New NCAA rules to stay..

The more I read here about the new regulations in Division I, the more concerned I become; particularly if those who transfer sit out a year AND lose a year of eligibility.

In the case of the two sports that give full scholarships, football and basketball, I can see the "sit out a year" argument. However, now you're telling me that a player who receives 25% of his college costs is going to lose both???

Frankly, I have a problem with the automatic requirement that players sit a year out. The current system gives athletic directors the latitude to grant permission to play the following year. It can only be done once, and it can be made specific to certain schools so as to prevent players from jumping ship and playing immediately for a competitor. (As a matter of practice, the baseball head coach usually determines the degree of permission granted by the A.D.) This seems flexible and fair for players who, on average, receive appreciably less than 50% of their support from athletic scholarships.

With this change, the National Letter of Intent, already considered the most one-sided contract in existence, becomes even more so.

 

I wouldnt take anything here as gospel. For example, I have not read anywhere except in Coach 27's post that you lose a year of eligibility if you transfer.

 

I wonder how all this will affect the current trend of players making early committments (before their junior season). Obviously there's going to be a lot more pressure on players to make the right choice of schools the first time, given the penalty for transferring.
If it's me, I'd want to have a clear picture of a team's roster situation and you can't really do that if you commit early.

 

I apologize for the incorrect post

I read the original post and I did not state the new rules correctly. Here is the deal. If you transfer from D-1 to D-1 you must sit out a year. You do not lose a year of elgibility. At least that is the way the rules are right now. Who knows what they are going to be next month. Again I apologize for posting inaccurate information.

 

An excellent question!! And if the new rules do away with that trend, then I say good riddance. I don't even think the coaches are comfortable with offerering kids in their soph and jr years of HS. But once the first guy let Pandora out of her box, the rest had to keep up.

 

Not a problem here, Coach 27. These are tumultuous and confusing times in Division I baseball.

I stand by my earlier point, though. An automatic year of sitting out at the new school seems out of place when the player is receiving something like 25% to begin with.

Less money available to distribute to exceptional players plus a mandatory year off from competitive play if they choose the wrong program. Now, tell me why a higher percentage of the nation's best players won't turn pro immediately or go the JUCO route?

"Trickle down" equals dilution if the best players go elsewhere.

I truly hope it turns out differently.

 

Well, if they are objective about it, they are going to realize that a very small percentage of drafted high school players reach the majors and it's getting tougher all the time due to the influx of NDFA's from Latin America and Japan.
Typical path for HS player;
1st year-complex league or SS
2nd year-short season or low A
3rd year-low A or high A
4th year-high A or AA
Admittedly some exceptional HS players will move up a level after 1/2 a season,but not many.
So, a kid can either ride buses for 3-4 years and maybe reach AA, or be a draft-eligible junior in college preparing for life after baseball. Unless a kid is drafted in the first three rounds or a team is willing to go way over slot, it's a no-brainer.
I can see JUCOs getting more popular, but if the new rule limits transfers, Won't there will be fewer DI openings for JUCOS to fill ?

 

I looked at the D1 Manual and the Transfer Guide and my eyes just glazed over. Look at it this way, you have 5 years to complete 4 years of play. The clock starts to run when you first enroll. It continues to run no matter what. Let's say you spend year 1 at College A, then transfer to College B. You sit out year 2 at College B. If you're looking at a 4 year graduation plan, then you've definitely lost a year of eligibility. If you're looking at a 5 year plan, I don't think you have. You should still have 3 years left. Of course, you probably cannot redshirt after the transfer.

The question is whether the "year in residence" counts as one of the 4 "seasons of competition." I don't think so, but I wouldn't put any serious money on it. But it clearly counts as one of the 5 years which you have to engage in 4 seasons of competition.

 

4/5 rule

You have five years to complete your 4. You transfer D-1 to D-1 you lost one of those years. So in effect you actually do lose a year of elgibility. Now you have 4 to do 4. If you redshirt and transfer D-1 to D-1 you used up 1 year by redshirting and 1 year by transferring D-1 to D-1. So now you have lost 2 years. You could only compete for 3 years out of the 5.

The bottom line is if you transfer D-1 to D-1 you will have to sit out a year. That is a year of elgibility. The clock starts when you enter school. The 4/5 rule means you have 5 years to complete 4 years of competition.

Does this make sense?

 

I think we're saying the same thing. In fact, had I seen your last post before I sent mine I would not have posted mine. That's what happens when you start a post, get sidetracked on work, and come back to it. You had already clarified the issue before I finished my post.

One other issue that I am still no sure about is transfers from D-1 to D-2 schools. I had always thought that transfers to D-2 schools did not have to sit out. But after reading the transfer guide I'm not so sure.