As the college basketball season gets underway, one topic is once again on fans’ minds: what happens when college basketball players transfer from one school to another, and why some are allowed to play immediately for their new school and others are not.
But little is understood about the entire transfer process, particularly regarding transfer waivers.
When it comes to transfer decisions, there are never easy answers. And not all transfer waivers allowing student-athletes to play immediately are equal. The reason for a waiver request may be valid, or it may not meet a threshold for approval.
MORE: Home of Basketball NCAA.com
However, in the transfer waiver process, the intention is not to punish players, but rather to ensure they are best placed to succeed on and off the field. Research shows that many student-athletes benefit socially and academically from a transition period after transferring.
To better understand the dynamics at play with transfers, here are some numbers to digest:
During the 2017-18 season, 5,537 athletes played Division I men’s basketball – and 689 of them transferred. Of that number, 331 left for another Division I program. And only 32 waiver requests were submitted.
How does Andy Katz’s Power 36 ranking compare to the AP poll?
Now let’s move on to this season. So far, schools have submitted 71 waiver requests, with 17 still awaiting a decision. Of those that were processed, 52 percent were approved.
Historically, student-athletes competing in men’s basketball across all divisions account for 20 percent of all transfer waiver requests received by the NCAA.
The reasons given for waiver requests vary widely: coaching changes, injury or illness, environment, mental health and financial issues are a few common categories. Within each of these categories, NCAA member schools have adopted guidelines that help NCAA staff make the right decision.
MORE: College basketball statistics
It is essential to understand that no two waivers are equal. NONE. And don’t expect NCAA staff or the school to divulge the reasons why. These are kept confidential in accordance with federal student privacy laws. If the student-athlete wishes to disclose the reason, it is up to the student-athlete to decide.
To allow competition immediately after transferring between two four-year schools, there must be extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the student-athlete. Academic records are considered as part of waiver requests to increase the chances of a smooth academic transition. The previous school’s position on the transfer is also taken into account. When medical issues are mentioned in a waiver request, NCAA staff members rely on documentation provided by the school, which often includes the opinions of subject matter experts. For example, when a request for exemption from transfer is linked to a medical need, an attending physician can give his opinion.
And NCAA staff members review each waiver request independently – with a focus on what is best for the student-athlete.
The transfer waiver environment has evolved over time. The current student-centered philosophy began under the leadership of the late NCAA President Myles Brand and continues to grow under the leadership of current President Mark Emmert. This philosophy influences all work of the national office, including waiver decisions, resulting in an increased approval rate.
For all the talk about how unfair the system is, it can only be changed by NCAA members, not NCAA staff. And the position of the members continues to change. Earlier this year, the Division I Council demonstrated some transfer flexibility when it adopted a new process allowing student-athletes to transfer and receive aid without having to seek permission from their current school. Over the next year, this same group will examine several other proposals making immediate competition automatic after the transfer in certain specific cases.
MORE: NET Rankings, Explained
The rule requiring student-athletes to sit out a year of competition after transferring dates back decades, and the sports allowing exceptions have changed over time. Due to the restrictive nature of the rule and the continued evolution of members on this topic, exceptions are necessary. And exemptions must have parameters.
Public frustration is real when one student-athlete is immediately cleared to play and another is not. On the surface, the cases may appear similar, but what is not always known are the specific facts and how they were presented. What documentation was provided? How did the old school support the player?
Casting a wide net and saying the NCAA made the wrong decision is often a popular and easy position. This is not to say that there are never bad decisions made. The process remains imperfect. There is no formula or algorithm for making decisions. NCAA staff members review each situation individually and make the best decision based on the facts presented. Protections for student-athletes prevent any details from being shared publicly.
If there is a movement to propose a single transfer, without restrictions and in all sports, then the lobbying should begin. Getting coaches, athletic directors and conference commissioners on the same page and agreeing that everyone can leave freely, regardless of circumstances, could be a tough sell.
There may be a less drastic change for 2019-20 as the Legislative Measures Committee reviews current trends and guidelines. The extent of the change will depend on how willing members – yes, coaches and administrators – really are to agree on the ability to move freely across the athletic and collegiate landscape.
