Mizzou’s side
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/...840e0.html

Evansville’s response
https://gopurpleaces.com/news/2018/10/31...encer.aspx

Evansville’s coach
https://www.courierpress.com/story/sport...838890002/

First Evansville link contains interesting info on the “run off rule” and waiver process involving both schools.

I have no clue why the NCAA has reopened this tube of toothpaste. It was a hard and fast rule the last 3-4 years- no hardship waivers. Now all of a sudden, they re-opened it. WTF? Dumbest thing the NCAA has done. And that's saying something.....

It doesn't sound like Evansville is doing anything to block a waiver for the kid other than not wanting to submit false information to the NCAA - supposedly Mizzou wants Evansville to testify that they (for e reason) pulled their best players scholarship and kicked him off the team. I actually support players being granted some mobility after a coaching change, but it's not on a school to secure immediate eligibility for a guy who transferred out.

UConn fans got all in a bunch when St John's declined to submit any information one way or another when Sid Wilson transferred after taking summer classes and I didn't understand it then either.

(11-01-2018 09:08 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I have no clue why the NCAA has reopened this tube of toothpaste. It was a hard and fast rule the last 3-4 years- no hardship waivers. Now all of a sudden, they re-opened it. WTF? Dumbest thing the NCAA has done. And that's saying something.....

The waivers they are granting are sensible. If (big if) the player had been on scholarship and their school no longer willing to give athletic aid to the player, the player's opportunity to attend college on athletic aid is enhanced if the school they transfer to can play them immediately.

Joe Mediocre might not be "worth" a scholarship at School Y if he has to sit but playing immediately it is worth it to School Y.

That is a good rule for players so a good rule in my opinion. The rule just doesn't fit this case.

Sounds like the writer in the Missouri newspaper is placing blame in the wrong place. Evansville did nothing wrong. It's the NCAA's rule, not Evansville's.

Although personally I don't like the idea that players should be able to play right away. A school's athletic team is supposed to be made up of students who represent the university. If they're transferring, it needs to be because of academic reasons. You can't jump to another school and all of a sudden claim to be a part of their student body immediately. Does a school ever elect a student body president who transferred in last year?

Sounds like a lot of sour grapes from Missouri combined with asinine NCAA rules. Players should be free to transfer after a coaching change, but that is not what the NCAA has decided to do.

(11-01-2018 10:01 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Sounds like the writer in the Missouri newspaper is placing blame in the wrong place. Evansville did nothing wrong. It's the NCAA's rule, not Evansville's.

Although personally I don't like the idea that players should be able to play right away. A school's athletic team is supposed to be made up of students who represent the university. If they're transferring, it needs to be because of academic reasons. You can't jump to another school and all of a sudden claim to be a part of their student body immediately. Does a school ever elect a student body president who transferred in last year?

If a school says come here and be a student-athlete and we will give you a full ride then after you've been there they say "Hey you are welcome to stay here and go to school but you have to pay for it." Then I'm fine with the player transferring and being immediately eligible.

As the rules stand Evansville is within it's rights not facilitate the transfer.

But the rule is stupid, both at the collegiate level and also high school. The rule exists not to protect the student -- it screws them -- but to protect the coach. In no other student activity, besides sports, is there such a restriction. f you come to a school to major in fine arts and you discover that the professors have a different approach or you just don't work with them well or maybe just don't like them, then you are free to transfer to any other school immediately. If you want to play in band and they have to many and you don't make the cut, you can transfer to any school you want for band. And i am sure many of you have started at a new job only to discover you were sold a bill of goods about what you would be doing or even who you'd be working for, so you do a 180 or jump ship as quick as possible with no consequences, beyond burning a bridge at the employer you didn't like. But for athletics they wont let you.

It's the usual nanny state argument, for your protection, to keep you from making bad decisions. People make bad decisions all the time. Why is sports "special"? It's ridiculous. But the NCAA is a bureaucracy, and thinks in terms of forms approvals and processes. Heck they even went so far as to declare they (via USA Basketball) get to decide which HS players are "elite" and thus eligible to have an agent. Insane.

The only transfer rule I thin is reasonable is within a conference. This would be to keep the peace within the conference between the different athletic departments. It would be a conference rule (contract laws). And there is no reasonable argument that such a conference rule is denial of opportunity, as there are other "Major" or "Power" conferences alternatives, and there are Mid-Major, and everywhere close by regional alternatives without remaining in the same conference.

