Eric Maiwald asks:
> I noticed a week or so ago in the Washington Post that the NC$$ was
> considering removing the time an athlete who transfers between Div 1
> schools must sit out.
>
> Currently any transfer must sit out one year after moving between schools
> but his proposed rule change would allow all Div 1 athletes in Football
> Basketball and Ice Hockey to transfer once during their college career
> without incurring this penalty.
>
> Has anyone else seen this?
>
 
I've also read about it.  The intention, I believe, it to make things less
punative for SAs who find themselves in a bad situation (no playing time, an
academic mismatch, etc.).  There has been an expressed concern, however, that
changing this rule could lead to widespread raiding.  IMO this concern is very
much justified.  Take a look at the recent top defenseman at UMass-Amherst who
is willing to sit out a year and then play for BU simply because he can't take
losing.  The fact is that most athletes at this level have experienced very
little in the way of losing since they have been able to dominate play in their
earlier years.  Without any waiting period, why put up with rebuilding when
you can switch without any pain?  It would be very easy to see the powerhouse
schools taking the cream of the crop from the lesser ones.
 
For example, it could become accepted practice for a player to sign on at one
of the lesser schools so that he could get a maximum amount of ice time as a
freshman and as a sophomore.  And then move on to the "big time" (using a HE
example: BU or Maine) for his final two years.  Far fetched?  This happens all
the time in non-public high school hockey in Massachusetts.  Players go where
they can play as freshmen and then if they are good enough get recruited by
the top Prep/Privates for their last year or two.  In this scenario it would
be easy to see the have-nots acting as almost feeder programs for the
powerhouses who would be stocked largely with juniors and seniors.
 
However, even though I think the removal of the one year waiting period is a
dangerous proposal, some adjustment should probably be considered.  I've
thought that SAs are particularly vulnerable when a coach leaves.  First, the
new coach may have a different philosophy (e.g. speed vs. size) or may
naturally favor his own recruits.  Whatever the cause, the SA has a good
chance of getting a raw deal with a new coach.  Secondly, the SA may have
chosen School A over School B simply because of the coach.  I'll use my own
top team as an example.  It's easy to conceive of a recruit who finds Bruce
Crowder to be the single truly exceptional attraction to UMass-Lowell.
Everything else is solid, but the reason he's gonna go is because of Crowder.
So what happens if Crowder leaves, as was a real possibility at the end of
last year?  The player is left out in the cold.
 
I think allowing immediate transfers may be acceptable under certain conditions
but not all.  Coaching changes and no ice time would be reasonable ones.  (In
terms of ice time this would probably have to be measured in terms of games
dressed with the exception of goalies.)  Beyond that, perhaps allowing movement
but restricting it in the direction of the powerhouses would be appropriate.
For example, (and again I'm using a hockey example) you could say that any
team getting an NC$$ invite could get 0-1 transfers, other .500 or better teams
2, and sub .500 teams either more or unlimited.  This would avoid the haves vs.
havenots scenario I mentioned before and yet increase flexibility.
 
Just some ideas about an interesting subject....
 
DaveH