|
Post by durtpile on Feb 7, 2016 17:35:22 GMT -5
Interestingly, academic, and other, non-athletic, scholarships, suffer no consequences, for transferring - other than lose of scholarship, and perhaps a credit hour or two at the new school. While a school can pull a scholarship for non-performance in academics, there is no other penalty. It is NOT a slave/master system.
If the scholarship is for education - as the schools like to claim - then the sport part is peripheral.
|
|
tncoach
Junior
"what we do in life echoes through eternity!"
Posts: 496
|
Post by tncoach on Feb 8, 2016 9:44:34 GMT -5
How would everyone here feel about the system we have up here in Canada? All transfers sit out a year (except in exceptional/compassionate cases), but all athletes get five years of eligibility instead of four. I often wonder why DI does not follow the transfer policy of money sports, requiring athletes sit a year if they choose to transfer. Would this affect the transfers? Does it infringe some on the athlete's rights? I am just curious, would love to hear other thoughts. I have seen a mixed bag regarding transfers, some for legitimate reasons, others not so legit. I would think a rule requiring an athlete sit for a season (except in exceptional/compassionate situations) would discourage those who are perhaps making the choice for the wrong reason. However, I know the flip-side is that those leaving for what appears to be a legitimate reason would feel penalized...anyone else have a thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 12:22:12 GMT -5
How would everyone here feel about the system we have up here in Canada? All transfers sit out a year (except in exceptional/compassionate cases), but all athletes get five years of eligibility instead of four. I often wonder why DI does not follow the transfer policy of money sports, requiring athletes sit a year if they choose to transfer. Would this affect the transfers? Does it infringe some on the athlete's rights? I am just curious, would love to hear other thoughts. I have seen a mixed bag regarding transfers, some for legitimate reasons, others not so legit. I would think a rule requiring an athlete sit for a season (except in exceptional/compassionate situations) would discourage those who are perhaps making the choice for the wrong reason. However, I know the flip-side is that those leaving for what appears to be a legitimate reason would feel penalized...anyone else have a thoughts? Well there's the flip side of my comment. Is the NCAA willing to give everyone five years of eligibility? I doubt it. I've noticed that in the US, there's a push to have people graduate in four years (and a stigma towards those who don't "graduate on time"). Meanwhile, this stigma is much less (if not practically nonexistent) in Canada, where universities encourage students to "take their time" (within reason of course).
|
|
|
Post by vbphilsdad on Feb 8, 2016 13:11:59 GMT -5
sandpit, Are Cdn schools (other than SFU) giving "full-ride" athletic scholarships now? They weren't 5 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 8, 2016 13:18:54 GMT -5
How would everyone here feel about the system we have up here in Canada? All transfers sit out a year (except in exceptional/compassionate cases), but all athletes get five years of eligibility instead of four. I often wonder why DI does not follow the transfer policy of money sports, requiring athletes sit a year if they choose to transfer. Would this affect the transfers? Does it infringe some on the athlete's rights? I am just curious, would love to hear other thoughts. I have seen a mixed bag regarding transfers, some for legitimate reasons, others not so legit. I would think a rule requiring an athlete sit for a season (except in exceptional/compassionate situations) would discourage those who are perhaps making the choice for the wrong reason. However, I know the flip-side is that those leaving for what appears to be a legitimate reason would feel penalized...anyone else have a thoughts? If they don't get a waiver, they have to sit anyway - see Briana Holman. Maybe coaches just need to stop being so free with the waivers, unless they're glad to see the player go.
|
|
tncoach
Junior
"what we do in life echoes through eternity!"
Posts: 496
|
Post by tncoach on Feb 8, 2016 14:01:24 GMT -5
I often wonder why DI does not follow the transfer policy of money sports, requiring athletes sit a year if they choose to transfer. Would this affect the transfers? Does it infringe some on the athlete's rights? I am just curious, would love to hear other thoughts. I have seen a mixed bag regarding transfers, some for legitimate reasons, others not so legit. I would think a rule requiring an athlete sit for a season (except in exceptional/compassionate situations) would discourage those who are perhaps making the choice for the wrong reason. However, I know the flip-side is that those leaving for what appears to be a legitimate reason would feel penalized...anyone else have a thoughts? If they don't get a waiver, they have to sit anyway - see Briana Holman. Maybe coaches just need to stop being so free with the waivers, unless they're glad to see the player go. The only problem is many schools end up granting the waiver after the appeals process. That is part of the reason why Briana's was considered unusual. At some schools, coaches can only deny a waiver if the person is requesting a transfer waiver for another conference school. Some of the decision depends on the stance of the university.
|
|
tncoach
Junior
"what we do in life echoes through eternity!"
