SportsPulse: Did your team make USA TODAY Sports college football a top 25 after spring? Paul Myerberg breaks everything.
USA TODAY Sports
Two changes enacted on Wednesday by the NCAA Division I Council are notable in their intention to improve the student athlete's college experience, and despite the need for additional modifications – more than that in a moment – they should stand out to rationalize what has been for a long time The first deals with transfers, ending a prolonged series of conversations among managers about the management of what some coaches have called an epidemic: The growing number of players, especially in the quarterback field, which they transfer at least once in a lapse of five years.
That trend will not change, and could even grow with Wednesday's change. It's not that there's anything wrong with that. The idea of transfer has been demonized, mainly by coaches motivated by the cause of self-preservation. The reality: limiting transfer opportunities was just another way in which the NCAA model had disappointed student-athletes.
The new rule simplifies the process and addresses the ultimate injustice of the previous model, which allowed coaches, schools and even conferences to limit the next destination of a student athlete.
Transfers can now leave without asking your current school for permission. Under this new "transfer notification" model, student-athletes will have their names entered into a national database, and coaches from other programs can then communicate to measure interest.
In other words, power now rests in the right hands: with the student athlete, not with the program that previously had the option of setting strict and unfair limits on which schools the transfer might consider.
The Division I Council warned that conferences may still place limitations "that are more restrictive than the national rule." That is unfortunate. The new rule should be universal, which means that each league should allow transfers without any limitations. But it is a beginning.
The second rule is almost innovative in the way in which the standard of the red shirt is reformed. Previously, players had five years to complete four seasons of eligibility, which means that one of those seasons had to be spent without participating in any games, often during the first year of a student athlete on campus.
The same four out of five The timeline exists, only with a trap: players can now participate in up to four games in a season and still retain that year of eligibility, a change that promotes "equity for athletes" college students, "said Miami (Florida) athletic director Blake James. Chairman of the Board of Division I.
Here is an example. A true freshman student steps on campus. In previous years, he could spend his first year doing all the work: practice, film studio, conditioning, without the reward; the year will be spent holding a doll for juniors and seniors and waiting for their moment. Now, this true freshman will be able to watch the time in four games while winning that season of red shirts. On paper, it's a victory for everyone.
It will keep the players involved, even motivated by the possibility of playing time at some point during the season. It could help with development. You can argue that the change will help the individual teams, in the same way that the September baseball call period drives the bullpens and benches: the teams become deeper by having an additional handful or more freshmen in reserve , even if only for some games.
You could even argue that the change will cut the number of national transfers, albeit slightly. It goes back to the idea that players will be more involved and invested wearing a red shirt, and therefore, they are less likely to seek exit.
The rule favors the elite, although almost all the rules do. Take Alabama as an example, which four times in 2018 – for example, against LSU and Auburn, in the SEC title game and in a bowl game – pulls out a group of great recruits to bolster their roster. In other words, the most talented teams in the country can receive an injection of even more talent four times a year.
The same benefit will not necessarily extend to the Group of Five, or even to the Power Five teams outside the country. image. Alabama can improve during those four games; others will simply use that time for player development.
It is still a victory for the student athletes and also a victory for the coaches, who were vocal at the Power Five and Group of Five levels in their support for the change of rules. That should be somewhat disturbing: the rules that are good for coaches and individual programs are often not the same for student-athletes.
And there are possible problems here within each rule. The admitted lack of continuity of the council in the conferences with respect to the transfers leaves an important square without reviewing the total reform transfer regulations. It's ridiculous to go that far without enacting changes that are uniform throughout the Football Bowl Branch.
The transfer rule also does not go far enough: the board should create a rule that allows qualified student athletes (those who achieve a certain GPA or a more standardized academic benchmark) to transfer without a one-year penalty, very similar transfers of graduates.
There is the possibility of misuse of the new rule of the red shirt, although the likelihood of deep negatives arising as a result of the change is overcome by the positive aspects.
Yes, a coach could see a student athlete in limited action as a rookie and decide that he is not worthy of the scholarship. And yes, another main conference program could see a player in short bursts of action at the level of the Group of Five and get to measure their interest in the transfer. But that will happen anyway.
Both rules represent a step forward. Above all, they indicate at least some movement in the NCAA part towards the evening on the field of play. For too long, the rules have leaned towards schools. The transfer rule in particular puts some power in the hands of the student-athlete.
PICTURES OF SOCCER SPRING PRACTICES