, Micki DeMoss was quoted as saying that, during the many years she was was at UTK, the practice was not to grant releases. I also recall SWG or her father saying that PHS would not grant her a release at the end of her freshman year, but wanted SWG to stay for a second year and then reconsider. This sounds exactly like the compromise KSU has offered Romero. In SWG's case, she and probably her father apparently continued to make such a fuss that she was released in December of her sophomore year.

[ladydawgs96]

[snzuluz]

athletes sign a NLI with a SCHOOL and not a coach…it is the AD that releases a student-athlete from their scholarship and not the coach…

this is a recruiting question all AAU, High School coaches, or parents need to ask on a recruiting visit…educating yourselves is the best policy

the NLI site has lots of information on releases and so does the NCAA

[summertime blues]

[purduefanatic]

Yeah, with the advent of the whole internet thingy, claiming ignorance and saying there is a "lack of information" or that prospective student-athletes are uniformed is really a lame excuse in today's world. If they claim they don't understand it, I would look in the mirror, then look at mom &/or dad, then the HS coach, then the AAU coach. I mean, there is just no reason for someone to not understand the National Letter of Intent.

A simple use of "google" turned up this website:

http://www.nationalletter.org/

Lots and lots of information here.

[Carol Anne]

[PUmatty]

I think the bigger problem is that people don't know what they don't know.

[purduefanatic]

[Carol Anne]

[purduefanatic]

[IM in OC]

The site could be interpreted as vague and might be misleading, especially to a foreign student/athlete or parent.

From the section called "About the National Letter of Intent"

"By signing a National Letter of Intent, a prospective student-athlete agrees to attend the designated college or university for one academic year". Pursuant to the terms of the National Letter of Intent program, participating institutions agree to provide athletics financial aid to the student-athlete, provided he/she is admitted to the institution and is eligible for financial aid under NCAA rules. An important provision of the National Letter of Intent program is a recruiting prohibition applied after a prospective student-athlete signs a Letter of Intent. This prohibition requires participating institutions to cease recruitment of a prospective student-athlete once a National Letter of Intent is signed with another institution.

Is it possible the girl from KSU, who is from Spain or Italy(dont remember which), or Diamond DeShields from the USA, interpreted that to mean she is only obligated to one year and can then leave and or be recruited by another school once the year is up?

[GlennMacGrady]

Of course there have been transfers in WCBB, but Romero-gate presents a very specific transfer issue from among several interesting transfer issues.

Romero-gate raises the precise issue of whether schools commonly or uncommonly grant (a) permission-to-contact letters (PTC releases), to (b) a post-freshman, non-NLI player for (c) a transfer based solely on a coaching change, where (d) the departed coach isn't coaching anywhere else, and (e) the requesting athlete is a valued and uninjured star of the team.

Stated negatively, here is what the Romero issue is NOT:

1. A release from a National Letter of Intent (NLI). The issue of getting released from a NLI arises most frequently for high school students who change their mind between the signing date in November of their senior year and when they first enroll in the university. Often these NLI releases are prompted by coaching changes in that interim. These releases seem to be granted fairly frequently. But the Romero and Deshields cases have nothing to do with their NLI's because presumably those contracts will have been fulfilled and expired. (Tangent: Elsewhere, I have argued that top athletes should not sign NLI's.)

2. A permission-to-contact (PTC) release for an unproductive player of little value, or a "problem player", who the coach wants to get rid of. If the coach doesn't like or want a player, he/she may not only be receptive to a PTC release, but may affirmatively encourage it. Knowing UConn best, I would say that most of the UConn transfers this century were of this type: Geno probably encouraged or even pushed for them.

3. A PTC release where the player is injured and wants to play closer to home or nearer some medical facility. Again, this is a relatively easy-to-swallow PTC release situation for a coach, either because this is a genuine sympathy situation or one where the player has lost value due to the injury. Some of the Tennessee transfers come to mind re this scenario.

4. Other PTC release situations where the athlete has some compelling personal situation that is uniquely burdensome to her, such as needing to be near sick family, being consumed with profound homesickness, wanting to be near a spouse or significant other, wanting to be at a school with a better courses in her major. These are all specialized situations, unique to one player, for which the KSU policy would seemingly approve a PTC release.

5. A PTC release based solely on a coaching change where the coach is now at another school. There might be some sympathy here by the current school to let a non-NLI student follow the coach who recruited her, but we are now firmly in a scenario where the transfer would be against the interests of the current school.

