Ramifications of allowing players to transfer . . .

[Jacie]

. . . to any school and not have to sit out a year.

Recently, a player at the University of Maryland wanted to transfer to a school to follow the former Maryland offensive coordinator who had accepted a head coaching job at Vanderbilt. Originally, Maryland refused to allow the player, Danny O'Brien, his request to transfer to Vandy. After public outcry, the university reversed it's position and the young man can now transfer to any school he chooses, including Vanderbilt.

Currently, schools (actually, head coaches) can place limits on where players can transfer when leaving a program. Restrictions usually include schools in the same conference or future opponents (a case involving an OU player going to UCLA comes to mind though that transfer was allowed). Anyway, what do you think might happen if this became the norm rather than the exception, that players be allowed to transfer to any school without restriction and without having to lose a year of eligibilty by sitting out?

Although the schools cannot recruit a player once he is at another program, would players who went unrecruited by major programs but do well at the school they wound up at then be able to trade up as a result? Do you think the system would be abused and even if it was, would this be considered the an acceptable cost of doing business?

[MeMyself&Me]

While I understand the concern regarding your example, kids need to realized they are signing a letter of intent to the SCHOOL, not the coach, and they need to make their decision based on that.

If players could transfer unrestricted, it would be abused.

[MichiganSooner]

I think most players develop a loyalty to the team and friendships at the college even if they are on the bench. If a player has a solid chance at the NFL but is not getting much playing time, he might want to transfer. In reality there are almost 100 players on a team and and 22 get to start. I am in favor of leaving the rules the way they are now.

[jk the sooner fan]

the flipside - is why would you want a kid on your roster, counting against your scholly limit - who didnt want to be there?

what do you get out of that - not much positive imo

[MeMyself&Me]

the flipside - is why would you want a kid on your roster, counting against your scholly limit - who didnt want to be there?

what do you get out of that - not much positive imo

You can release him if you wish.

[MamaMia]

These players have our playbooks in their heads, along with a lot of other knowledge that could be used to give an opponent an advantage when playing us, so I believe there should be a restriction in place in allowing them to transfer to a school we would be playing.

[Eielson]

While I understand the concern regarding your example, kids need to realized they are signing a letter of intent to the SCHOOL, not the coach, and they need to make their decision based on that.

That sounds better in theory than it is in actual application. It's tough to play for a coach you don't like.

[OU_Sooners75]

These players have our playbooks in their heads, along with a lot of other knowledge that could be used to give an opponent an advantage when playing us, so I believe there should be a restriction in place in allowing them to transfer to a school we would be playing.

It would be way to much to learn if you had to know all 11 assignments during each play, and they all would be quarterbacks, so to speak, on the field.

When I played, at any level, I knew what I was suppose to do, what the guy next to me was suppose to do and where the ball was suppose to go (talking offensively here).

Most Running backs don't know what route each WR is running, or what assignment each OL has. About the only person on the offensive side of the ball that should know what every person is suppose to do is the QB.

The same can be said on the defense. The DL knows their responsibility. The DBs knows their's. The OLB's know theirs. About the only one that will know everyone's assignment is the MLB.

That said, each player is given a simplified copy of the play book. Asked to learn their assignments. So they would have a copy of the core plays that they will execute during a game. But to think each player that transfers knows every blocking assignment, pass routes (though pass plays are easier because most cases the numbers are the routes run by WRs), and even running lanes is asking for each player to know a lot...and like I mentioned before, only a select few know every detail of every single play.

[OU_Sooners75]

Now, as far as the transfer rule...

When you sign a NLI (or LOI), you are signing an agreement (or contract if you will) saying you will play for a school's team for a scholarship (no matter if it is a partial or not). That right there is good enough for me to say that transfer rule should be in place.

If there wasn't, then we would see a free agency type of system, but 100 times worse, in place.

And many people think what Saban does at Alabama is bad now, just imagine what it would be like if there were no transfer rules in place.

