You are here: Home / 2012 / Archives for January 2012

Taking Permission Out of Transferring

January 25, 2012 by

I wish I had a clever intro here, but I do not. The challenge is simple: Create a set of transfer rules that promotes what the transfer rules should (graduation and thoughtful decisions in recruiting) without requiring a student-athlete to get permission to transfer. I think I came up with a sufficiently complicated solution.

Fixing Permission to Contact

1. No Limits for Walk-Ons

A common misconception is that walk-ons are treated in a significantly different way than scholarship student-athletes. By and large rules apply the same to a student-athlete on a full grant-in-aid and a student-athlete paying his or her own freight to go to school. In general, this works out well for walk-ons.

But when a walk-on decides to possibly transfer and wants to talk to other schools, it should not necessarily be so. To have any degree of control over a student-athlete’s movements (even the tiny amount below), an institution should have to invest directly in his or her education. A walk-on should not require any permission to talk to schools or transfer anywhere. An institution maintains the ability to offer a walk-on a scholarship for the next term or year, provided the institution has scholarship money available.

2. Scholarship Athletes Can Trade In the Scholarship

The biggest change would allow student-athletes on scholarship to quit the team and give up their scholarship, at which point they would no longer need permission to contact other schools. This bit is pretty self-explanatory.

3. Permission = Cake and Eating

There would still be a mechanism for requesting permission to contact because permission would be needed for a student-athlete to both keep the scholarship and search for another school at the same time. To prevent a student-athlete from unwittingly giving up their scholarship, this bit of Bylaw 15.3.4.2 would be maintained:

A student-athlete’s request for written permission to contact another four-year collegiate institution regarding a possible transfer does not constitute a voluntary withdrawal.

An institution could also be required, in the event permission to contact another school is denied, to notify the student-athlete that by quitting the team and giving up his or her scholarship, permission will no longer be necessary. All the current appeals that student-athletes have when permission to contact is denied or a student-athlete’s scholarship is cancelled would remain as well.

Fixing Transfer Residence

1. Replace the One-Time Exception with “Eligible Everywhere”

The first step would be to change Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10 from the current one-time exception that requires permission and does not apply to football, basketball, baseball or hockey to something like this.

A student-athlete who transfers is not required to serve an academic year in residence if, based on his or her academic record from the first institution, the student-athlete meets all progress-toward-degree requirements at both institutions.

This is a relatively high bar that might put the brakes on more transfers than permission to contact or the one-time exception does now. To meet this requirement, a student-athlete would need to preserve enough credits in the transfer that they do not fall ineligible, even momentarily. Because progress-towards-degree legislation demands a five-year graduation track, this would encourage student-athletes to avoid ever playing catch-up, including for just a summer.

2. Midyear Transfer Restrictions

In addition to the sports that are excluded from the one-time transfer exception, there are two rules about midyear transfer: one general and one specifically for tennis. Both embody the idea that a student-athlete can only play for one team during a season. First the general rule, Bylaw 14.5.5.3:

A transfer student from a four-year institution, who has received a waiver of or qualifies for an exception to the transfer residence requirement, is not eligible to compete at the certifying institution during the segment that concludes with the NCAA championship if the student-athlete has competed during that segment of the same academic year in that sport at the previous four-year institution.

Student-athletes can still play during the same academic year if they only competed during the non-championship or exhibition season. Because qualifying for the tennis championship is a little more complex (and because tennis had a very high rate of midyear transfers), Bylaw 14.5.5.3.1 is a bit different:

In tennis, a transfer student from a four-year institution who enrolls at the certifying institution as a full-time student after the conclusion of the first term of the academic year and qualifies for an exception to the one-year residence requirement shall not be eligible for competition until the following academic year if he or she has competed during the same academic year or received athletically related financial aid during the same academic year from the previous four-year institution.

Maintaining or even broadening those two rules puts a brake on the rashest of decisions and minimizes the impact of the NLI on the transfer process (which is beyond the scope of this post) by encouraging transfers between academic years rather than during one.