6. Same as 5 except that the departed coach is not currently coaching. The smidgeon of sympathy for the established player-coach relationship and loyalty is now completely absent. Even here, a PTC release might be considered if the player is a mediocre contributor or bench player.

7. Same as 6 except the player who wants the transfer is the star of the team.

The transfer questions most applicable to Romero-gate are how many category 7 players do we see transferring, and how many of those can we be sure got PTC releases (as opposed to paying their own way or getting academic financial aid at their transfer-to school for a year).

The one data point re a category 7 situation in WCBB I know of is Romero, and she didn't get a PTC release. But I'm positive my knowledge and recall of all these situations is very limited.

[IM in OC]

[Matt5762]

Just to give one example that is similar to Romero's circumstance: Jordan Jones was the leading scorer at South Carolina as a freshman, decided to transfer when she didn't figure to fit in well with the style of new coach Dawn Staley, was released and played 3 years at Florida (a conference school, no less).

http://www.thestate.com/2008/05/18/408476/coaching-transition-causes-jones.html

[beknighted]

[patsweetpat]

nm

[GlennMacGrady]

[ArtBest23]

[newkid]

[Phil]

[GlennMacGrady]

"Release" is an ambiguous term, which in my experience the media rarely understand, because it can apply to three different situations. Here they are.

1. "Release" from the National Letter of Intent (NLI), which is a contract between the student and school and which is not governed or run by the NCAA.

The NLI obligates the student-athlete to remain in residence at the school to complete one academic year. The NLI contract is binding on the student from the date she signs it, usually in November of her high school senior year, until she completes her one academic year at the university. If the student transfers before satisfying the NLI, she suffers the "NLI Penalty", which is a loss of one of her four years of athletic eligibility (plus sitting out a year, which is required by the NCAA transfer rules, anyway).

Sometimes a student will bargain to get out of the NLI contract. If the school allows that, it's often called a release. If this NLI release happens before the student ever enrolls or accepts any financial aid, then she doesn't have to worry about the NCAA transfer regulations, which involve the next two meanings of "release". She can go to another school on an athletic scholarship without a sit-out year (unless conference rules, such as the Big East's, prohibit it).

2. "Release" to give an enrolled student-athlete a permission-to-contact (PTC) letter so that she can speak to a specific school about transferring. Sometimes the current school will issue a PTC release only for some potential transfer-to schools and not others. If the student transfers to a school for which she was granted a PTC release, she has to sit out a year but can receive athletic financial aid during the sit-out year. If she transfers to a school for which she was denied a PTC release (like Romero), she has to sit out a year and cannot receive athletic financial aid during the sit-out year.

3. "Release" for an enrolled student-athlete who qualifies for the "one-time transfer" (OTT) exception to the NCAA one sit-out year requirement. Athletes in the sports of basketball, baseball, football (generally), and men's hockey are not eligible for the OTT exception. Athletes in other sports are. If these OTT-eligble athletes are granted an OTT release, they can transfer to the new school and play immediately without having to sit out a year. If the student-athlete is denied a OTT release, they can't take advantage of the OTT exception and have to sit out a year at the transfer-to school. Moreover, if an OTT-eligible athlete is denied an OTT release and has to sit out a year, she can or cannot get athletic financial aid during the sit-out year depending upon whether she was granted or denied a PTC release. So, as the Tennessee Handbook makes clear, an OTT-eligible athlete really needs to apply for both a PTC release and a OTT release.

I am assuming that both Leti Romero and Diamond DeShields will have satisfied their NLI contract by completing one academic year by next month. Since they are not in an OTT sport, they only need the second kind of release, the PTC release. If, however, either one will not be satisfying her NLI requirement, then she would need a NLI release in addition to the PTC release.

Now let's imagine a volleyball student-athlete who has signed an NLI, has enrolled in a summer or fall session, and then wants to transfer before completing one academic year. She's eligible for the OTT exception. So, technically, she may need three releases to escape Leviathan: a NLI, PTC and OTT release. Please contact the law firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe if you are in this situation.

I've often wondered whether EDD was considered an enrolled student for purposes of her 48 hours in Storrs. If so, she would have needed a NLI release and a PTC release. The media never enlightened us on this issue as far as I can recall. We do know she played volleyball but not basketball in her freshman year, and then played her full four years of eligibility in basketball. That suggests to me she definitely got a NLI release becaue no "NLI Penalty" (loss of a year of eligibility) was imposed. But she may not have gotten PTC release at all if she paid for her first year at Delaware with her own money. I'm not sure.

[newkid]

[pilight]