Charlie writes:
>when a student transfers from school a to school b, that student is
>expected (i think the nc$$ requires) to sit out of athletics for a year.
>If the student attends school for 5 years, can that student play for 4
>seasons (and sit one out) or is that student limited to playing 3 seasons?
 
Under normal circumstances, NC$$ rules allow an athlete five years in which
to use his or her four seasons of eligibility.  This is why athletes who
red-shirt still have all four years of eligibility.  In the case of the
transfer above, as long as the student did not red-shirt at school A, he or
she could sit out the required year and still have all four years of eligi-
bility (i.e the sat-out year counts as one of the NC$$'s five years).  If
the student DID red-shirt at school A, then as I understand it he or she
would lose a year of eligibility.
 
I say "under normal circumstances" for a couple reasons.  One, apparently a
student-athlete who is academically ineligible at one school cannot transfer
to another and take up the sport there -- even after sitting out the
required year, and even if he or she "becomes" academically eligible at the
new school.  This situation came up last year in Division III, when a Mercy-
hurst player (I think his name was Jim Pollio) who had transferred from
Plattsburgh and had sat out the required year played for the Lakers in some
games early in the season.  It turned out that Plattsburgh had ruled him
academically ineligible to play for the upcoming season just before he
transferred, which made him an ineligible player at Mercyhurst (and forced
the Lakers to forfeit a couple wins).  There was a big stink raised about
this, because Pollio claimed that 1) he was never notified of his ineligi-
bility by Plattsburgh, and 2) one of his grades was inaccurate.  He wound up
suing Plattsburgh because they would not release his transcript.  This
probably still has not been resolved.
 
Another situation that can change the NC$$'s athlete eligibility formula is
if the athlete does church or military service while in college.  In that
case, the NC$$ allows them seven years, rather than five, in which to use
their four seasons of eligibility.  The place where this comes up most often
is Brigham Young University, where the students are at some point strongly
encouraged to go off on two-year missions.  A BYU athlete who does so does
not lose any eligibility.
 
Which brings up something I've been thinking about, namely the Olympic
situation.  With the Winter Olympics moving to different years than the
Summer Olympics starting in 1994, we have a situation where a college hockey
player could have taken off for the '92 Olympics and returned to college,
and then that player could play in the '94 Olympics without yet reaching his
senior season.  The name that pops into my head is Ted Drury, now a junior
at Harvard.  It's very likely that he will be with the '94 team, but since
1993-94 would be his fifth year since matriculating at Harvard, I think NC$$
rules would prohibit him from returning to Harvard for his senior season in
1994-95.  I'm pretty sure there are other potential '94 Olympians who are in
a similar situation.  And with this being the only time four seasons of
eligibility could stretch across two Olympics (with the Games occurring four
years apart, an athlete's four seasons could only include one Olympics
unless red-shirting is involved, which would open up another can of worms --
never mind that for now), it might be nice for the NC$$ to allow two-time
Olympians to use all four seasons of eligibility if they want to.  In other
words, treat the Olympics like they treat church or military service (well,
in a way, it *is* service for your country), even if it's a one-time thing
for this special '92-'94 situation.  I don't know whether Drury would even
be interested in returning to the Crimson after playing in his second
Olympics, but I really don't think he should be denied the chance to play
four college seasons simply because he's been good enough to make two
Olympic teams.
--
Bill Fenwick
Cornell '86 and probably '94
LET'S GO RED!!
"Men who sleep with daughters of their mothers-in-law -- on the next Geraldo."
-- "Shoe"