NCAA Considering New Rules Which (Surprise!) Could have Little Benefit to Ole Miss
Presumably to remove ambiguities, curb arbitrary decision making, and add more contrast to current gray areas, the NCAA is looking to trim the fat on their quite dense rulebook. Last week an NCAA working group met to examine many current rules before releasing proposals to NCAA member schools for deliberation. Their goal is ultimately to "crack down on what the NCAA perceives as major threats to its principle of amateurism" while making legal certain issues which the NCAA considers either uninforceable or unreasonably illegal.
One major change could be the reestablishment of athlete-only dorms, featuring their own cafeterias or restaurants, which were phased out in the 1990's. Many argue that rising discipline issues among student athletes are a result of the coaches being less able to keep a watchful eye on their athletes. On the other hand, many feel that schools should not provide to student athletes services which aren't in some other comparable form available to all enrolled students.
Many of the changes proposed, as with much of the NCAA rulebook, deal with recruiting and attempt to clarify and adjust already written rules to make them more compatible in the information age. Restrictions on access to scouting video, rules governing what takes place during official visits, and rules concerning the conduct of coaches during the recruiting process are all being considered for change. Most interestingly, some in the NCAA would like to make it legal for coaches talk publicly about their recruits. This would certainly make press conferences interesting for those of us who follow recruiting. (Can you imagine Les Miles namedropping guys he's recruiting during post game pressers? Because I can.)
A proposed change which would be detremental to smaller schools or schools who aren't exactly winning games, such as Ole Miss, would be the implementation of a proposed change to allow transfers in all sports to immediately play by waiving the year-long residency requirement for transfer athletes.
Of all of the rules implemented and decisions rendered by the NCAA, the transfer waiting period was a rule I actually felt the NCAA got right. I do understand why the NCAA would be against a rule which discourages students from pursuing stated academic goals (key word: "stated"), but the intent of this rule never had anything to do with academics. It was written to keep certain schools, such as Ole Miss, from being used as farm systems for schools such as Alabama or LSU.
Imagine if this rule weren't in place. What would have stopped Brandon Bolden from transferring to LSU after his freshman year at Ole Miss? Would Terrico White have stayed in Oxford for three years if he had the opportunity to play for John Calipari at Memphis? Could Chris Warren have slipped down to Gainesville after his first couple of years? This rule change, like the strict limitations the SEC recently placed on oversigning, could realistically only benefit larger, more prominent athletics programs at the expense of their smaller counterparts.
If I had any say in any of this (which I don't, for good reason), I'd adamantly oppose the elimination of rules surrounding the year-long waiting period for athletes who transfer schools within their athletics division. It is one of the few NCAA rules which legitimately provides a fairer competitive environment in college athletics, which is the whole point of the NCAA anyway, right?
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I really think this will cut both ways
Just as much as you see this as a negative, I can see it as a positive for us. The key being, there are plenty of good players at LSU/Bama/Florida that would transfer to Ole Miss for immediate playing time when they are unhappy at those schools. They would be able to come in and play immediately, rather than having to go play at JUCO or DII for a year.
Houston Nutt would have loved this. We wouldn’t have to fight the NCAA for every transfer we get. They could just play.
Considering changing my name to RebelBlackBearsConception
by ColRebsLastBreath on Feb 15, 2012 5:34 PM EST reply actions
That would be the worst case scenario
And it probably wouldn’t go quite to that extreme, but I think Ghost’s examples of Bolden, Warren, and White are spot-on. I think a rule change would create a de facto farm system for the elite programs. For example, a school like Memphis wouldn’t have to gamble a scholarship on a player like Terrico White anymore. They could just let him go to Ole Miss and if he tore it up his freshman year, they could pursue him heavily for a transfer. Rumor was (and this is totally unconfirmed on my part- I’m by no means a program insider) that T White flirted heavily with transferring to Memphis after his freshman year. Eventually, he decided not to only because he would have to sit out a year and he had already made up his mind to go pro after his sophomore season. With that rule abolished, he would have torn it up his freshman year in Oxford and then broken our hearts by heading back to Memphis (not that he didn’t break our hearts with his less-than-stellar play his sophomore year, but that’s another story).
Not a fan of waiving the transfer rule
Or of re-establishing athlete-only dorms/cafeterias/etc. Trust me, collegiate athletes already get plenty of stuff the average student does not get (free athletic gear, per diem on road trips, free meals/dinners/etc, and don’t kid yourself and think that they already don’t have access to some of the nicer off-campus spots at which to live). I see the argument coaches are making about it being easier to discipline or control them, but we all know coaches aren’t going to be there at 1 AM when all the bad decisions are made anyway.
As for the transfer change, I hate that idea even more than re-establishing athlete perks. We’ve already seen how transfers mess with team chemistry (i.e. the Houston Nutt era at OM), so I’m not sure how waiving the one-year requirement to sit out would change that. Plus, yeah, we would definitely lose kids that the big programs took a pass on like Bolden, Warren, and Terrico White.
Could've fooled me on the athletic dorm rule.
All the female athletes managed to get put in Holman, which not so coincidentally happened to be the nicest dorm building on campus by a long shot. And bball1984 is right, athletes already get a lot of stuff the average student will never see from the school.
It seems to me like waiving the transfer rule would open up recruiting on players already at certain colleges. I doubt most coaches would be blatant about it, as that would quickly degenerate into something ugly, but it might take place behind closed doors. I can’t imagine many athletes transfer due to academic reasons anyway.
Speaking of recruiting, I personally think it would be a terrible idea to allow coaches to discuss recruits. There’s enough attention on them as it is today.
I believe Ole Miss has the best looking girls any college in the country... -Raylan Givens, Justified
I still don't understand
how Newt Gingrich’s little brother weasled his way into the NCAA presidency.
"A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to."-Gandalf
by Mexter Dccluster on Feb 16, 2012 10:19 AM EST reply actions
Seems all these rules
and the deletion of divisions in basketball tend to hurt the Rebel Calamari.
Graduated University of Mississippi Leonard McCoy School of Medicine, 2481
by SkylarkThibedeau on Feb 16, 2012 10:44 AM EST reply actions
Freeze is
putting a training table in place. I think that would be great for ALL athletes. Each team could have specialized meals available at off hours, instead of pizza, burgers, and fries.
I think New Athletic Dorms near the stadium/ basketball arena and one female version near the Women’s facilities would be a good recruiting tool.
The “athletes get enough” argument doesn’t play with me. They generate a lot of money and if it wasn’t important, why fire Nutt? Surely, he eventually would win 6 games. Why get rid of Boone?
Athletes and entertainers have a specialized skill set and get paid for it.
I want to win in all our sports, but especially football and baseball.
If you want to win, you have to spend.
by hotstove97 on Feb 16, 2012 2:44 PM EST via mobile reply actions
"if you want to win, you have to spend"
The problem with that argument is we could never spend on a level playing field with a Bama or LSU. We’ll never generate the kind of money they can (at least not anytime soon). If we build a four-star athletic dorm, they build two five-stars. If we hire Gordon Ramsey as training table chef, they’ll fly in some freak from France. If we hire strippers from Memphis, they’ll bring in Miss Universe and Angelina Jolie. You DON’T want it to be about the money.
by bball1984 on Feb 16, 2012 8:09 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Reality?
We all know that “reality” has no place in the present setup called “college athletics.” If “reality” was present, then the athletes would be on salary as their efforts produce all the money anyway. Therefore, instead of paying the athletes, put them in dorms and feed them a proper diet. Watch them like hawks and keep them out of as much trouble as possible so that they can “play” on Saturday.
All this “concern” about athletes obtaining more than regular students is bogus for the regular students do not produce the millions and millions that big business college athletics take in each year.
This is a business so operate it like a business to produce maximum efficiency.
by BeastButler1865 on Feb 16, 2012 4:11 PM EST reply actions

by 
















