ACC supports athletes transferring without penalty. What it means, when it could happen
.JPG "North Carolina State’s C.J. Bryce (13) and Devon Daniels (24) react during the second half of an NCAA college basketball game against Boston College in Boston, Sunday, Feb. 16, 2020.")
The ACC on Monday became the second Power 5 conference to express public support for overhauling NCAA transfer rules, which in recent years have become a target of criticism for their restrictiveness.
The ACC now supports allowing athletes in all sports to transfer once, without the penalty of sitting out for a season. The Big Ten was the first major conference to support such a change, the idea of which has gained momentum amid a dialogue of improving the rights of college athletes.
ACC officials discussed “the transfer environment” last week during the league’s annual winter meetings, according to a statement. The conference “unanimously concluded that as a matter of principle we support a one-time transfer opportunity for all student-athletes, regardless of sport.
“As a conference, we look forward to continuing the discussion nationally.”
Here are some questions and answers about the proposed change:
What does the ACC supporting new transfer rules mean?
It means, essentially, that all college athletes would have the same freedom of movement that, say, coaches have always had. At least athletes would have such freedom once. According to current NCAA rules, undergraduate athletes in football, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball and hockey must sit out for a season if they wish to transfer to another school. Rarely, athletes in those sports are granted a waiver to play immediately, if they meet certain conditions.
Under the proposal backed by the Big Ten, and now by the ACC, all undergraduate athletes, regardless of sport, would be able to transfer once without the penalty of sitting out. If they were to transfer more than once, the old rules would likely apply for the second transfer. For the initial time, at least, athletes would have the kind of freedom they’ve long lacked. The rule would not affect graduate transfers, who are already allowed to compete immediately.
Why is this transfer proposal gaining momentum now?
The simple answer: Major college athletics is at a crossroads. The name, image, likeness (NIL) debate is being settled, at the moment, in state legislative houses across the country, instead of by member schools. The NCAA is trying to play catch up there, and it’s yet unclear what model will emerge. It does seem likely, though, that some form of athlete compensation is coming.
Elsewhere, the welfare of college athletes — from improved access to mental healthcare to ensuring proper and legitimate educational opportunities — has become a topic of significance, and one too big to ignore. Fixing an outdated, archaic and prohibitive transfer system falls somewhere in the spectrum of affording college athletes more rights.
The Big Ten and ACC likely see their support of the proposed change as a way to stay in front of the conversation. Much like the question of compensation, change is likely coming to transfer rules, given the consternation that’s long surrounded their restrictiveness. This is a chance for conferences to appear forward-thinking, and the ACC is taking advantage of it.
When will ACC athletes be able to transfer without penalty?
It’s still an if. The earliest would be at some point in 2021. Last November, the NCAA Board of Governors placed a moratorium on potential rules changes involving transfers. The moratorium, the board said in a statement, was put in place “to allow time for additional data collection and a review of the waiver process and criteria.”
The board requested data related to transfers, including:
▪ Where athletes in the transfer portal enrolled.
▪ A study of the potential impact on athletes and teams if athletes could transfer and play immediately.
▪ Recommendations from the NCAA Committee on Academics regarding potential academic rules associated with transfer eligibility.
The Big Ten and ACC are the only two major conferences that have expressed public support for the one-time transfer. The Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC have yet to adopt a public position, and it seems unlikely that the proposed change would go forward without additional support.
If the one-time transfer rule comes to pass, what’s the likely impact? The pros? The cons?
That’s among the questions for which the NCAA Board of Governors is seeking an answer. It’s probably too early to tell exactly how such a rule change would affect the major college sports.
But, remember, the major college sports — football, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball and hockey — are the only ones in which athletes are forced to sit a year when transferring. The proposal, then, would lead to a more consistent transfer standard across all sports.
On the surface, the pros and cons are fairly straightforward. The pros: Athletes would have more freedom and control over the futures, without being burdened by the threat of losing a year while they sit out. Coaches can come and go as they please, and often do. So why not athletes? This would allow them such an opportunity, at least once.
The cons: The proposal would, in theory, make it more difficult for coaches and programs to plan ahead. In basketball, and even to a lesser extent in football, though, that’s already been challenging in recent years while the number of transfers have increased. Roster continuity has been a concern for a while, and likely would become even more of one if the primary disincentive to transferring is removed.
What if, though, a one-time transfer allowance leads to more stability? It’s not a thought often considered, but if athletes enter school with more freedom, perhaps they’ll also more often enter the kind of circumstances designed to keep them around for a while.
This story was originally published February 17, 2020 at 9:55 PM with the headline "ACC supports athletes transferring without penalty. What it means, when it could happen."
