National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Association gets down to business - Division I overrides graduate-transfer rule
|
By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
ORLANDO, Florida — Division I institutions again exercised their right to vote on legislation at the Convention, overturning a rule during a January 7 business session that would allow graduate student-athletes who want to transfer to a new institution to compete immediately, and upholding a Board of Directors defeat of a proposal that would have added a 12th game in the Football Championship Subdivision.
The two override votes at the 2007 Convention were the division’s second and third “one school, one vote” decisions since restructuring. The entire Division I membership also had the opportunity to vote at the 2006 Convention on a proposal expanding scholarships in several women’s sports.
The first vote on the transfer legislation was definitive, with 70 percent supporting the override, despite strong support for the legislation from the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.spoke to the assembly, quoting NCAA research showing that of 4,830 student-athletes who graduated with eligibility remaining, only 112 graduates transferred, and some of them were eligible for the one-time transfer rule.
“Please give student-athletes the privilege of making this important decision for themselves,” Street said. “The (competitive) impact is minimal when compared to what student-athletes gain from continuing their education. It would be a shame to take away this opportunity from student-athletes.”
Many coaches saw the rule differently, though, believing it could eventually create another recruiting period for graduates with eligibility remaining.
Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, painted a bleak picture of a world of “advisors” who would encourage student-athletes to transfer to more high-profile institutions for more exposure.
“I am worried about the integrity of the game,” Haney said. “I see unintended consequences. … (An override) is in the best interests of the game.”
While not many student-athletes took advantage of the legislation in the first year, he said, eventually more people would have become aware of the opportunity, and recruiting of those student-athletes would proliferate.
Proponents of the override noted that student-athletes who truly wanted to transfer for academic reasons — to pursue a graduate degree not offered at their current institution — could still avail themselves of a waiver process.
Carol Iwaoka, associate commissioner of the Big Ten Conference, said the waiver process would assure transfers were truly for academic reasons.
“Our conference supports the override because we support the academic pursuits of the student-athletes,” she said. “We want transfers through a waiver process that offers quality control.”
Most of the institutions voting, 196, agreed with Iwaoka.
Coincidentally, Division II delegates overwhelmingly approved similar legislation at their business session the following day.
The second override vote at the Division I business session, which upheld a Board decision to defeat a 12th game in the FCS, was not nearly as decisive. Of those voting, only 48 percent wanted to override the decision. Again, SAAC members saw their position defeated. Jarrell Johnson of Western Illinois University said the 12th game would give student-athletes an extra opportunity to make the playoffs and another chance to gain exposure.
“It would be more than thrilling for us to play another game in front of a crowd,” he said. “Having that opportunity to compete keeps up the morale of the team and rewards the loyalty of our fans.”
No one spoke against the override.
Katie Street, SAAC member and golf student-athlete at Boise State University,
The two override votes at the 2007 Convention were the division’s second and third “one school, one vote” decisions since restructuring. The entire Division I membership also had the opportunity to vote at the 2006 Convention on a proposal expanding scholarships in several women’s sports.
The first vote on the transfer legislation was definitive, with 70 percent supporting the override, despite strong support for the legislation from the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.spoke to the assembly, quoting NCAA research showing that of 4,830 student-athletes who graduated with eligibility remaining, only 112 graduates transferred, and some of them were eligible for the one-time transfer rule.
“Please give student-athletes the privilege of making this important decision for themselves,” Street said. “The (competitive) impact is minimal when compared to what student-athletes gain from continuing their education. It would be a shame to take away this opportunity from student-athletes.”
Many coaches saw the rule differently, though, believing it could eventually create another recruiting period for graduates with eligibility remaining.
Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, painted a bleak picture of a world of “advisors” who would encourage student-athletes to transfer to more high-profile institutions for more exposure.
“I am worried about the integrity of the game,” Haney said. “I see unintended consequences. … (An override) is in the best interests of the game.”
While not many student-athletes took advantage of the legislation in the first year, he said, eventually more people would have become aware of the opportunity, and recruiting of those student-athletes would proliferate.
Proponents of the override noted that student-athletes who truly wanted to transfer for academic reasons — to pursue a graduate degree not offered at their current institution — could still avail themselves of a waiver process.
Carol Iwaoka, associate commissioner of the Big Ten Conference, said the waiver process would assure transfers were truly for academic reasons.
“Our conference supports the override because we support the academic pursuits of the student-athletes,” she said. “We want transfers through a waiver process that offers quality control.”
Most of the institutions voting, 196, agreed with Iwaoka.
Coincidentally, Division II delegates overwhelmingly approved similar legislation at their business session the following day.
The second override vote at the Division I business session, which upheld a Board decision to defeat a 12th game in the FCS, was not nearly as decisive. Of those voting, only 48 percent wanted to override the decision. Again, SAAC members saw their position defeated. Jarrell Johnson of Western Illinois University said the 12th game would give student-athletes an extra opportunity to make the playoffs and another chance to gain exposure.
“It would be more than thrilling for us to play another game in front of a crowd,” he said. “Having that opportunity to compete keeps up the morale of the team and rewards the loyalty of our fans.”
No one spoke against the override.
Katie Street, SAAC member and golf student-athlete at Boise State University,
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy