The reason I ask is for eligibility purposes. If you choose to transfer to another D1, I understand sitting out, but if you are cut from a program then why should a player have to waste a year of eligibility due to events beyond their control? Why that player sign or walk on without having to sit? I assume that you have to sit out a year if you have lost your scholarship. Let me clarify this further by saying being "cut" with no issues being involved, ie, legal issues, grades, etc.
Does the NCAA recognize a player as "cut" or as "transfer"?
- Thread starter Thick
- Start date
When does the one year contract end? If you were not cut at the end of that year, but were cut while officially in your second year, wouldn't that be breach of contract on the university's part? I guess the key to all would be what is the official start and end of a scholarship contract period. It's definitely unfair for players and families.
LSU did not honor the 1 year committment then Les Miles acted like Chris was the one who chose to leave.</p>
He got a scholarship in Jan. 2009, it was renewed for the next academic year in Aug. 2009, and then he wastold in July 2010 that his scholarship wouldn't be renewedwhen it came up for renewalin Aug. 2010.
To answer Thick's question, the players that were cut will have to sit out a year if they transfer to a I-A school. It's not fair to the player, but the NCAA really doesn't give a ****.</p>
To answer Thick's question, the players that were cut will have to sit out a year if they transfer to a I-A school. It's not fair to the player, but the NCAA really doesn't give a ****.</p>
...that if you turn down the scholarship, then play for a year on your own dime, then transfer, then you shouldn't have to sit out a year.
or else the transfer sit-out rule is based on playing, not on the scholarship. in which case we're back where C34 started.
make the rule you get 25 per year of initial eligibility, for all 4 years. then there's no way you can cut a junior to make room for 35 signees.
or else the transfer sit-out rule is based on playing, not on the scholarship. in which case we're back where C34 started.
make the rule you get 25 per year of initial eligibility, for all 4 years. then there's no way you can cut a junior to make room for 35 signees.
If the program chooses not to renew your scholly then the player can transfer to any D1 program of their choosing. If the player chooses to transfer because of playing time due to being third string or worse for 2 consecutive years they may also transfer to any D1 program. Why would any school care if that player transferred to any school that they compete against? The schools are really screwing kids over because of this poorly written rule by the NCAA.
In business, if you are a poor performer, you lose your job, but you don't have to sit out a year before going to work for a firm of the same status.
In business, if you are a poor performer, you lose your job, but you don't have to sit out a year before going to work for a firm of the same status.
if his scholarship isn't being renewed, and he can transfer anywhere without sitting out. If you don't notify a player by May 1, he counts toward the 85-limit that fall. That's simple and fair.
I disagree with waiving the 1-year rule if a player transfers without his scholarship being cut though. Lots of players are 3rd string for their redshirt and FR seasons, but are being counted on to contribute later in their career.
I disagree with waiving the 1-year rule if a player transfers without his scholarship being cut though. Lots of players are 3rd string for their redshirt and FR seasons, but are being counted on to contribute later in their career.
but who's going to waste that year or more waiting for the courts to hear the case. Unless the kid is just wanting to help those who follow afterwards but I don't see many kids today being THAT selfless.