corbett, I disagree that counts as an argument. That is in fact exactly what he's said in the past (ie, that admin and coaches want to kill the rule).

That's not making a logical argument for why those admin/coaches are right.

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  They are called graduate TRANSFERS.

free agency has zero place in college sports.

I do get what you mean, but there are some circumstances where a player's college doesn't offer graduate programs or ones that he isn't qualified for. What about those players who fit in that scenario? I do know that many regular students do get their Master's at another school.

I do get the point though like Vernon Adams who could have enrolled in a grad program at Eastern Washington to keep playing but transferred to play at Oregon. I doubt he is enrolled next year in the Master's program he enrolled in which would fit to your point.

I find it ironic that the same people who harp on the importance of the student part of student-athlete being so opposed to the one rule that benefits the kids who are actually good students.

I also fail to see how these graduate transfers are "screwing over" their original school when the original agreement between the school and the student-athlete was for an undergraduate scholarship.

Exactly correct, Kaplony.

Sorry stever, you're alone in this one. Except for coaches ... gee, I wonder why coaches would be against a rule like that ...

I also have ZERO problem with the graduate transfer rule!! They guy has what he ALLEGEDLY was there for in the first place. He did his job.

The other issue is without the graduate transfer rule, fifth year players would pretty much be barred from transferring, unless you didn't count a sitting out player against the scholarship limit. It is one thing for a coach to use up a roster spot while a player sits out, when they get 2 or even 3 years out fo them later. But if it is one for one, those players would likely not be able to transfer.

Also one overlooked issue. Some players who transfer now as grads, stay at their school longer, knowing they can then transfer and not sit out. If they had to sit out anyway, which you may see is, instead of a smaller number of transfers, the would be grad transfers moving on after 1 or 2 years, instead of staying until they graduate. Basically eliminating the rule could easily backfire on those who want to prevent kids from transferring. I know one of the kids who plays for Louisville now, had said he considered transferring when he had his medical redshirt, but decided to play it out since he knew he could leave after he graduated. He had already spent four years at his school. He should not be punished for not wanting to spend a fifth year, when he has already graduated.

(02-05-2016 02:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sorry, but if you actually graduate with an undergraduate degree while still having eligibility left, you absolutely deserve to transfer wherever you choose, penalty free. You've earned it.

I'd go a step further and say they shouldn't be limited to transferring for a graduate program their current school doesn't offer.

If AState's best player is a journalism grad and wants to transfer to Mizzou for the master's program, I'm not going to be thrilled, and as a journalism grad at AState I will tout how good the program is but I also understand that Mizzou program enhances the kid's marketability and should be free to go if Mizzou is willing to pay for a year of his education in the program.

(02-05-2016 03:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  They are called graduate TRANSFERS.

free agency has zero place in college sports.

That's an NCAA athletic construct. No academic program considers them to be transfer students.

I did not "transfer" to Arkansas-Little Rock to enter the JD program. I graduated from Arkansas State and applied to a number of law schools and chose to accept the offer of admission at UALR.

corbett (#26),

Don't forget that eligibility is a running clock, starting from your first participation on the team (red-shirt year). So even if the grad transfer would be eligible for one more season, after sitting out a year for transferring (sit out year five) his clock would've expired.

You'd have to convert the rule into a "one year freeze of the eligibility clock", or something like that. And then you're talking about a player playing his fourth season in year six. Not very realistic, for most.

arkst (#27)

100% agree. And I sometimes forget that technically the grad transfer rule only allows the penalty-free transfer if the new school has a grad program that the current school doesn't have.

They should make it exactly like you say.


Graduating "early" with a bachelor's should be a reward. Something to strive for.

I've got no problem at all with an athlete who graduated from one institution moving on to another for his fifth year.

QB Everett Golson was one such grad transfer last year and his departure (along with Malik Zaire's injury) opened up playing time for QB Deshone Kizer.

Golson earned his degree at ND and was free to move on to FSU. No problems.

(02-06-2016 09:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  corbett (#26),

Don't forget that eligibility is a running clock, starting from your first participation on the team (red-shirt year). So even if the grad transfer would be eligible for one more season, after sitting out a year for transferring (sit out year five) his clock would've expired.

You'd have to convert the rule into a "one year freeze of the eligibility clock", or something like that. And then you're talking about a player playing his fourth season in year six. Not very realistic, for most.

That was actually the proposal, as that is what the NCAA did with the hardship rule. They eliminated the ability to play right away, but added a sixth year in those cases.

But my point was, it would be harder for those guys to transfer. When I last looked at the transfer list, last year, there were something like 79 grad transfers, 220 freshmen transfers, 150 or so sophomore transfers, and 5 junior transfers (who were not grads). It is hard to get a new team to take a transfer who both has to sit out, AND only has one year left.

I don't agree with completely removing the sit out period for transfers, because that is unfair to schools AND potentially tot the students at the new school. But graduates certainly should be an exception to the rule.

Oh absolutely. Don't get me wrong -- and for exactly the reason stever says: there should not be free agency in college athletics -- I do agree with a one year sit-out for transfers.

But earning your degree -- ie, you did your job -- should be an automatic exception to the sit-out rule.

(02-06-2016 10:44 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 09:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  corbett (#26),

Don't forget that eligibility is a running clock, starting from your first participation on the team (red-shirt year). So even if the grad transfer would be eligible for one more season, after sitting out a year for transferring (sit out year five) his clock would've expired.

