PDA

View Full Version : D1 transfer rules



Pages : 1 [2] 3

brookyone
08-01-2012, 07:57 PM
But the question is what should be allowed...as I understand it.

I also think an individual simply operating with a do what feels right (for them personally) will definitely be detrimental (at times, or on occasion) when you're within the realm of a team sport such as this. Including transfer situations. If a student athlete is dissatisfied with their present situation yet committed to the sport, their education...still has the strong desire to compete at the college level, I don't see any hugely inappropriate aspect of sitting a year. Though, as I said...I have no problem with not being required to sit a season. I'd just like to see it be uniform throughout D-I either way. There's always a price to pay for commitment and dedication to one's goals.

SlewFoot
08-02-2012, 09:25 AM
I don't have any answers or strong opinions on this subject but in reading everyone's opinion I wanted to throw out my two cents. I personally think that transfer rules are necessary for the big money sports like football, basketball and maybe men's hockey. Universities gain revenue from these big money sports and they want to protect their investments. In most of the rest of the sports, which I think includes women's hockey, I don't know if a transfer policy is really necessary. I dislike seeing kids that transfer having to sit when I think most transfers are not motivated by sport or at least not motivated by sport alone. Many kids transfer because they don't like where they are going to school. I think making kids sit a year when they transfer because they are homesick, just don't like the school or for academic reasons is just wrong. Also, there are a few that transfer because of hockey but most of those kids are leaving because they aren't getting an opportunity where they are currently playing. I think most of the time a good case can be made for allowing a student to transfer and play immediately for her new school. Fortunately women's hockey isn't as strict and waivers to the transfer rules are readily given, at least when a transfer goes to a different conference.

WCHFan
08-02-2012, 10:22 AM
I don't have any answers or strong opinions on this subject but in reading everyone's opinion I wanted to throw out my two cents. I personally think that transfer rules are necessary for the big money sports like football, basketball and maybe men's hockey. Universities gain revenue from these big money sports and they want to protect their investments. In most of the rest of the sports, which I think includes women's hockey, I don't know if a transfer policy is really necessary. I dislike seeing kids that transfer having to sit when I think most transfers are not motivated by sport or at least not motivated by sport alone. Many kids transfer because they don't like where they are going to school. I think making kids sit a year when they transfer because they are homesick, just don't like the school or for academic reasons is just wrong. Also, there are a few that transfer because of hockey but most of those kids are leaving because they aren't getting an opportunity where they are currently playing. I think most of the time a good case can be made for allowing a student to transfer and play immediately for her new school. Fortunately women's hockey isn't as strict and waivers to the transfer rules are readily given, at least when a transfer goes to a different conference.


We're talking about 18, 19, 20 year old kids with the help of their parents visiting schools on the schools dime and then choosing a school. I disagree that someone who accepts money and or scholarship to attend a school should be able to switch back and then play a sport right away because they're home sick. Just don't think it's fair to all involved. If they're home sick transfer back and wait year to play. I feel most kids get homesick and don't transfer back. Sick family member, life threatening occurrence PSU situation etc I have no problems with it.

Also big sports no transfer small sport yes? I'm pretty sure that to have a player come to a school for hockey or scholarship even for a few months would cost $4-$6,000? Should the transfer have to pay the school back?

Like I've mentioned rules are rules. Every sport should be treated the same and in my opinion it's wrong for someone to transfer back and play right away. 1 year sitting won't kill you and you still get to practice be a part of the team and most important earn an education.

SlewFoot
08-02-2012, 11:09 AM
We're talking about 18, 19, 20 year old kids with the help of their parents visiting schools on the schools dime and then choosing a school. I disagree that someone who accepts money and or scholarship to attend a school should be able to switch back and then play a sport right away because they're home sick. Just don't think it's fair to all involved. If they're home sick transfer back and wait year to play. I feel most kids get homesick and don't transfer back. Sick family member, life threatening occurrence PSU situation etc I have no problems with it.

Also big sports no transfer small sport yes? I'm pretty sure that to have a player come to a school for hockey or scholarship even for a few months would cost $4-$6,000? Should the transfer have to pay the school back?

Like I've mentioned rules are rules. Every sport should be treated the same and in my opinion it's wrong for someone to transfer back and play right away. 1 year sitting won't kill you and you still get to practice be a part of the team and most important earn an education.

As I mentioned in my post, I don't have a strong opinion on this and we can just disagree but I wanted to answer a couple of your points.

As far as the schools dime to visit the school. I don't think that has anything to do with this transfer issue. Schools recruit and that is a recruiting expense. Most visits do not result in a recruit getting a scholarship so this is a cost of doing business. The school is promoting itself as a good fit for the student/athlete. If a kid wants to transfer then it wasn't a good fit. In accounting parlance, its a sunk cost.