[jkjsooner]

Did the Maryland kid get to transfer immediately or was he just given the option to transfer and sit out a year? I've never heard of a kid transferring without sitting out a year unless there are certain circumstances - graduate who is seeking a grd program that the original school did not have (often used as a loophole by the player) or probation of the original school.

Anyway, I'm all in favor of letting kids transfer wherever they want as long as they sit out a year. I don't think it's right to not release a kid.

[OU_Sooners75]

Did the Maryland kid get to transfer immediately or was he just given the option to transfer and sit out a year? I've never heard of a kid transferring without sitting out a year unless there are certain circumstances - graduate who is seeking a grd program that the original school did not have (often used as a loophole by the player) or probation of the original school.

Anyway, I'm all in favor of letting kids transfer wherever they want as long as they sit out a year. I don't think it's right to not release a kid.

Not sure, wish we had a link...but from the sounds of it, he got to transfer and not lose a year of eligibility.

[jk the sooner fan]

You can release him if you wish.

yes, i'm aware of that.......which was my point - since you CAN, why wouldnt you?

[OU_Sooners75]

NCAA Transfer Rules: One Time Exception:


If this is your first transfer…

If you have never transferred before from a four-year school, you might be able to use the one-time transfer exception to play right away at a Division I or II school.

To use this exception, you must:



Be playing a sport other than baseball in Division I, basketball in Division I, men's ice hockey in Division I or football in Division I. Note: In football you may be eligible to use this exception if:



You transfer from a Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) school to a Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA) school and have at least two seasons of competition remaining; or
You transfer from a Football Championship Subdivision (formerly I-AA) school that offers athletics scholarships to a Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA) that does not offer athletics scholarships.



Important Note: If you do not qualify for this exception due to any of the conditions in Subsection 1 above, you may be able to use the exception if you were not recruited by your first four-year school AND have never received an athletics scholarship.
Be in good academic standing and making progress toward your degree;
Have been considered academically eligible if you had stayed in your first school; and
Have a written release agreement from your first school saying that it does not object to your receiving an exception to the transfer residence requirement. If the release is denied, you may be entitled to a hearing conducted by an institutional entity or committee outside of the athletics department (e.g., the office of student affairs; office of the dean of students; or a committee composed of the faculty athletics representative, student-athletes and nonathletics faculty/staff members). Further, in Division I, if your request for a written release is not provided within seven business days of the previous institution receiving the request, the release shall be granted by default

[OU_Sooners75]

yes, i'm aware of that.......which was my point - since you CAN, why wouldnt you?

Before any student athlete can transfer, they must ask the AD for a permission-to-contact letter. This letter is sent from the AD of the current school, to the AD and coach of the new school.

So the student athlete would have to know which school they are going to transfer to before hand.

Now, a student athlete can bypass this step by going to his/her coach and ask for a release from their scholarship and NLI. If granted, the student athlete can then contact any school they wish too. But they must have the permission-to-contact letter still, which will generally be given to any transfer that is released from their scholarship and NLI.

At least this is my understanding of the transfer rules.

The reason they ask for this to be done, because sometimes this will prevent a student athlete from transferring in conference or to a future opponent.

[jk the sooner fan]

yes i get all the technical details and requirements

i'm simply saying - as a rule - why would you keep a kid on your roster that doesnt want to be there? doesnt make sense to me

[StoopTroup]

Even if the School's AD and Coach deny the Student Athlete's release there is a form/process for the SA to fill out requesting an appeal. I would think the SA would need some pretty strong answers in the Extenuating Circumstances Section to win an appeal however.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/nli/release+and+appeals/index.html

[MamaMia]

It would be way to much to learn if you had to know all 11 assignments during each play, and they all would be quarterbacks, so to speak, on the field.

When I played, at any level, I knew what I was suppose to do, what the guy next to me was suppose to do and where the ball was suppose to go (talking offensively here).

Most Running backs don't know what route each WR is running, or what assignment each OL has. About the only person on the offensive side of the ball that should know what every person is suppose to do is the QB.

The same can be said on the defense. The DL knows their responsibility. The DBs knows their's. The OLB's know theirs. About the only one that will know everyone's assignment is the MLB.