Fixing the APR

Since the 2007–2008 data was collected, the Academic Progress Rate has given institutions relief when a student-athlete who is exceeding academic expectations transfers. To qualify for the exception, a student-athlete must:

  • Attend the institution for one academic year;
  • Be academically eligible when her or she leaves the institution;
  • Enroll in a four-year college for the following regular term; and
  • Leave the institution with at least a 2.6 cumulative GPA.

To account for what will undoubtedly be increased transfer activity, the exception would be changed to require that the student-athlete qualify for the basic transfer exception above. If a student leaves the institution in such good academic shape that they never fall behind on the track to graduate, the institution should not be punished. It gives the APR a targeted tool to promote graduation rather than the blunt instrument of the 2.6 GPA.

What Will Transfers Look Like

Any change to a regulatory scheme as complex as the NCAA Manual is likely to produce some unintended consequences. The goal is to move transfers to the summer, provide some degree of predictability, but also to allow more freedom of movement on the student-athlete’s part, without excessive damage to graduation rates. But we can expect the following consequences to happen:

  • Fewer student-athletes will redshirt – There’s no specific graduation rule, because if a student-athlete graduates, they would be eligible at both their school and any school they enroll in, fulfilling the above exception. But with more graduate transfers and possibly more transfers in general, coaches will be less likely to redshirt an athlete who is more likely to leave.
  • More clustering – If the difference between sitting out and playing right away is the choice of a student-athlete’s major, more student-athletes will end up in majors that are more forgiving with transfer credit. Right now, a student-athlete forced to sit out for a year can play catch-up in his or her major of choice, but the promise of immediate eligibility might push him or her to change.
  • Fewer schools will grant permission to contact – If a student-athlete does not need any permission to transfer and can avoid the requirement by giving up his or her scholarship, expect some schools to rarely or never grant permission to contact. Divorces will be easier, but they might also get messier.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

Consolidation of Powers

January 16, 2012 by

Back in October, the Board of Directors took unprecedented action when they adopted new initial eligibility standards, a $2,000 miscellaneous expense allowance, multi-year scholarships, and a new men’s basketball recruiting model. It was so unprecedented that the membership pushed back with overrides of both the expense allowance and multi-year scholarships, going so far as to suspend the $2,000 stipend for the time being.

By comparison, the actions of the Board of Directors at the 2012 NCAA Convention were relatively mundane. The Board refused to implement a few of the ideas suggested by the Resource Allocation Working Group, including scholarship cuts to football and women’s basketball and the end of foreign tours. The Board adopted a moratorium on increases in the length of seasons and the number of games and ordered a study on appropriate limits, with a special focus on basketball. And they completed the work of the Leadership Council by adopting a model for on-campus tryouts and summer practice in men’s basketball.

The group missing from all this action is the Legislative Council. Bold new ideas were adopted without passing them through the primary lawmaking body of the NCAA. In addition, at the request of one working group, the Legislative Council tabled 50 of the 82 active proposals. The Legislative Council will spend another year on the sidelines as well, after the Board of Directors agreed to suspend the legislative process to allow the Rules Working Group to complete their work of picking apart and putting back together the NCAA Division I Manual.[1]

Freezing the Legislative Council out is responsible for a significant amount of the backlash against the Presidential Retreat initiatives. The reason is simple. On the Legislative Council, all 31 Division I conferences have a representative.[2] On the Board of Directors, all 11 FBS conferences have a representative, but the other 20 FCS and non-football conferences share 7 representatives. In addition, none of the Presidential Retreat working groups have representation from all conferences and some conferences have no representatives on any of the groups.

Since 2010, there has been a push by FCS and non-football leagues to expand the Board of Directors to include all conferences, lead by the Northeast Conference and Big South Conference. That would create a more representative 31-member board, potentially one which would have the same type of weighted voting as the Legislative Council.[3] But that creates an unwieldy and parallel legislative process where a proposal has to pass through two bodies representing the same group of institutions, one populated by presidents and the other populated by athletic administrators, who are expected to be working at the direction of their presidents.

The solution then is to get rid of the Legislative Council and expand the Board of Directors to include all conferences. Voting could be weighted or not. The Student-Athlete Advisory Committee could be given a representative for a nice, even 32. Individual schools still have a chance to be heard through the override process.

