The following article appears in the Winter 2020 edition of NABC Time-Out Magazine. To view the full Winter 2020 issue, click here.
by Andy Katz
The waivers aren’t unanimous. The process is flawed. And the need to change the legislation is now a must.
But in what way, how fast and to what extent are still being debated.
Yet, the sense is all parties believe the status quo can’t continue.
Statistics provided by the NCAA show there were 77 transfer waivers approved, 44 denied and nine pending through the month of November. That means 64 percent of the waivers were approved, hardly a consensus either way.
The two most likely scenarios on the table are to grant every student-athlete a one-time transfer waiver during their career — and that includes grad transfers — without sitting out a season, or no waivers at all and every player must sit out a season if the student-athlete transfers.
Getting a unanimous decision on what to do next isn’t going to happen. There will need to be a compromise. But something must occur.
“It’s a discussion point,’’ said TCU coach Jamie Dixon, who will take over as the next NABC president in April. “The waiver process brings too many questions.’’
The questions the waiver process brings range from abuses to confusion as to why one player would be approved while another denied.
“I am completely against waivers,’’ said South Carolina coach Frank Martin, an NABC board member. “Either everyone gets a one-time transfer or everyone sits. I will lobby (to change it).’’
Technically here is how the transfer waiver process works, per the NCAA:
There should be documentation that circumstances outside the student-athlete’s control necessitated the transfer.
The school must show that the student-athlete’s transfer is linked to the circumstances outside of the student-athlete’s control.
The school can appeal a NCAA staff’s decision to the Division I Committee for Legislative Relief.
The committee may waiver a normal application when the extraordinary circumstances arise that are unintended consequences of the legislation.
There are seven members — made up of NCAA Division I schools or conferences — on the Division I Committee for Legislative Relief.
That committee sets the standards but here is the breakdown on how the waiver process works.
The student transfers from one institution to another and the new school then files the request for immediate eligibility. The NCAA staff reviews the request using the guidelines set forth by the aforementioned committee. One staff member is assigned to each case and reviews the documentation.
The staff member is looking for mitigated issues like egregious behavior at the prior school that could have forced the player to want to leave, mental health, or the player being run off. Academic records are reviewed, how the previous school reacted and supported or fought the transfer is also considered.
The timeline is supposed to take 21 days, but the NCAA states transfer waivers aren’t considered urgent — even though they may feel that way for the player or the new school.
If the request is denied, there is an appeal process that must be within 30 days of the decision.
As a result, it’s easy to see why there is confusion, frustration and at times anger over the process.
“I believe all players should sit, no waivers at all,’’ said Michigan assistant Phil Martelli, a former long-time head coach at Saint Joseph’s. “It’s too confusing. There are no standards that are evident to all. Players fighting through tough situations should be part of education. The waiver process hurts the credibility of the NCAA.’’
Should the NCAA staff be in the process of reviewing a player’s mental health, the extenuating circumstances of a family illness, or whether or not the player competing immediately would help the player? Is this just about playing time under the cover of a waiver to solve the problem? Are coaches only interested in this when it benefits them?
There is no unanimity, another reason why there needs to be a decision on either a one-time transfer or not.
Think about this — Wisconsin coach Greg Gard, who was angered by the denial of Micah Potter’s transfer waiver to play after sitting two semesters instead of three — is even against waivers.
“I think it will become even more of a transfer circus if there’s a one-time waiver,’’ said Gard. “Our conference (the Big Ten) put forth a legislative change for a one-time waiver, but the Board of Directors wouldn’t take it further.’’
“We went 0-for-2 with our waivers, so I would just like to see some consistency with the process,’’ said Tulsa coach Frank Haith. “We had compelling arguments and reasons for our guys to get the waiver but for some reason we didn’t get it — when everyone else in our league got theirs. Granting immediate eligibility could create difficult circumstances, as there could be some behind the scenes issues with that, so I think having everyone sit out a year would be good from an educational standpoint, even graduate transfers.’’
Haith said he hates seeing the mid-level schools get “gutted’’ by the decisions.
“I’m not in favor unless it’s an emergency,’’ said North Carolina Central coach LeVelle Moton. “When kids transfer to NC Central, the university doesn’t accept 20 to 30 of those credit hours. If kids can play right away, they’ll leave the university short of graduation – that doesn’t fit right with my spirit. The year allows them to retrieve those hours and get back on track.’’
But then — even at the mid-level, at a school that has seen its share of players leave and go up a level — agreeing on what to do next isn’t happening.
Iona coach Tim Cluess said the player is being punished by sitting out a year. Cluess said he doesn’t understand why men’s basketball is singled out versus other sports.
“The student-athlete has a short window in which to compete at their sport while attending school,’’ said Cluess. “Where else in our country are people limited on their choices of where they want to work, attend school, have an entrepreneurial spirit, find the right fit that fits their personality or have a chance to use their skill set to earn money for them and their family?”
Cluess said there should be a discussion on this that includes college coaches.
“If it was a choice of everyone gets a waiver or no one gets a waiver, I would choose everyone gets a waiver, even at the expense of what it will probably cost lower and mid-level college programs,’’ said Cluess.
Coaches can have a say by ensuring either their school or conference recommend new legislation by working with the NCAA. This is doable. The autonomy five conferences have more voting power. They can push this through the Men’s Basketball Oversight Committee and get it in front of the Division I Board of Directors.
“If the NCAA can’t minimize the abuse, then eliminate the waivers altogether,’’ said UMass-Lowell coach Pat Duquette.
Once again, the need for the NABC to have one voice on this legislation is critical. Support appears to be growing among coaches to compromise on the one-time transfer and get out of the stress of wondering if the waiver will be accepted or denied. And if a player wants to transfer a second time — after he received the one-time exception of playing immediately — then he must sit a year.
It really could be that simple. But settling on a unanimous position will likely continue to be anything but.
