|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2018 8:46:24 GMT -6
he will have to be on general studies to get all his credits to transfer and count on a lowest common denominator academic program at the next stop. That is absolute nonsense. Maybe a little strong, but believe me, from dealing with transfers in here there are sometimes problems. If we keep APR in this brave new world, any upper class transfer must show progress toward a major. My idea here is that easy transfer possibility will require good academic standing and often require flexibility to find a major where earned credits count. In TComm, Business, the sciences, TC and many majors recent changes have created new major requirements defined to shoehorn specific hours for 4 year graduation, and this eliminates a lot of flexibility and use of elective courses to count toward a major there are problems. Many popular majors for athletes, like "sports management" or Tcomm elsewhere don't transfer nearly enough of the right hours to find that major here. If a student is on track in some majors they may find that a course that counts in their major one place may not transfer into the very same major elsewhere. It will be a general elective, but they could conceivably not be able to use it to count in the major. One benefit of a red shirt year is that they often can use that year to catch up or get ahead in a major so that Fall semester they return to play they do not have to take the regular core courses required in a major for progress. If they are in a situation where this happens, and red shirt scholarship is not as prevalent (why not go get a transfer instead?) then to make a transfer an athlete better have courses that let them transfer and will count somewhere else. They may be eligible, but as I point out below they may not actually graduate in 4 years and have no scholarship for a 5th year. Very tempting to just drop the kid, go get another transfer. Easiest thing to do is to take a major like the one here invented for Tim Brown and be a "general studies" major?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2018 8:51:00 GMT -6
If true, and the NCAA isn’t careful, screen door transferring will make the Adidas recruiting corruption look like a $1 scratch off ticket. The sheer numbers of transfers this may invite will be a real load on compliance staff, and academic advising for athletes. The latter already is hard enough where you can plan for 5 years. What seems likely to me is we get more athletes finishing 4 years without a red shirt and without a degree, fewer scholarships tied up for 5 years which now allows for the athlete to both compete at a high level, get a good start on school, and have good chance to graduate without heavy load as a Junior or first semester senior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 9:17:56 GMT -6
If true, and the NCAA isn’t careful, screen door transferring will make the Adidas recruiting corruption look like a $1 scratch off ticket. The sheer numbers of transfers this may invite will be a real load on compliance staff, and academic advising for athletes. The latter already is hard enough where you can plan for 5 years. What seems likely to me is we get more athletes finishing 4 years without a red shirt and without a degree, fewer scholarships tied up for 5 years which now allows for the athlete to both compete at a high level, get a good start on school, and have good chance to graduate without heavy load as a Junior or first semester senior. Oh please, the majority of revenue producing athletes are on campus year round and have little trouble graduating on time. I used to throw away the resumes of full time students who didn't graduate in four years.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2018 9:51:13 GMT -6
The sheer numbers of transfers this may invite will be a real load on compliance staff, and academic advising for athletes. The latter already is hard enough where you can plan for 5 years. What seems likely to me is we get more athletes finishing 4 years without a red shirt and without a degree, fewer scholarships tied up for 5 years which now allows for the athlete to both compete at a high level, get a good start on school, and have good chance to graduate without heavy load as a Junior or first semester senior. Oh please, the majority of revenue producing athletes are on campus year round and have little trouble graduating on time. I used to throw away the resumes of full time students who didn't graduate in four years. "the majority" of current players I buy. No doubt about it, FB graduation rate is helped by the red shirt and year round study, as has been basketball by transfer students sitting out a year. That there is no problem even now with revenue sport athletes graduating I am not so sure about that, give our academic staff which is overworked a lot of credit. We are talking about a major change and its possible changes in everyone's behavior, and quite possibly more problem kids, not less. Whether our current success continues when we are going to be less interested in investing in athletes who may be transferring, and where we are obtaining more transfers whose school may or may not have done as much as we do, this change likely will change the way we treat scholarship athletes, and not be able to manage as a well as under current practices.
|
|
|
Post by redbirdman on Jan 19, 2018 10:20:47 GMT -6
I think after reading everyone's comments that assuming it comes to pass there will be changes within 2 years. I think Tarheel is probably right I see the NCAA splitting with a new higher tier that the MAC will not be in.I see that tier paying athletes salaries & taking them on a year to year basis consider them the want be a pros. I see players at the MAC as being players as being degree seekers & if any are likely to become pros they will transfer to a school that will pay them in college. I also see current conferences breaking up over this I think in FB schools like Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Kansas & some others may decide they monetarily can not play with their current conference members. IU in Football may find it very hard to do. I think the TV money & the amount the athletes are paid will have a big effect on the schools I mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Jan 19, 2018 10:38:19 GMT -6
iU gets a crap ton of money from the Big 10’s media contracts and revenue sharing.