You'd have to convert the rule into a "one year freeze of the eligibility clock", or something like that. And then you're talking about a player playing his fourth season in year six. Not very realistic, for most.

That was actually the proposal, as that is what the NCAA did with the hardship rule. They eliminated the ability to play right away, but added a sixth year in those cases.

But my point was, it would be harder for those guys to transfer. When I last looked at the transfer list, last year, there were something like 79 grad transfers, 220 freshmen transfers, 150 or so sophomore transfers, and 5 junior transfers (who were not grads). It is hard to get a new team to take a transfer who both has to sit out, AND only has one year left.

I don't agree with completely removing the sit out period for transfers, because that is unfair to schools AND potentially tot the students at the new school. But graduates certainly should be an exception to the rule.

I like the hardship change because the NCAA was having a terrible time, there was no predictability in what case would be approved or not approved.

I much prefer a 5th year transfer post Graduate player than be stuck with the 1 and done player types.

It is fairly common that players who do NOT complete their degree in 4 years, turn out to not be major contributors to the football team, but have a year of eligibility left because the coach previously red-shirted them are not kept on the team for the fifth season.

Given that, I have a hard time getting worked up about the schools being "screwed" by the much smaller number of players who DO complete the degree in 4 years while redshirting and now have some market value.

Transfer stats by the numbers, for the 2014-15 season


Just so we are clear, even though there were 643 transfers last year, 412 of them who left their school within 2 seasons, it is apparently the 55 college graduates (8.55% of the transfers) who played for one team in 2015 and were able to play for another team in 2016 that are the problem? Further it is the 21 players (3.27% of the transfers), who left their old team and ended up in major conference teams (and that includes Big East teams, and the likes of UConn, Memphis, and UNLV to get to that 21) that are what is apparently the big problem? Really? 21 guys,. who graduated, and choose to play their last year elsewhere? I don't get it.

Corbett, the only thing to "watch out for" would be major programs "poaching" top talent, early graduating players from smaller programs, taking advantage of the grad transfer rule.

I'm much less worried about a guy at a major program, maybe not a starter, grads early then uses a grad transfer to a smaller program where he does really well.


From the numbers, can you make out if there are many (any?) cases of the first type?

(02-05-2016 02:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 02:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I feel sorry for Lee & Lewis, they didn't have anything to do with this.

I have no sympathy at all for graduate transfers. None. They transferred just for sports.

By the way, you have it backwards. First off, as a graduate, they are not "transferring." Second, someone who has graduated, yet stays at the same school to go to graduate school while playing a sport, is more likely someone who is staying on "just for sports" than a transfer since it is more common to go to grad school at a different school than your undergrad. Besides how is that different than the other 570 players who transferred? Or the 22 walkons who transferred and get to play right away?

Note that the 73 graduate transfer number is misleading. Of the 73 total, 13 of the graduate transfers never joined another team and while listed as "transfers," they actually just graduated and went on their way in life (or were pushed out the door by their current schools, but I guess we won't talk about that). 5 of the graduate transfers, did not play a game in 2015, and by NCAA rule would have been allowed to get a waiver to transfer without sitting out, whether a graduate or not. That leaves only 55 total players played at one school in 2015, graduated, and were able to play at a new school in 2016. That is 8.5% of the total transfers from last year. Only 14 of them ended up a major schools after leaving a smaller school. Only 8 of those are major contributors (3 others appear to be bench rotation players).

I just don't see the big epidemic.

(02-08-2016 01:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Corbett, the only thing to "watch out for" would be major programs "poaching" top talent, early graduating players from smaller programs, taking advantage of the grad transfer rule.

I'm much less worried about a guy at a major program, maybe not a starter, grads early then uses a grad transfer to a smaller program where he does really well.


From the numbers, can you make out if there are many (any?) cases of the first type?

Yup. Here they are.


Mentioned it in the above, but there were 14 total players from G5 schools who ended up at major schools either in a P5 conference, the Big East, and select AAC/MWC teams. And really if you asked the fans of five of those schools who lost players, they may question if they belong on this list (CHarlotte, USF, New Mexico, Fresno, and UMass). Only 10 of them were double figure scorers (or near double figure scorers) at their old school, and 5 became double figure scorers at their new school. . There are four more players listed as "immediately eligible," but not listed as graduate transfers, who fit this bill as well (again Lasalle and Richmond might question being on this list as a "small" school, being in the A-10 and all, but I counted them). Add two more from this category as big time scorers at their former school, but none were double figure scorers at the new one.

I think realistically only the top 5 players from the first list, and 2 from the second, can really qualify as the poaching of "top talent," based on what they did at their old school. There are other good players on the list, but I think only Damion Lee, Shonn Miller, Trey Lewis, Mark Tollefsen, Sterling Smith, Ron Mvouika, and James White fit that bill of those you were discussing. SEVEN players. And of those, only Lee, Miller, and Lewis seem to be (statistically) playing like the key cogs of their new teams. Also it is worth noting, even though they did not have to sit out when they transferred, all three of those guys lost a year at one point, two to injury, and one originally transferred to his last school from Penn St (meaning if you take a transfer from somewhere else, you really can't complain about another school allowing him to transfer in).