That said, each player is given a simplified copy of the play book. Asked to learn their assignments. So they would have a copy of the core plays that they will execute during a game. But to think each player that transfers knows every blocking assignment, pass routes (though pass plays are easier because most cases the numbers are the routes run by WRs), and even running lanes is asking for each player to know a lot...and like I mentioned before, only a select few know every detail of every single play. You cant just make the rule apply to quarterbacks, plus there are play books that the team members have in their possession.

[MeMyself&Me]

yes i get all the technical details and requirements

i'm simply saying - as a rule - why would you keep a kid on your roster that doesnt want to be there? doesnt make sense to me

You don't keep him. You just restrict where he goes. I thought you were trying to say there shouldn't be any transfer restrictions.

[goingoneight]

A lot of these problems would be fixed if there was a rule that prohibited coaching moves until the season was over with. It also would fix situations like OUr little defensive controversy to end the 2003 season. If Les Miles doesn't have a trucker-sized LSU hat and contract on his desk to end 2004, he might've actually been coaching for leverage in the bowl game he threw. No excuses for situations like the whole Mark Richt Orange Bowl, too.

[Scott D]

I believe he is transferring without the one year penalty because of where he is in his academic program.

There is a reason that only players who are of grad. student level are allowed to transfer provided the school they are at doesn't have a certain education path that they wish to follow, and even then the rate of players is so low because most use up their eligibility by that point.

[Scott D]

These players have our playbooks in their heads, along with a lot of other knowledge that could be used to give an opponent an advantage when playing us, so I believe there should be a restriction in place in allowing them to transfer to a school we would be playing.

Generally speaking restrictions are kept to in conference and future opponents within the time period the player would be eligible.

That being said, it raises certain questions, ala Tennessee restricting one freshman from transferring to either Michigan or Michigan State, but to any other school in Michigan (reports were that his father's health had worsened)

[bluedogok]

As far as transferring to another school inside the conference I think the Big 8 had a two year rule, transferring outside the conference was the NCAA one year rule. I'm not sure if the Big 12 has the same kind of two year rule for a transfer.

[SoonerorLater]

Players should be allowed to transfer as they wish after the length of their scholarship is fulfilled. If schools only want to offer a one year scholarship then the student shouldn't be expected to remain any longer than that. Universities shouldn't expect to have it both ways.

[soonertravis]

One thing to consider is that scholarships are renewable yearly and so teams don't have to be loyal to the players. Teams can dump underperforming players, but players have to sit out if they leave. Not sure that is fair.

[MeMyself&Me]

Players should be allowed to transfer as they wish after the length of their scholarship is fulfilled. If schools only want to offer a one year scholarship then the student shouldn't be expected to remain any longer than that. Universities shouldn't expect to have it both ways.


One thing to consider is that scholarships are renewable yearly and so teams don't have to be loyal to the players. Teams can dump underperforming players, but players have to sit out if they leave. Not sure that is fair.

Good point. Scholarships should be for four years. I think the NCAA will likely make that a rule soon though.

[StoopTroup]

Y'all should let this all go. If you don't you're as bad as Jim Traber. :D

[jkjsooner]

Good point. Scholarships should be for four years. I think the NCAA will likely make that a rule soon though.

They did add in a four year option just this year. I don't know exactly how it works but I would assume a player knows which is being offered.

Schools threw a fit over this even though it was only optional. The ironic thing was that the article I read had comments from a lot of administrators from the smaller schools complaining. That surprised me because I would have thought they would like the idea of using a guaranteed four year scholarship as a bargaining tool.

[OU_Sooners75]

You cant just make the rule apply to quarterbacks, plus there are play books that the team members have in their possession.

If that is what you got out of my post...wow.

Yes, there are playbooks in possession of all players. But if you are an offensive player, you have the offensive playbook...and they are basic playbooks, or the plays we would run the most, not the entire playbook. If you are a defensive player you have the defensive playbook, which is much smaller than most offensive playbooks.