Even without this proposed rule I think we’ll eventually see the power 5 schools split from the ncaa and form their own organization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 10:48:04 GMT -6
iU gets a crap ton of money from the Big 10’s media contracts and revenue sharing. Even without this proposed rule I think we’ll eventually see the power 5 schools split from the ncaa and form their own organization. I don't see it happening. Too many different sports involved. The NCAA may eventually do something with football, but that will likely be the only sport affected. Plus I think the Power Five are probably making more money under the current system then they would if they split.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2018 10:51:34 GMT -6
I think after reading everyone's comments that assuming it comes to pass there will be changes within 2 years. I think Tarheel is probably right I see the NCAA splitting with a new higher tier that the MAC will not be in.I see that tier paying athletes salaries & taking them on a year to year basis consider them the want be a pros. I see players at the MAC as being players as being degree seekers & if any are likely to become pros they will transfer to a school that will pay them in college. I also see current conferences breaking up over this I think in FB schools like Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Kansas & some others may decide they monetarily can not play with their current conference members. IU in Football may find it very hard to do. I think the TV money & the amount the athletes are paid will have a big effect on the schools I mentioned. All that is possible I suppose. But those current P5 FB conferences have lots of reasons to keep their conference affiliations intact in most cases. I don't see the big time change in TV money, isn't that likely. So, those FB conferences are in very good shape. The realignment has always been more active in basketball, involving non FB schools, and a little bit of a shuffle of big schools into other big conferences for FB. So, it's the MAC and maybe some schools like the MVC downgrading FB which sets up some mid major reshuffling. That doesn't really help anyone's revenues there except where they actually drop FB. The FB money is staying more or less where it is for the big boys, hurting the mid majors, while the big schools even relative bottom feeders like IU will continue to benefit and those losers can afford even more easily to lose less money on FB. The B10 is not likely to dump IU nor is IU likely to want to leave, for example.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2018 11:01:31 GMT -6
iU gets a crap ton of money from the Big 10’s media contracts and revenue sharing. Even without this proposed rule I think we’ll eventually see the power 5 schools split from the ncaa and form their own organization. I don't see it happening. Too many different sports involved. The NCAA may eventually do something with football, but that will likely be the only sport affected. Plus I think the Power Five are probably making more money under the current system then they would if they split. Don't see how they make more. I'm not going to cry if I am an AD at those schools. More marquee TV games, bigger ticket price, larger gate, more attractive conference games, more intersectional games, no BSU type money games on their schedule isn't going to hurt. Even IU which will lose more games, would gain from conference TV contracts and they will more often get tOSU, MSU, UM who bring gate to Bloomington. They don't really do all that well with a mid major games, except maybe a local like BSU.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Jan 19, 2018 11:05:35 GMT -6
iU gets a crap ton of money from the Big 10’s media contracts and revenue sharing. Even without this proposed rule I think we’ll eventually see the power 5 schools split from the ncaa and form their own organization. I don't see it happening. Too many different sports involved. The NCAA may eventually do something with football, but that will likely be the only sport affected. Plus I think the Power Five are probably making more money under the current system then they would if they split. True. It’ll depend on how much freedom the big boys want to operate with, and if they think they can generate even more money without the ncaa.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 19, 2018 11:36:37 GMT -6
I don't see it happening. Too many different sports involved. The NCAA may eventually do something with football, but that will likely be the only sport affected. Plus I think the Power Five are probably making more money under the current system then they would if they split. True. It’ll depend on how much freedom the big boys want to operate with, and if they think they can generate even more money without the ncaa. If this is happening, the big boys are better off doing it. They may have made some concession to continue to share some of the wealth, but not much. Remotely possible mid majors somehow benefit, but only if the big guys make so much money from it they can still help subsidize their little brothers.
|
|
|
Post by bsu1 on Jan 30, 2018 15:47:03 GMT -6
The Indy Star confirmed today that the Big 12 has circulated a proposal to other conferences that a player could transfer if the coach is fired or goes elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Jan 30, 2018 16:06:44 GMT -6
Coach leaving you can kinda deal with transfers. Wholesale just because would not be good
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 17:14:54 GMT -6
Would be okay with me.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jan 30, 2018 22:01:38 GMT -6
Coach leaving and player transfers is fine. Should be that way
|
|