This would be the most visible symbol of the push toward presidential control of college athletics. The primary law-making body would be composed of presidents. The legislative cycle could even be disbanded or tweaked to allow issues to be addressed more quickly. And the override process gives athletic administrators the chance to pitch their individual president (who controls the requests and the vote) on that school’s objections to a proposal.

The other chief benefit would come after the new Division I Manual is introduced to the world about 18 months from now. The challenge is not to make a new manual that is easier to understand and only focuses on serious issues. The hard part is to keep the manual that way. Presidents are more likely to only take up serious issues of national importance. You would expect the Board of Directors to adopt fewer proposals that address purely competitive equity issues brought up by only a few conferences.

The downside is the lack of an expert body to vet legislation, since the Legislative Council is composed mostly of athletic administrators with a compliance background and the occasional faculty athletics representative. But the Leadership Council (composed mostly of athletic directors) would still exist. And the National Association for Athletics Compliance (NAAC) or some new NCAA committee could act in an advisory capacity for the presidents on the board.[4]

The presidential retreat initiatives are asking NCAA members not to just to accept some changes, but to accept a new way of doing business. Since the work of fixing and improving college athletics is an ongoing process, that change should be manifested in changes to way NCAA rules are made. If so, the current appetite for reform has a chance to gather enough momentum to stop being a movement and start being the new business as usual.

  1. Insert Six Million Dollar Man reference here. “We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was before. Better, thinner, clearer.”  ↩

  2. The Pioneer Football League also has a representative who votes on FCS issues only.  ↩

  3. The conferences with BCS automatic qualification and Conference USA get three votes. The other FBS conferences get 1.5 votes. All other conferences get 1.2 votes.  ↩

  4. The Collegiate Model-Rules Working Group has already stated an intention to work with NAAC in crafting the new manual.  ↩

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

Transfer 101

January 14, 2012 by

At their best, transfers are a way of life in college athletics. At their worst, transfers are an all too necessary evil. The fact is with 400,000 student-athletes who make a major life decision at 16–18 years old,[1] there is bound to be some amount of transfer activity. All sorts of ideas have been tried to reduce the transfer rate, with varying degrees of success, but it will never be reduced to zero.

Once a student-athlete decides to transfer, a number of rules come into play. It’s a complicated process, and a lot about the process is understood. Much of that is due to the exceptions that arise. If there were no exceptions, transfers would be governed by two simple rules. But as you’ll see in this guide, simpler is rarely better.

Permission to Contact or “Why Compliance Folk Hate the Word ‘Release’”

“So and so was released from his scholarship.” That is the common phrase you hear when it is reported that a student-athlete has decided to transfer. But there are two gigantic problems with that phrase.

The first is that whether an athlete is on scholarship affects surprising little in the transfer process. A walk-on must still get permission to contact and must still sit out in most cases. The second is that a release could mean one of four things, only one of which is formally called a release. But typically what it means is that the student-athlete was granted permission to contact.

Permission to contact starts the transfer process. Typically either a school contacts another school seeking permission to talk with one of its student-athletes or the athlete seeks permission to talk to other schools. Requests from one school to another are governed by professional courtesy while requests from student-athletes are governed by the NCAA rules.

Once a student-athlete makes a written request for permission to talk to other schools, the institution has seven business days to respond to the request or it is automatically granted. If permission to contact a school is denied, it must be denied in writing, and the student-athlete offered an appeal. That appeal is decided by individuals outside the athletic department and the student-athlete must be notified of a decision within 15 business days.

If permission to contact a school is denied, the other school may not encourage the transfer. But nothing prevents the student-athlete from enrolling in the school on their own. Once there, however, he or she may not receive an athletic scholarship until after an academic year has elapsed.[2]

There are exceptions though:

  • Once a school has announced a student-athlete’s sport will be dropped, permission is automatically granted to contact any institution.
  • If the Committee on Infractions bans a team from the postseason for the rest of a student-athlete’s eligibility (assuming he or she does not redshirt), permission is automatically granted to contact any institution.[3]

Finally, the permission to contact requirement expires after a student-athlete is gone from the institution for one academic year. The only exception is if the student-athlete is on a religious mission, then it remains intact.[4]

One Exception to Rule Them All

Conventional wisdom says that student-athletes in football and basketball must sit out a year while athletes in other sports do not. In practice, conventional wisdom is mostly correct. According to the rules though, that is not always the case.

