Time to Wave the Transfer Waiver Bye-Bye

Now that the calendar has shifted to March, college basketball is about to take center stage.  The first bids have been awarded, and the major conference tournaments are next weekend.  Then, of course, the big showcase of March Madness, where star players at mid-majors will suddenly become household names (and announcers will act like they knew who these guys were more than a few days before).

Undoubtedly, some of those mid-major stars will use their NCAA Tournament success as a springboard that will lead to their transferring to a high-major program.  Especially if the proposed new NCAA legislation is passed that will lead to changes in the transfer process and allow them to play immediately at their new school, provided they qualify academically.  If passed, this change could go into effect next season, dramatically changing the transfer landscape in both men's basketball and football.

This is already the transfer rule in 85 of the 90 NCAA sports.  The only five where they're required to sit out a year after transferring are Division I men's and women's basketball, football, baseball and men's hockey (aka the five sports where the NCAA actually makes money).  In order to transfer and be immediately eligible in one of those sports, they either need have graduated from their original school and still have eligibility remaining (the "graduate transfer") or obtain a waiver from the NCAA.  

And that's where the problems have come in.  There's no rhyme or reason when it comes to waiver approvals.  There could be two incredibly similar, virtually identical cases, yet one gets approved and the other doesn't.  And some of the ones with flimsy reasons for the request get approved while legitimate ones don't.  Then, if you don't get approved, you can appeal, give them "new" evidence, and sometimes they change their minds!  It really is a crap shoot.

The transfer protocol is set up this way so that players can't just up and leave if they're unhappy at their current school.  They want you to be sure about your decision and get acclimated to your new school, which is why student-athletes are required to sit out a year.

But that hasn't stopped them from wanting to transfer.  More than one-third of college students transfer at least once, and the requirement to sit out a year doesn't discourage student-athletes in those five sports.  And since they want to play immediately, the number of waiver requests the NCAA gets is astronomical.  They spend more time dealing with requests in those five sports than anything else.

So, perhaps not surprisingly, it's the committee that reviews those waiver requests that's pushing for this legislation change.  Not only is the waiver process tedious, it doesn't make sense that the rule only applies to those five sports while athletes in every other sport are free to transfer with no such restriction.  This rule change would put an end to those exceptions and bring those five Division I sports in line with everybody else.

Reaction to this potential rule change was mixed, which surprised me a little.  BCS football coaches, in particular, aren't fans of it (I think mainly because they're worried guys who don't play one year will leave the next and need to be replaced).  Men's basketball coaches, meanwhile, are concerned about the potential increase in the number of transfers, particularly those leaving mid-majors for Power 5 schools (although, there would be nearly as many doing the reverse, as well).

Coaches don't look at it from the student-athlete's perspective, though.  From the comments I've seen, the main reason they don't like it is because they think the rule change would somehow turn major college football and basketball into an endless cycle of recruiting (isn't it that already?) and they want to have some sort of roster certainty heading into the season.

That concern seems unwarranted to me.  Because it's not like transferring will become college sports' version of free agency.  I'm sure there would still be some restrictions where players can't transfer mid-semester or mid-season.  It's not like you can decide that you don't want to play at Oklahoma anymore in October, then sign with Michigan in November and immediately be added to the roster!

There's also an inherent unfairness that this rule change seeks to fix.  Coaches are free to leave one job for another, but the players they recruited to the previous school are stuck there.  If they want to follow the coach to the new school, they'll likely get their release, but they'll have to sit out a year even if they're otherwise eligible.  This even applies to incoming freshmen, who are bound to a school once they sign an NLI, yet would have sit out a year before ever playing a game.

Another potential "problem" coaches foresee is big programs actively trying to poach players.  Well, I've got news for you, this happens already, even though it's against NCAA rules!  And it still would be prohibited even if the transfer rule is changed.

Would it adversely impact smaller programs?  Potentially.  But, frankly, I don't think it'll change things that much.  It certainly won't create the Doomsday scenario that some people are envisioning where the mid-major programs turn into a feeder system for the Power 5.  And, again, it's not like they'll be free agents.  They won't be able to change teams midseason, and they'll need to be academically eligible.  The only difference is that the year-in-residence requirement would no longer exist.

Student-athletes, naturally, are more excited than coaches about potentially being able to transfer and be eligible immediately.  Those who seek transfers have all different reasons for wanting to.  And it's not like those reasons are suddenly going to change just because the NCAA changed the rules.  After all, student-athletes are free to transfer and play right away in 85 other NCAA sports, including every other Division I sport, so it's not like transfer rates will suddenly skyrocket.

Beyond that, it's incumbent on the coaches to follow the rules.  Because they're the ones ultimately responsible for what happens in a program.  And literally the only thing that would be different if this rule change is enacted is that transfers would be available right away, which can only benefit the coaches.

We're not talking about free agency here.  We're talking about a system that already works pretty well in every other NCAA sport.  It's time to drop the waivers.  Either make them all eligible right away or none of them.  It's time to stop having two different sets of rules!