As far as school cost. The student wasn't paid cash so I don't think the student has to pay back anything. The student received future services in the form of no tuition, food and lodging while she attends school and in exchange plays hockey. I'm not sure but I think losing the student that gets a scholarship actually saves a school money even though it loses the services of the athlete. I doubt that the athlete makes a difference in revenue for the school, at least not in nonrevenue sports. The future tuition, room and board expenses will not have to be provided in the future so it would be saving future expenses if the school didn't offer the scholarship to someone else.

I agree with you that rules are rules and once implemented they should be followed. I'm just questioning the propriety of the rule as it applies to nonrevenue sports. School should be about academics first and second enhancing the university experience with sport. I see little benefit to punishing an athlete because she has transferred. I think of all of the transfers this past year. Most of them transferred because of academic reasons, homesickness, dislike of a hockey program or coach, etc. Typically such student/athlete won't play if they stay or if she plays she will be miserable. Bottomline they made a mistake in choosing the school. In general, I see no harm or foul in letting them play somewhere else. The only negative to open transfer would be for example if a top hockey school was recruiting away talent from the other schools and it created a competitive imbalance but I just don't see any evidence of that being the case with current or past transfers.

Like I said, just my two cents.

pgb-ohio
08-02-2012, 11:33 AM
There should be strict and consistent rules across the board for all conferences. That would eliminate the unfair or perceived unfair treatment of one player over another � and everyone going in would know what is at stake. The sport is mature enough and there are enough players wanting to play D1 that a strict transfer rule is necessary. We are always saying we want to be treated like the men�s programs, so we should have similar transfer rules. If players want to play in the �big leagues,� they should be held accountable and have some consequences if they decide to transfer.

I think a player transferring from one D1 school to another D1 school should have to sit out the remainder of the year if the transfer is done mid-season, as well as sit out the entire next year. If the transfer is done mid-season, the player should lose that year�s eligibility, but not the eligibility for the year she sits out with her new team. I think a player transferring from D1 to D3 should have to sit out the remainder of the year if the transfer is done mid-season, but should be able to play the next year. She should lose her year of eligibility for the partial season. In both cases, players should be able to practice with their new teams.

Situations where something happens in the program, such as what happened at Niagara or with the Penn State football program, would most likely require a departure from the strict rules.This. For me, consistency across conferences and with Men's D-1 is the best approach.

That said, I won't lose much sleep if the status quo persists. The one thing I do feel strongly about is that no player should be allowed to play for two different teams during the same season. Fortunately I see no danger that the rules will move in that direction.

Like others who have posted, I have no problem with a player who exercises a legal transfer option, even if I would change the rule for the future. But philosophically I think that a majority of "dissatisfied" players are best served by trying to work through things with their current teams. Sitting out a year is an appropriate deterrent to transfering when hope remains. Conversely, when things have broken down beyond repair, paying a year's worth of "dues" at the new school is a price that the player will likely be willing to pay.

Think it through in practical terms. A player says "University X is where I really want to be; I'm ready to give 100% to my new school." Then, in the next breath, says "Wait, I have to wait a year before playing in games? Forget it." Is such a transfer really in anyone's best interest? That combination of sentiments sounds pretty mercenary to me. Conversely, a player who is willing spend a year as a practice player while turning it up a notch on her studies is likely very sincere in her new found loyalty.

WCHFan
08-02-2012, 02:11 PM
Slew... Hey no problems, and I to was only stating my opinions. This is fun most of the time. I do disagree with you that it doesn't cost money to recruit and bring a player in. How many times did the coach fly out to see the player? Fly her in? Spend the time to register/books/set up lodging/order equipment/tuition. And of course you will save money after a player leaves. But you did lose money. I believe so. And of course the player shouldn't have to pay a school back. That was only a sarcastic response.

I just don't like the transfer deal without some form of consequence for making a wrong decision. I don�t feel sitting out/red shirting a year will be that bad for someone homesick, not liking her new team/coach or lack of playing time.

There is NEVER one answer to any question or post. :)

FRICKER
08-02-2012, 05:35 PM
Several comments imply that the colleges set the rules on contacts with the student/athletes. The NCAA is very clear that the coaching staff can only have four contactes a season, with tournament games counting as one contact. The only problem there is that theyc an't talk to a player until the team is done playing. If you have ever been around a team after they are done
playing, it's amazing how fast they tear down, pack up, and board the bus for a long trip home. Also, because of the limited time they have to talk to prospects, the school is just as apt to make a mistake as the student/athlete. As a coach, I've always thought it was best if a player that didn't want to play for you moved on, the better, and I'm sure the student/athlete probably feels the same way.