(11-02-2018 01:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  As the rules stand Evansville is within it's rights not facilitate the transfer.

But the rule is stupid, both at the collegiate level and also high school. The rule exists not to protect the student -- it screws them -- but to protect the coach. In no other student activity, besides sports, is there such a restriction. f you come to a school to major in fine arts and you discover that the professors have a different approach or you just don't work with them well or maybe just don't like them, then you are free to transfer to any other school immediately. If you want to play in band and they have to many and you don't make the cut, you can transfer to any school you want for band. And i am sure many of you have started at a new job only to discover you were sold a bill of goods about what you would be doing or even who you'd be working for, so you do a 180 or jump ship as quick as possible with no consequences, beyond burning a bridge at the employer you didn't like. But for athletics they wont let you.

It's the usual nanny state argument, for your protection, to keep you from making bad decisions. People make bad decisions all the time. Why is sports "special"? It's ridiculous. But the NCAA is a bureaucracy, and thinks in terms of forms approvals and processes. Heck they even went so far as to declare they (via USA Basketball) get to decide which HS players are "elite" and thus eligible to have an agent. Insane.

The only transfer rule I thin is reasonable is within a conference. This would be to keep the peace within the conference between the different athletic departments. It would be a conference rule (contract laws). And there is no reasonable argument that such a conference rule is denial of opportunity, as there are other "Major" or "Power" conferences alternatives, and there are Mid-Major, and everywhere close by regional alternatives without remaining in the same conference.

The transfer sit out serves two purposes
1. It makes it less lucrative to cheat by recruiting players off another team.
2. It protects the school that develops the diamond in the rough. No one much cares if Arkansas State's best player transfers to Georgia Tech but if the best player Nebraska transfers to Kansas, suddenly that's a bad thing.

(11-02-2018 01:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's the usual nanny state argument, for your protection, to keep you from making bad decisions. People make bad decisions all the time. Why is sports "special"? It's ridiculous. But the NCAA is a bureaucracy, and thinks in terms of forms approvals and processes. Heck they even went so far as to declare they (via USA Basketball) get to decide which HS players are "elite" and thus eligible to have an agent. Insane.

No, it's done because broadcast-able college sports are a scam. They're big time for-profit entertainment masquerading as an extracurricular because it protects the bottom line by cutting out the actual entertainers from the cash flow. It's about the money, not some politically-minded conspiracy.

(11-02-2018 09:53 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(11-02-2018 01:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's the usual nanny state argument, for your protection, to keep you from making bad decisions. People make bad decisions all the time. Why is sports "special"? It's ridiculous. But the NCAA is a bureaucracy, and thinks in terms of forms approvals and processes. Heck they even went so far as to declare they (via USA Basketball) get to decide which HS players are "elite" and thus eligible to have an agent. Insane.

No, it's done because broadcast-able college sports are a scam. They're big time for-profit entertainment masquerading as an extracurricular because it protects the bottom line by cutting out the actual entertainers from the cash flow. It's about the money, not some politically-minded conspiracy.

No it's born from protecting the coach. These rules have been in place since the 50's. In fact I know the very originator of them, a Bay Area HS coach lauded for his influence on the game. But all the rules on transfer, started at the HS level to protect coaches from poaching. Colleges in the West picked it up, then Nationally.

If these rules were from the 70's and 80's yes, the big money would be the driver. But they predate that era, they predate the Big East ESPN contract. It was to keep De LaSalle from raiding Oakland Tech.

(11-02-2018 01:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  In no other student activity, besides sports, is there such a restriction. f you come to a school to major in fine arts and you discover that the professors have a different approach or you just don't work with them well or maybe just don't like them, then you are free to transfer to any other school immediately. If you want to play in band and they have to many and you don't make the cut, you can transfer to any school you want for band. And i am sure many of you have started at a new job only to discover you were sold a bill of goods about what you would be doing or even who you'd be working for, so you do a 180 or jump ship as quick as possible with no consequences, beyond burning a bridge at the employer you didn't like. But for athletics they wont let you.

To make it a more fair comparison you have to be a fine arts student on scholarship - then you are free to leave if you don’t like the professors but you’ll lose your scholarship. Other universities aren’t just going to give you the same scholarship. Nor do you have schools trying to poach to be a student since you’re currently enrolled at a different institution.

The band analogy doesn’t quite fit because if the basketball player lost his scholarship he could transfer and be granted the release - much like the band student transferring schools to make a band (and scholarship).