[URL=http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9459096][B][COLOR=darkgreen]http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9459096[/COLOR][/B][/URL]
Doyel makes some good points. This rule is some messed up junk and I could see it possibly hurting us some day down the road.
wow, that rule does seem dumb. At least Davidson cant get a transfer kid 
this could really affect a coach’s attitude toward redshirting a player and may make some coaches think twice about signing some possible transfers. both scenarios could backfire on the coach.
i don’t foresee any of huggins’s players being affected by this rule since the rule stipulates the player must have already graduated.
“You’re kidding,” said one coach from the Big East. “That’s got to be the dumbest rule I’ve ever heard.”
“That’s (expletive),” said another coach, this one from the Atlantic 10. “That can’t be right.”
Gotta love the A-10 attitude:lmao:
The A-10 coach can’t be Lutz…he never curses…
I guess Im not up to date on my rules. Could someone not transfer anytime if they wanted b4? If you graduate and have a year of elegibility left, you could not transfer before this rule was made? Could someone explain this?
[SIZE=3]This must be made up… noo!!!
Here is whan an Atlantic 10 coach said,
[/SIZE][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=4][SIZE=3] “That’s (expletive),” said another coach, this one from the Atlantic 10. “That can’t be right.”
Which atlantic 10 coach was it? I’m guessing Martelli. [/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
I guess Im not up to date on my rules. Could someone not transfer anytime if they wanted b4? If you graduate and have a year of elegibility left, you could not transfer before this rule was made? Could someone explain this?
you no longer have to wait a year if you have graduated already. You play that next year.
you no longer have to wait a year if you have graduated already. You play that next year.
Ooooh ok. So I guess a lot of kids left college after that cause they were done and didnt want to wait a year? Or would people play those 3 years, graduate, then stay a whole 2 more years just to play 1 more year of college ball?
Ooooh ok. So I guess a lot of kids left college after that cause they were done and didnt want to wait a year? Or would people play those 3 years, graduate, then stay a whole 2 more years just to play 1 more year of college ball?
The rule now is still that you have five years of eligibility to play four years but a redshirt player such as Coppenrath could leave in his last year of eligibility and not have to sit out a year.
Didn’t Mitch graduate before the beginning of last season? If so, that rule would have applied to him if he had wanted to transfer for his final year.
I’ll stop right there.
Didn't Mitch graduate before the beginning of last season? If so, that rule would have applied to him if he had wanted to transfer for his final year.I’ll stop right there.
Yes (40) under that rule we could’ve lost Mitch.
While it could hurt us, the athlete did give several years to the school, & the whole point of student-athletes is to graduate.
If someone transfers, do we par them from student gov’t, the spanish club, the art club, the dance club, etc. for a year. If anyone doesn’t deserve to sit out, it’s a graduate furthering their education.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2512779
The first athlete uses the rule. ASU’s leading scorer from last season will play his last year under his father at UNLV.
Does this mean that Martin Iti can return to play for Charlotte if he graduates from NMSU this year?
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Over40NINER;180563]Does this mean that Martin Iti can return to play for Charlotte if he graduates from NMSU this year?
:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
We can only hope.
What a weird rule.
Does this mean that Martin Iti can return to play for Charlotte if he graduates from NMSU this year?:rolleyes:
I like the idea because it’s student centered.
Who benefits from this decision? Who gets power? (Power being defined as the ability to make decisions.) Student athletes will have more power, more access to opportunities. How is that a bad thing?
I agree, it’s one of the only rules that is centered on helping the student-athlete. What if you know you’re not going to play basketball at the next level and want to use your skills to pursue a master’s? Should you have to do it at your current school? Normal students do not.
I could see some tweaking making this rule better, though.
I think if a student-athlete redshirts a year due to injury, they should not be allowed to use this rule. You got a year of schooling free despite not contributing anything to the program besides a ra-ra attitude. (Or, if the student-athlete wants to pay their way in the injury year, let them have that option at the end).
Same thing if an academic redshirt year is necessary, obviously.
But if the coaching staff decides to redshirt someone for developmental reasons, i.e. their skills are not up to par, then I think the student-athlete should be allowed to leave after graduation. Them’s the breaks, for the coaching staff, maybe you should have thought harder about bringing that kid in.
Or, if they are going to do away with the rule, then they should at least have one caveat: if the current school does not offer the master’s program that the student wants to take, they could leave. You want an MBA, and your school doesn’t offer it? You can go somewhere that does.
The only setback to this rule for me seems like a kid shouldn’t turn his back on a small school that gave him a chance, kind of like forgetting where you came from. It does give athletes that have worked their butts off a reward, but I personally wouldn’t use the rule as an athlete.