Welcome to MasonHoops.com

Jump in to the discussion! Sign up is easy, we want to hear what you have to say!

Sign Up

OT: Proposed One-time Transfer Exemption

Discussion in 'George Mason Basketball' started by Pablo, Jan 31, 2020.

  1. Pablo

    Pablo Hall of Famer

    Likes Received:
    2,851
    Trophy Points:
    7,840
    https://www.espn.com/college-sports...etic-directors-support-one-transfer-exemption:

    "Big Ten Conference athletic directors are supporting a one-time transfer exemption for all sports, which would allow college athletes to move from one Division I school to another without sitting out a year, Oho State AD Gene Smith told ESPN.

    The league last year formally introduced a proposal for a one-time transfer exemption, but the NCAA's board of directors in November implemented a moratorium on transfer-related proposals for the 2019-2020 legislative cycle. A Big Ten athletic director said the league hopes the moratorium is lifted and the proposal could be considered as early as this spring, with a potential vote at the 2021 NCAA convention.

    A one-time transfer exemption currently is allowed in all but five Division I sports: football, men's basketball, women's basketball, baseball and men's ice hockey. Athletes transferring in those sports must sit out a year of competition unless they graduate from their original institution or obtain an immediate-eligibility waiver from the NCAA.

    'I'm supportive of [the one-time exemption],' Smith said. 'I think it was almost unanimous. At the end of the day, we need to provide those kids in those five sports the same opportunities as those in the other sports have. At the end of the day, everybody else has choice. Why can't they have a choice?'

    Many football and basketball coaches have opposed a transfer exemption, likening it to free agency. But others cite an increase in transfers, the implementation of the NCAA's transfer portal, and a rise in immediate-eligibility waivers being granted as reasons for a one-time exemption."


    I concur with this proposal and believe that it will eventually be passed. If I'm not mistaken, 6 players during the Paulsen era have been required to sit out a season under the current rule. They include 5 who transferred out (Porter, Jackson, Abram, Dixon, & Newman) and Reuter who transferred in. Would Coach Paulsen, who appears to be averse to accepting transfers, be more willing to do so if the proposal is passed?
  2. gmubrian

    gmubrian Starter

    Likes Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,338
    Location:
    Recently escaped proposal hell
    This could really work against a guy like Paulsen. Being averse to bringing in transfers combined with the fact that he has had issues holding on to players, could really work against him.

    He will really need to adjust his approach if this comes to fruition.
  3. FreeGunston12

    FreeGunston12 Starter

    Likes Received:
    888
    Trophy Points:
    1,320
    Just a question: would some of the local talent be more likely to stay at home for a trial year? Maybe they didn't get the offers that they wanted, so instead of taking a prep year, they play at Mason to stay close to home with the intent of transferring up after their freshman year?
    Walter likes this.
  4. Walter

    Walter All-American

    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Trophy Points:
    4,840
    Just another way for the P5 schools can use the non-P5 schools as a development league.
    Dawgs99, Maestro and GMUgemini like this.
  5. GMUgemini

    GMUgemini Hall of Famer

    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Trophy Points:
    12,840
    Also a way to push underachieving players out the door faster and reload.

    From the academic side of the argument (I know we always ignore that part when talking about college sports) I don’t like it because not only does the university lose money on every student who transfers, but the student usually delays their graduation by at least a semester and sometimes has to retake classes (maybe not as big of an issue with full-ride scholarships).
  6. gmubrian

    gmubrian Starter

    Likes Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,338
    Location:
    Recently escaped proposal hell
    Your two key points seem to contradict each other. The school can’t lose money if they are getting it back on additional semesters. Both of those are moot due to scholarships. If anything, not doing ineligible seasons lessons that. You have fewer people sitting on the bench while eating a scholarship.

    The school is absolutely the last entity I am concerned about in all of this. The having to retake classes is mostly a sham created by the universities. Courses should be more readily accepted between accredited universities. If one isn’t accepted, At least one of the two universities involved has cheated the student (has a lousy class that didn’t teach what it should or is purposely trying to force a student to pay for more classes).

    This should be about what is the best for the players/students. Right now, the transfer rules limit their options. This frees up their options so it is the right thing to do.
  7. GMUgemini

    GMUgemini Hall of Famer

    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Trophy Points:
    12,840
    The school loses money whenever a student doesn’t matriculate in the program.

    The student who transfers will be taking that extra semester at a new university so their old university will not see that revenue.

    Sometimes it doesn’t have anything to do with a school being nefarious. Sometimes schools split up a class requirement into two semesters when another school teaches the class in one. Sometimes the gen ed requirements change from school to school depending on type (ex: a player transfers from an R1 like OSU to a liberal arts school like Davidson or from a private Ivy into a public state school). Look at a degree path in biology at VA Tech versus Mason, for example (granted, almost none of these students are majoring in biology, but some of them actually do major in sciences or business or something like that).