The basic rule is that any transfer from any collegiate institution to a Division I school must spend one academic year in residence before he or she is eligible for competition. In order to not sit out a year, the student-athlete must qualify for an exception to the residency requirement.

Transfers get pigeonholed into one of three categories: two-year college transfers, four-year college transfers, or 4–2–4 transfers (student-athletes who start at a four-year school, transfer to a junior college, then transfer to a Division I institution.) All have a different set of exceptions, but four-year college transfers (often called 4–4 transfers) are the focus here.

Most of the exceptions to the transfer requirement are very specific and apply only to a small fraction of student-athletes who transfer. They include:

  • Student-athletes in exchange programs;
  • When a student’s academic program is discontinued;
  • If the student returns from military service;
  • If the student-athlete’s sport was dropped or never sponsored by the first school;
  • The student-athlete has not participated in sports for at least two years; or
  • The student-athlete was not recruited and only tried out.

The bulk of student-athletes who transfer and do not need to sit out do so because they qualify for the one-time transfer exception. To qualify for the one-time transfer exception, a student-athlete must meet all of the following requirements:

  • Play a sport other than baseball, basketball, FBS football, or men’s ice hockey;[5]
  • Have never previously transferred from a four-year institution;
  • Be academically eligible at the first institution, assuming the student-athlete had stayed; and
  • Get written notice from the first school that it does not object to the use of the one-time transfer exception.

The final requirement is the second of the four releases that can occur during a transfer. Permission to use the one-time transfer exception is often granted on a “tracer.” That is a form that compliance officers send each other when a student-athlete transfers which asks for this permission along with other information needed to determine if a student-athlete can use one of the transfer exceptions. If permission to use the one-time transfer exception is not granted, the student-athlete has a right to the same written notice and appeal process used when permission to contact is not granted.

Graduates

When a student-athlete wishes to transfer after graduating, a slightly different set of rules kicks in. But a history lesson is in order.

Prior to 2005, a graduate had to meet one of the transfer exceptions like any other student. In 2006, Division I adopted proposal 2005–54, which stated that any student-athlete who graduated with eligibility remaining could transfer and play immediately at the new school if he or she enrolled in a graduate program. This was a brand new transfer exception, one with relatively few requirements, required no permission[6] and which applied to many student-athletes.

As a result, many student-athletes took advantage of the new exception. So many in such a short amount of time that the rule was overridden and ultimately defeated at the 2007 NCAA Convention.

But the idea behind 2005–54 never fully went away. It lived on as a very standard waiver which was relatively easy to get, provided you qualified for it. To qualify, the student-athlete needed to graduate, enroll in a graduate program not offered by the first institution, and receive permission from the first institution to be granted the waiver (like the one-time transfer exception).

Finally, that waiver was codified by Proposal 2010–52 as Bylaw 14.1.9.1, as a transfer exception rather than a waiver, meaning each case did not need to be processed by the NCAA. There were two big changes. First, Bylaw 14.1.9.1 gives access to the one-time transfer exception for students who played sports that did not qualify for it. Second, the bylaw required that the student-athlete’s aid was not renewed for the following year, although this could occur after a student-athlete decided to transfer.

Where There’s a Will, There’s a Waiver

All NCAA rules are subject to waivers from the Subcommittee for Legislative Relief (SLR) and the NCAA staff in that area.[7] The transfer rules have a number of such waivers. The most well-known are the graduate transfer waiver (which still exists) and the hardship transfer waiver. The hardship transfer waiver is for student-athletes who are compelled to transfer because of financial hardship or an injury or illness to the student-athlete or a member of their family.

Effect of the NLI

Only two parts of the National Letter of Intent really apply to transfers once a student-athlete has enrolled at the institution: how the provisions of the NLI are satisfied and the basic penalty of the NLI. The provisions of the letter are satisfied once the student-athlete attends the school for one academic year. After that, the NLI is complete and has no bearing on a transfers.