But don't take my word for it....I never played the sport.

What I was talking about....

About the only player on the offensive side of the ball that should know all assignments is the quarterback. So it is impossible to say that a transferring player knows everything about the offense or the defense.

[OU_Sooners75]

Players should be allowed to transfer as they wish after the length of their scholarship is fulfilled. If schools only want to offer a one year scholarship then the student shouldn't be expected to remain any longer than that. Universities shouldn't expect to have it both ways.

Tell me how many past or present Sooner Players that have been given a scholarship have had that scholarship yanked for no reason other than to free it up?

Tell me how many times that has happened at other schools?

If there is an injury or if the SA cannot continue to play the sport, the school can give him/her a medical hardship scholarship that does not go against your alloted amount for the sport. In football that would be 85.

That said, the scholarships are only one year because if the student does transfer or leaves early, they can give a scholarship to another person. But I have never heard of a program just yanking a scholarship from an SA just to give it to another person without good reason.

Reasons they would do this:

1. Committed a school, conference, or NCAA violation.
2. Academically suspension.
3. Medically unable to compete, so given a medical hardship scholarship instead.

[OU_Sooners75]

One thing to consider is that scholarships are renewable yearly and so teams don't have to be loyal to the players. Teams can dump underperforming players, but players have to sit out if they leave. Not sure that is fair.

Yes a kid can lose their scholarship for any reason...but how many times have you heard of it? And a player can transfer and not sit out a year if they meet certain requirements...and if they transfer to a smaller division then they don't have to sit a year.

Just as the school can yank a scholarship, a player can just up and quit and transfer anywhere they want too anyway. There is just a no compete clause for one year if they do decide to transfer....

And if there was a four year scholarship given to a kid and they leave, my understanding is they cannot use that scholarship for another player until the 4 years is up.

[MeMyself&Me]

They did add in a four year option just this year. I don't know exactly how it works but I would assume a player knows which is being offered.

Schools threw a fit over this even though it was only optional. The ironic thing was that the article I read had comments from a lot of administrators from the smaller schools complaining. That surprised me because I would have thought they would like the idea of using a guaranteed four year scholarship as a bargaining tool.

Yeah, I know schools have the option but I don't think that's going to help the situation. Most kids won't be paying attention to whether its a year to year deal or a four year deal. The few that do and actually place a value on it are more than likely going to be the 2 and 3 star kids who typically aren't the difference makers. The 4 and 5 star kids that are used to being told how great they are will think bad things will never happen to them.

As such, I think it puts the schools that do adopt the 4 year deal at a clear disadvantage which will cause them to lose more on average, which in turn makes recruiting harder.

Rules like that need to mandated nationwide by the NCAA instead of on a school by school basis.

[Jacie]

OU_Sooners75, you pose questions no one here can answer, such as Tell me how many past or present Sooner Players that have been given a scholarship have had that scholarship yanked for no reason other than to free it up?. I don't know if you think because no one can supply a number, then that number must be zero or that if it happens somewhere, it doesn't happen here. However, I suspect it does happen, even at OU, and that no Athletic Department will go out of the way to draw attention to it or release facts and figures other than to say so-and-so has left the program for undisclosed reasons.

[soonerboomer]

Maybe the NCAA should institute a new policy which would require the signature of the coach on each Letter of Intent who was the primary recruiter of each player. Then if that coach took a job at another school after the date that the Letter of Intent was signed, the player would be allowed to nullify that Letter of Intent and enroll in the school where that coach was now coaching, provided the player did so between the time that the letter of intent was signed and the required reporting date to the new school in late summer of that same year. In addition, the player would still have to sit out for a year and the losing school would have the right to disallow the nullification of the Letter of Intent if both schools involved were in the same conference.

[SoonerorLater]

I've really never understood why students athletes aren't allowed to transfer without penalty. If the student thinks his opportunities would be better at another institution then he should be allowed to go. We wouldn't think of penalizing an Engineering Student by not being able to participate in
other activities if he chose to change schools. These are amateur athletes. Let them play wherever they want to.