    I’ll give you another example, when I went to Mason the writing req was split between 101 and 325, meaning you didn’t take your second writing course usually until you were a junior. Where I teach now, it is split between 101 and 102 (or a single semester 105 if you test into it). Different philosophies. Now imagine if you tested into 105 and transferred from ASU to Mason, does Mason accept that 1 semester 100 level class as equivalent to their 101+325 split or not?
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2020
  8. GMUgemini

    GMUgemini Hall of Famer

    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Trophy Points:
    12,840
    And I'd further ask, if they student-athlete gets 5 years of eligibility (four years plus one red-shirt year) and transfers once and has to sit out a year, does he actually lose a year of playing? No. He just misses out on playing the year he transfers to the new school but he regains that year at the end. So the question is, is it in the player's best interest as a player to get to play right away? Yes. But is it in the student's best interests? Maybe not if they aren't going to graduate in the 4 years they'll have a scholarship.
  9. gmubrian

    gmubrian Starter

    Likes Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,338
    Location:
    Recently escaped proposal hell
    You changed the equation from your first post. You said “retake” in your original post, not the BS you just posted about. I have seen tons of examples where schools don’t accept what are identical classes or due to some oddball timing. Whether it is nefarious or incompetence, it is still against the student’s best interest. Universities are no better than any other organization and find ways to milk more money out their customers.
  10. gmubrian

    gmubrian Starter

    Likes Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,338
    Location:
    Recently escaped proposal hell
    The student loses a year of his life by being forced to stay in school. If that is what he chooses is best for himself then the NCAA should give him that flexibility. If they really cared about the student in the way you suggest, they could require a five year scholarship for four years of elegibility. The student could get to use it if they see fit.
  11. gmubrian

    gmubrian Starter

    Likes Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,338
    Location:
    Recently escaped proposal hell
    There are a fixed number of scholarships every year. There is no lost revenue!
  12. GMUgemini

    GMUgemini Hall of Famer

    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Trophy Points:
    12,840
    There is on the academic side. Departments generally generate revenue based on enrollment numbers and class caps. If you have X number of business majors transferring to a different university every year, the enrollment numbers in your 200 and 300 level courses don’t look so good (sorry I just sat through a two hour discussion on ways our department can increase revenue without increasing cap sizes, so it’s kind of front of mind right now).

    I’ll grant you these are small numbers to it’s not really a big deal, but academics is almost never actually discussed when talking about rules changes on the athletics side.

    Do you think this will give players more choice because coaches won’t have to plan long-term and will have more scholarships open for transfers?
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2020
  13. gmubrian

    gmubrian Starter

    Likes Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,338
    Location:
    Recently escaped proposal hell
    I understand wanting to grow your academic department, but that should be done out of appealing to the students desires, not forcing them to remain in an undesirable situation. What you are describing above is only revenue moving from one department in the school into another. No lost revenue for the university. So it seems you would prefer to lock students into a situation they want to get out of so that your department keeps one extra seat in the department versus another department. That is the exact kind of thing that shows the schools and departments have their own pockets in mind and don’t have the kids best interest in mind. For that reason alone I am for the change.

    It will give players more choice because they won’t have to sit for a year, and lose a year of their life to get out of a situation they are obviously not happy with. I am not worried about the coaches, they are the ones that make more in a season than most of the players will see in a decade or career. Now, it could help or hurt coaches. Coaches that use transfers, I think it will help. Coaches that stubbornly refuse to use strategic transfers, it will likely hurt.
  14. GMUgemini

    GMUgemini Hall of Famer

    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Trophy Points:
    12,840
    Ok. I’m sure the big 10 really has the players best interests at heart and it has nothing to do with making the P5 more talent rich poaching players from smaller schools.
    mkaufman1 and sleeperpick like this.
  15. gmubrian

    gmubrian Starter

    Likes Received:
    1,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,338
    Location:
    Recently escaped proposal hell
    No, they don’t, just like you showed you didn’t. Let the student and his advisers choose what is best for him!
  16. GMUgemini

    GMUgemini Hall of Famer

    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Trophy Points:
    12,840
    OK. So what happens after they exhaust their one/time transfer, go to a new school and the coach is fired or leaves for another job? What if they get recruited over? What if they made a bad choice and don’t like the new school? You going to give them another free transfer?
  17. DJ3

    DJ3 All-American

    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    4,840
    This is a wash. Sure we might loose some players. But we might get some p5 prospects too
  18. GMUgemini

    GMUgemini Hall of Famer

    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Trophy Points:
    12,840
    Also, if I am one of their professors, I am one of their advisors, and I make sure that they don’t forget about the academic side of the equation. It’s all I’m saying. Transferring schools, especially multiple times, is just not good for learning outcomes.

    And yes, it is different if they graduated already and are leaving as a grad transfer. Totally different academic situation.
    jessej likes this.
  19. GMUgemini

    GMUgemini Hall of Famer

    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Trophy Points:
    12,840
    P5 prospects we will be getting are the Reuter’s of the world who didn’t pan out at UVA. They’re a bigger gamble. Might turn out to be like Ibi Watson or they might turn out to be like Reuter or Okoloji. Much less risk snagging a Seth Curry
  20. DJ3

    DJ3 All-American

    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    4,840
    Plenty of examples of it working and not working.

Share This Page