If a student-athlete wishes to transfer during the first academic year at the school, they would be subject to the basic penalty. If a student-athlete leaves without fulfilling the NLI, he or she must sit one year before competing at the new school and loses a season of competition in all sports.

The basic penalty can be avoided by obtaining a release. Obtaining a release from the NLI is much like obtaining permission to contact or use of the one-time transfer exception, but with two major differences. First, the NLI release is not school-specific, there is only a “complete release.” An institution cannot grant a release from the NLI, but exclude conference schools, for instance.

Second, the NLI has not one but two appeals. Both appeals are to groups outside the institution. If an institution denies the complete release, the student-athlete has 30 days to appeal to the NLI Policy and Review Committee.

  1. Or earlier.  ↩

  2. An academic year is any two consecutive semesters or three consecutive quarters. It does not need to run fall-spring.  ↩

  3. In this case, the other schools that are contacting or being contacted by the student-athletes must notify the first school of the contact.  ↩

  4. This is part of two dueling proposals from the WAC and Mountain West a few years ago. The Mountain West wanted to stop schools from recruiting its athletes while they were on religious missions. The WAC countered by proposing to remove a transfer exception upon completion of a mission. Both were adopted.  ↩

  5. There are a few caveats though. If a student-athlete was not recruited, they can still use the exception even in the sports listed. The sport that counts is the one the athlete will play at the second institution. And to use the exception to transfer from FBS to FCS, the student-athlete must have at least two years of eligibility remaining.  ↩

  6. Permission to contact still would have been needed for an athlete to get financial aid.  ↩

  7. SLR is a subcommittee of the Legislative Council.  ↩

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

What Pay-For-Play Advocates Get Wrong

January 3, 2012 by

“College athletes should be paid.” It’s a very simple sentence. Most people either agree with it or they do not. A few go for the more subtle responses like “They already get paid with a scholarship” and “They already get paid with a scholarship so all we’re negotiating is the wage.”[1] By and large though, you could draw responses on a continuum and divide them into support or oppose.

Precisely because so many people have such strong opinions about amateurism and pay-for-play, rare is the article that actually tries to lure people to the author’s side. That does not mean those op-ed columns were an illusion. It means that the issue of paying student-athletes is normally presented as a moral one. There is a right and wrong side and it does not matter whether one side is more popular than the other.

But while issues of how public institutions spend their money can be a moral issue, they are more likely to be judgement calls. Should these people pay more taxes to provide services for these other people? Should this program get cut in favor of that program? Should we expand this department or contract that one? History may eventually favor one side or the other, but that does not necessarily mean being on the wrong side of history should not be allowed.

Often the trump card in arguing for professionalizing college athletics[2] is the conclusion that either college athletes should be paid or major college athletics should cease to exist. The problem is that is not a conclusion, it is two options. And one option, closing up shop, is widely supported with more detailed arguments behind it than one would ever need in a debate.

Agree or disagree, pay-for-play advocates do a fine job attacking the status quo. They do a reasonable job of coming up with plans to pay college athletes. But the bit they get wrong is that they never do a good job persuading people to support their plan. Unless “opposing this idea is morally wrong” is considered a good persuasive technique.

What is being argued for is not a general idea, but rather a very specific one. There are very few people at this point who disagree with the general idea that there should be more professional opportunities for athletes, particularly athletes aged 18–22. But this debate is not about a general idea. It is about a very specific one: that public institutions, which all colleges are to some extent, should be providing the opportunities. That fewer students should have other opportunities and fewer schools should be able to offer them. And that revenue generation and entertainment should be embraced as the goals driving decision making.

My advice to pay-for-play advocates is to stop treating this debate as a legal one and start treating it as a political one. Rather than assuming that professional athletics and higher education can and should coexist, explain why. Do the research to show it will be better. Convince people that the things being gained are worth more than the things being lost or put at risk. Above all, make the case rather than acting like it has been won.

  1. Apologies to Winston Churchill.  ↩

  2. Read: Professionalizing college football and men’s basketball.  ↩

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With:

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·