SlewFoot
08-02-2012, 06:32 PM
There is NEVER one answer to any question or post. :)

I agree with you. Frankly I have changed my mind on this issue from what I thought just a year or so ago. I just think the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case. In my opinion, most girls want to graduate in 4 years and most parents don't want to pay for another year of college expenses too.:D

WCHFan
08-02-2012, 06:59 PM
I agree with you. Frankly I have changed my mind on this issue from what I thought just a year or so ago. I just think the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case. In my opinion, most girls want to graduate in 4 years and most parents don't want to pay for another year of college expenses too.:D

Now that is what I agree with 110% (sorry Lou Foriggno moment) My daughter has told me girls on her team can come back in the 5th year and finish school with scholarship?

pgb-ohio
08-03-2012, 07:25 AM
Thinking out loud:

Gotta believe that $$ while not playing depends on scholarship status. Is she on full scholarship? Partial? A walk-on? I imagine that whatever her status is, it would continue during a redshirt year. Sitting out a season in order to transfer would essentially be a redshirt season.

If correct, that would have the effect of extending both hockey and financial aid to a 5th year. Remember that even without regard to sports, a transfer student is likely to need a little extra time to finish a degree. So transfering to another hockey program might actually be financially advantageous, as opposed to dropping the sport to graduate "on time."

Yet another factor to keep in mind is that the new school's financial package might be different than the original school's level of support.

As for a scholarship continuing after eligibility is exhausted, I presume that it's possible but not guaranteed. Wouldn't that be like honoring a scholarship after a player has a career-ending injury? In others words, it's a staff decision to tie up a scholarship for a while longer, even though there won't be any further on-ice production. Presumably when it's the right thing to do it will happen, but there is a cost to the program.

The above are educated guesses. If anyone has definitive answers, please post.

SlewFoot
08-03-2012, 07:45 AM
Thinking out loud:

Gotta believe that $$ while not playing depends on scholarship status. Is she on full scholarship? Partial? A walk-on? I imagine that whatever her status is, it would continue during a redshirt year. Sitting out a season in order to transfer would essentially be a redshirt season.

If correct, that would have the effect of extending both hockey and financial aid to a 5th year. Remember that even without regard to sports, a transfer student is likely to need a little extra time to finish a degree. So transfering to another hockey program might actually be financially advantageous, as opposed to dropping the sport to graduate "on time."

Yet another factor to keep in mind is that the new school's financial package might be different than the original school's level of support.

As for a scholarship continuing after eligibility is exhausted, I presume that it's possible but not guaranteed. Wouldn't that be like honoring a scholarship after a player has a career-ending injury? In others words, it's a staff decision to tie up a scholarship for a while longer, even though there won't be any further on-ice production. Presumably when it's the right thing to do it will happen, but there is a cost to the program.

The above are educated guesses. If anyone has definitive answers, please post.

I don't know if this clears anything up but I found this on a California school's website. This school wanted to provide a 5th year (but wasn't required to do so) to help athletes finish their degrees. If this is right I would imagine that it would be counted as one of the 18 scholarships permitted so the team would be short an athletic scholarship if given.

NCAA Bylaw 15.3.1 Eligibility of Student-Athletes for Financial Aid
Institutional financial aid may be awarded for any term during which a student-athlete is in regular attendance as an
undergraduate with eligibility remaining under Bylaw 14.2, or within six years after initial enrollment in a collegiate
institution (provided the student does not receive such aid for more than five years during that period), or as a graduate
eligible under Bylaw 14.1.9.
Please note: Fifth-year aid upon completion of eligibility is not an entitlement or part of your academic
year financial aid agreement. It is awarded at the discretion of the coach and the athletic director or
designee. Factors that may be considered in deciding to award the aid include the availability of funds and
fulfillment of academic and team obligations. Your eligibility for fifth-year aid may be impacted by the
number of summers you received athletic aid. Fifth-year aid is intended for completion of your
baccalaureate degree, and not to pursue an additional minor, second degree, or master’s degree.

OnMAA
08-03-2012, 09:28 AM
The only negative to open transfer would be for example if a top hockey school was recruiting away talent from the other schools and it created a competitive imbalance but I just don't see any evidence of that being the case with current or past transfers.

Like I said, just my two cents.

Even with the rules in place, can think of a several high profile transfers in the last 4 or 5 years that had a major impact on the Balance of power in various leagues:

Cases in point:
- UCONN transfer to Clarkson.....Led to decline in Uconn and put Clarkson in the drivers seat for an ECAC championship right away.
- Minny transfers to UND......Put UND on the map as a WCHA contender. UM not as greatly affected, as within three years they won the championship.
- SU transfer to BU......Major negative impact on the SU program.
- UNH transfer to BU....Major negative impact on the UNH program.

pgb-ohio
08-03-2012, 10:22 AM
I don't know if this clears anything up but I found this on a California school's website. This school wanted to provide a 5th year (but wasn't required to do so) to help athletes finish their degrees. If this is right I would imagine that it would be counted as one of the 18 scholarships permitted so the team would be short an athletic scholarship if given.Yup; that's pretty much what I thought it would say. Thanks for doing the legwork.

pgb-ohio
08-03-2012, 11:20 AM
Even with the rules in place, can think of a several high profile transfers in the last 4 or 5 years that had a major impact on the Balance of power in various leagues:

Cases in point:
- UCONN transfer to Clarkson.....Led to decline in Uconn and put Clarkson in the drivers seat for an ECAC championship right away.
- Minny transfers to UND......Put UND on the map as a WCHA contender. UM not as greatly affected, as within three years they won the championship.
- SU transfer to BU......Major negative impact on the SU program.
- UNH transfer to BU....Major negative impact on the UNH program.Which would support an argument that the one year waiting period should go national, as it would potentially discourage such high profile transfers.

Note that when the Lam Twins "sat out," they were playing for the U.S. Olympic Team. Since that would have been the case in any event, there really wasn't a waiting period for them. The other examples are from the East. So in each of the above four cases, there was no waiting period to serve as a deterrent to transferring.

Now the Lamoreaux situation was pretty unique. The players had deep family and geographic ties to UND. It can also be argued that part of the motivation for the change was helping Women's Hockey grow stronger, as the twins were moving from an established power to an emerging program. With those reasons, maybe an actual season of sitting out wouldn't have been a deterrent either. Which in turn might suggest that this was a "good" transfer. But as I read OnMAA's post, each of the Eastern cases pushed the sport in the direction of competitive imbalance, while lacking a redeeming quality. In that type of case, a mild deterrent might be both effective and appropriate.

Bumbles
08-03-2012, 01:40 PM
Which would support an argument that the one year waiting period should go national, as it would potentially discourage such high profile transfers.

Note that when the Lam Twins "sat out," they were playing for the U.S. Olympic Team. Since that would have been the case in any event, there really wasn't a waiting period for them. The other examples are from the East. So in each of the above four cases, there was no waiting period to serve as a deterrent to transferring.

Now the Lamoreaux situation was pretty unique. The players had deep family and geographic ties to UND. It can also be argued that part of the motivation for the change was helping Women's Hockey grow stronger, as the twins were moving from an established power to an emerging program. With those reasons, maybe an actual season of sitting out wouldn't have been a deterrent either. Which in turn might suggest that this was a "good" transfer. But as I read OnMAA's post, each of the Eastern cases pushed the sport in the direction of competitive imbalance, while lacking a redeeming quality. In that type of case, a mild deterrent might be both effective and appropriate.

Just fyi, the unh transfer also had to sit out a year, but it was also an olympic year.

pgb-ohio
08-03-2012, 02:05 PM
Appreciate the follow-up. Is there a BU policy that requires a waiting period? Or are you just saying that the player made the choice to play with her national team, while playing for BU would have been another option?

brookyone
08-03-2012, 02:06 PM
So, is it HE and the WCHA that currently enforce a sit a season rule for transfers within the conference?

I'm also going to nit pick a little with an opinion that a rule for sitting a season isn't intended as punitive or punishment for a transfer. Even though I have no doubt some wishing to transfer will feel that way I think that's incorrect and the rule has a legitimate purpose and origin meant to benefit the sport long term rather than focusing on what would be ideal for individual student athletes wanting to transfer. I guess I'd honestly prefer being eligible to play the following season with a new team. Just think strongly that the rule should be uniform throughout all D-I.

BTW...using an Olympic year to satisfy the sit rule while non Olympians must actually sit out...shenanigans would be my thought. Will that be controversial? :)

whoop87
08-03-2012, 10:51 PM
I thought I read somewhere on this forum a while back that women's D1 hockey would have the same transfer rules as men's D1 hockey going forward. I thought last season was the final year under the old system - but I must be mistaken. I have no problem with the 'sit a year' rule - I prefer it that way. You definitely see fewer D1-to-D1 transfers on the men's side of the house. At the same time, I have no issue with the D1 to D3 transfer rule (i.e. play immediately)...I'm just used to it being that way for the past 30 years.

FRICKER
08-04-2012, 04:18 AM
My "bottom line" is that there shold be one rule for all of D1 Women's Hockey and not individual rules by league. Also, the same rule should apply for men & women. Saying that women's hockey is in the "developing"
stage is quite feable after all these years.

Fever
08-15-2012, 02:29 PM
I see that Steph Anderson from U of Minnesota has transferred to Bemidji and will be sitting out a season, according to the BSU team site. Interesting.