Even if that's true, let's say for every one we get, KU gets 4 (and that's being generous), how is that good for Iowa State?
How long will the current transfer rules exist?
- Thread starter mattyice
- Start date
Even if that's true, let's say for every one we get, KU gets 4 (and that's being generous), how is that good for Iowa State?
Might be close to zero for football and men's basketball, but the ncaa has to make rulings based off all sports. I'm sure there are a ton of non-revenue sport athletes who take advantage of this rule to in order to pursue a graduate degree in a field they have interest in but their school does not provide.
makes zero sense to punish a kid who was successful to graduate and wants to start on his graduate work. Most people i know get their masters from a different school than their undergrad, so why would you force a kid to get their masters at a school that they did their undergrad? What if that school doesn't even offer the graduate program that they want to study?
I like rewarding kids who succeed.
I like rewarding kids who succeed.
I think we can all agree on that. I think where the NCAA would come in (just playing devils advocate) saying is The large number of 5th year transfers vs the number that are actually obtaining or have obtained a Masters degree via the school switch is extraordinarily low.
And that the intent of the rule is good, but is now being used as a recruiting loophole that no longer has any educational impact, if anything possbily creating a situation where coaches could look to slow academic progress to prevent a 5th year senior leaving.
I would say theres a better chance of that happening than all these Masters degrees these athletes are getting by leaving.
Im not supporting that view, im just saying thats what i would argue if i was the ncaa trying to close this loophole.
I have no idea how you could say the current transfer rule isn't supporting education. Sure, a guy like DeAndre Kane may be enrolled in a masters program but will not leave with a masters degree. However, he surely did recieve some credits towards that degree. Thus, at least presumably, if he goes and plays pro ball for 7-8 years then decides he wants to finish his education he has that progress towards his degree.
But if that is the NCAA's rationale, that education is not achieved unless you earn a degree, then wouldn't they require all players who enroll in a school a recieve an athletic scholarship remain on scholarship until they complete a 4 year degree? I think this notion is premised on the wrong thing-- that the "education" they are recieiving is a degree. Under NCAA rules, so long as you leave in good academic standing there is no punishment on the player or school if they elect to leave without recieiving a degree. To then assume that this rule would be abandoned because players aren't actually getting their master's degree is to wholly shift standard from remaining in good academic standing to obtaining a degree.
do have stats to back that up? Most of these kids transferring for a 5th year are not going to play pro ball (we just see the Kane's of the world who have a chance). Even if the kid doesn't finish their Masters, at least they are given the opportunity to finish half of it for free, they always then have the option to finish it up on their own.
I just do not want the NCAA to restrict kids from furthering their education, even if only 10% of the kids actually get a Masters degree, that is great - that is what they should be doing, helping kids get the education that will help them be successful.
I think the NCAA is more concerned right now with its relevance rather than this rule honestly. The NW ruling was the first step in saying goodbye to the NCAA as they know it. I don't see that rule changing at all.
Well and that opens a whole different can of worms when you are talking unions and transfers. Now the players are employees and im assuming non-compete rules will come into play.
Interesting part is that certain states dont have non compete laws.....which would make the one year sitting out for underclassmen invalid. Thatll be something. But...different arguement...different day.
I have to believe this topic is listed somewhere below a proposal to distribute 100% of gate receipts to athletes on the NCAA's to-do list. IE - they aren't worried about it.
I don't know how one can have an argument about the graduate transfer rule not furthering education - when the kid already has a degree?!? If we're going to worry about anything, it should be the one and done's, the drop outs, the kids who stay 4-5 years just to play sports and then leave without a degree. All of those are far more worrisome regarding the mission of education, than the 1 out of 500, 750, 1000 (whatever it is) who actually get a degree and move somewhere else. Are the numbers even remotely comparable?
Look at it this way. This program encourages the student to graduate just so they CAN transfer. So the graduation rate is 100%. What's the overall student-athlete graduation rate? Isn't something like 70% at ISU? And isn't that about tops in the Big XII?. And iirc, that's a fair bit better than the general student graduation rate as well. So we're going to believe the NCAA is suddenly going to worry about the graduation rate of a GRADUATE transfer program, when the undergraduate rate is what it is?
I don't know how one can have an argument about the graduate transfer rule not furthering education - when the kid already has a degree?!? If we're going to worry about anything, it should be the one and done's, the drop outs, the kids who stay 4-5 years just to play sports and then leave without a degree. All of those are far more worrisome regarding the mission of education, than the 1 out of 500, 750, 1000 (whatever it is) who actually get a degree and move somewhere else. Are the numbers even remotely comparable?
Look at it this way. This program encourages the student to graduate just so they CAN transfer. So the graduation rate is 100%. What's the overall student-athlete graduation rate? Isn't something like 70% at ISU? And isn't that about tops in the Big XII?. And iirc, that's a fair bit better than the general student graduation rate as well. So we're going to believe the NCAA is suddenly going to worry about the graduation rate of a GRADUATE transfer program, when the undergraduate rate is what it is?