Posts: 496
|
Post by tncoach on Feb 8, 2016 14:05:34 GMT -5
I often wonder why DI does not follow the transfer policy of money sports, requiring athletes sit a year if they choose to transfer. Would this affect the transfers? Does it infringe some on the athlete's rights? I am just curious, would love to hear other thoughts. I have seen a mixed bag regarding transfers, some for legitimate reasons, others not so legit. I would think a rule requiring an athlete sit for a season (except in exceptional/compassionate situations) would discourage those who are perhaps making the choice for the wrong reason. However, I know the flip-side is that those leaving for what appears to be a legitimate reason would feel penalized...anyone else have a thoughts? Well there's the flip side of my comment. Is the NCAA willing to give everyone five years of eligibility? I doubt it. I've noticed that in the US, there's a push to have people graduate in four years (and a stigma towards those who don't "graduate on time"). Meanwhile, this stigma is much less (if not practically nonexistent) in Canada, where universities encourage students to "take their time" (within reason of course). Players can compete 4 out of 5 seasons for a redshirt year for a number of reasons. If a transfer had to sit out a year, she would not lose a year of eligibility. It would be up to the next coach and administration to determine if they will grant another season if she had to sit for one. Many schools already do this if someone is redshirting for medical, or to allow time to develop. Are you saying that in Canada, a player can actually compete for 5 seasons, or simply that they have eligibility for a 5th season?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 15:36:04 GMT -5
sandpit, Are Cdn schools (other than SFU) giving "full-ride" athletic scholarships now? They weren't 5 years ago.
Sort of. IIRC the maximum scholarship amount is roughly equivalent to tuition and fees, but doesn't cover books or living expenses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 15:37:49 GMT -5
Well there's the flip side of my comment. Is the NCAA willing to give everyone five years of eligibility? I doubt it. I've noticed that in the US, there's a push to have people graduate in four years (and a stigma towards those who don't "graduate on time"). Meanwhile, this stigma is much less (if not practically nonexistent) in Canada, where universities encourage students to "take their time" (within reason of course). Players can compete 4 out of 5 seasons for a redshirt year for a number of reasons. If a transfer had to sit out a year, she would not lose a year of eligibility. It would be up to the next coach and administration to determine if they will grant another season if she had to sit for one. Many schools already do this if someone is redshirting for medical, or to allow time to develop. Are you saying that in Canada, a player can actually compete for 5 seasons, or simply that they have eligibility for a 5th season? A player can compete for 5 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by crawdaddy on Feb 8, 2016 15:47:51 GMT -5
I think what's missing in this discussion is an understanding that many (probably most) transfers are mutually beneficial for the player and for the team. Most transfers do so because of playing time. Therefore, their departure often doesn't significantly affect the quality of the team and opens up a scholarship/roster spot. The interesting statistic to me is how many tranfers occur in situations when the coach really didn't want the kid to leave. My guess is that number is not big.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 16:18:40 GMT -5
Mainly because it's REALLY not good for a team to keep someone who doesn't want to be there. Likewise, it's not good for the team for a player whom the staff does not want to stick around.
BUT this doesn't address the chicken or egg part of it: Do the current rules encourage situations like this?
All in all, however, it sure seems like these things work out to everyone's satisfaction 98% (or more) of the time. Maybe the current set-up works?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 8, 2016 17:58:08 GMT -5
Mainly because it's REALLY not good for a team to keep someone who doesn't want to be there. Likewise, it's not good for the team for a player whom the staff does not want to stick around. BUT this doesn't address the chicken or egg part of it: Do the current rules encourage situations like this? All in all, however, it sure seems like these things work out to everyone's satisfaction 98% (or more) of the time. Maybe the current set-up works? Well, if your definition of what "works" is 15 recruits over ten years transferring from a certain major "volleyball power"... I'd say it is more likely the coach is taking advantage of the transfer rules, for competitive reasons...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 18:14:18 GMT -5
Even if we accept your premise -- that one coach is taking advantage of the rules -- that is still ONE school. Seems like word would get around and there would be recruiting consequences for that school.
My point is still that, overall, the system seems to work fine.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Feb 8, 2016 18:18:11 GMT -5
Even if we accept your premise -- that one coach is taking advantage of the rules -- that is still ONE school. Seems like word would get around and there would be recruiting consequences for that school. My point is still that, overall, the system seems to work fine. Accepting that premise is a stretch to begin with. No coach systematically is forcing underperformers off their roster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 18:20:23 GMT -5
Seems like a faulty "business" model, doesn't it?
|
|