There's been much confusion about the NCAA's transfer rules in recent weeks. In fact, you can trace it back a few years. Because every year there are tons of players who want to transfer and ask for an exemption that would allow them to play for their new school right away. Some are granted, some are denied. The whole process, though, is completely ambiguous and arbitrary. And that's the problem.
First, a clarification on the rule I'm talking about. The long-standing NCAA rule was that, with fex exceptions, student-athletes had to sit out a year if they transferred from one Division I school to another. Eventually parts of this rule were amended, allowing student-athletes in non-revenue sports to transfer and still play right away, so long as they hadn't transferred before. This is known as the "first-time transfer" rule. There's also the "graduate transfer" rule, which lets student-athletes who graduate but still have eligibility to go somewhere else for graduate school and play there, as long as they enroll in a graduate program that isn't offered at their previous school. Student-athletes are also, obviously, allowed to transfer and play right away if their previous school dropped the sport.
In football and men's basketball, however, the first-time transfer rule doesn't apply (the graduate transfer rule still does). Regardless of how long they've been at a school, they have to sit out a year. The reason doesn't matter. Except, sometimes it does. The way around the transfer rule that more and more players/coaches are trying to utilize is the "hardship waiver." If you have a family member who has a medical condition and you want to transfer to a school closer to home, you can apply for a "hardship waiver," which would let you play immediately if granted. Although, there's no guarantee it'll be granted.
Are you confused yet? That's alright, so is everybody else. The transfer system is incredibly complex and, despite the NCAA's best efforts, difficult to understand. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why some requests are granted and others aren't. That's why the system needs to be changed.
A few examples to illustrate the inconsistent nature of these transfer requests. Alex Oriakhi was the center on UConn's national championship team in 2012. Last year, UConn was ineligible for the NCAA Tournament because of low APR scores, so Oriakhi transferred to Missouri. Since it was his senior year and his previous school was ineligible for postseason play, Oriakhi was allowed to play for Missouri (this same rule applies to anybody who leaves a school that receives a postseason ban as part of an NCAA penalty). But Rakeem Buckles, who transferred from Florida International to Minnesota this year was denied his request, even though it's the same situation. He's a senior and Florida International is ineligible for postseason (although his situation is a little more complicated because he previously transferred from Louisville to Florida International). Meanwhile, his FIU teammate Malik Smith also transferred to Minnesota, and WILL be eligible to play for the Gophers this season. See what I mean?
Then there's Kerwin Okoro. He's originally from New York and decided to transfer from Iowa State to Rutgers after the death of two family members in a short period. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case. Cases like this are why the hardship waiver exists. Except the NCAA denied him a hardship waiver. It was only on appeal that they reversed course and declared him eligible for Rutgers this season. They deny his request, yet approve hardship waivers under circumstances that are sometimes questionable at best? (Sometimes the guy's just unhappy and wants to leave.)
According to the NCAA, 40 percent of basketball players will transfer at least once, a ridiculously high number. (And that doesn't even take into account guys who leave school early for the NBA.) I'm not going to pretend I know the reasons why these players decide they want to transfer, but that statistic is definitely alarming. That's another reason why the transfer rules need to be streamlined. It's almost too easy to transfer sometimes. Especially if there's a possibility you can get a hardship waiver (no matter how legitimate the reason you ask for one) and play somewhere else right away.
The NCAA has taken notice, and so have the coaches. Mike Krzyzewski, probably one of the most influential people in the sport, would prefer it if there were no exceptions at all. You transfer, you sit out a year. Period. "Everybody should have to sit out, that includes a fifth-year player, just to make it equal. It's a farce really," he said. Although, it also sounds like Coach K would be fine with nobody having to sit out: "Giving certain kids the right to play and others not the right to play, it should be done the same. If they want to let everybody play right away, then let everybody play right away. Everybody should be treated the same. I don't understand why there are exceptions to this rule."
Basically, it sounds like Coach K just wants things to be consistent. And I agree with him. I don't think transfers should be allowed to play right away (unless they're graduate students or they're like Oriakhi and transferring because the school they're leaving has no postseason eligibility for the duration of their collegiate career). It might sound harsh, but at least it's clear and consistent. That way, too, it's out of the NCAA's hands to determine whose "hardship" is more legitimate than somebody else's. It would also make the system much fairer for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment