Bowden on I-A (and I-AA) transfer rules

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Terry Bowden has unearthed this rule (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AhRsnj0PEzOQynYpBQLeqiAcvrYF?slug=tb-transfertrouble060606&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)that passed a couple of months ago:


The new rule (proposal 2005-54) states: A student-athlete who earns an undergraduate degree in four years but still has one year of eligibility remaining can transfer into another college's graduate school and finish his or her playing career there immediately without having to sit out a year.

The purpose of this rule is, according to the NCAA Legislative Review Committee, "A student-athlete who earned his or her undergraduate degree has achieved the primary goal of graduation and should be permitted to choose a graduate school that meets both his or her academic and athletic interests, regardless of his or her previous transfer history.

Interestingly, this "loophole" that has now been introduced (which IMO is a stupid idea) is at odds with the I-A to I-AA transfer rule (http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=78317)that also was adopted in the same meeting:


[T]he transfer rules changed that require I-A football transfers to have at least two years of eligibility when transferring to a I-AA school. Tales of abuse of this rule had been talked about, with rumors of “hired guns” transferring to I-AA schools and not attending any classes. Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton called it a form of “free agency” that the NCAA was interested in curtailing.

I shouldn't bring up Shawn Johnson here, but I will. Let's say Shawn Johnson was playing now. He's graduated with a 4-year degree but with 1 year of eligibility remaining. These rule changes now mean that if Shawn Johnson wants to transfer and play football at Florida State, he CAN. But if he wants to transfer to Delaware, Harvard, or Fordham and do the same thing, he CAN'T.

Couldn't one, or both of these rules, be challenged legally? They're clearly at cross-purposes, while "unfairly" giving I-A more shots at transfers.

Of course, I would hope that they'd just repeal the "grad school transfer" law only. But this is a Hummer-sized hypocrisy that's going on here.

[Ronbo]

No there is the loophole. If he has graduated then he can transfer to Delaware. He can transfer to any school if he enrolls in their Graduate School. The downside to I-AA is why would they? There are plenty of mid major I-A's that are more attractive than I-AA.

Now if a player has one year left and they haven't graduated they are screwed. They have to stay put. That really hurts the kid that is going to be a bench warmer and wants to play. What good does it do, it's an anti I-AA rule that hurts the athletes.

What worries me is a I-AA star that has graduated might decide he wants to play his senior year at I-A. We could lose some good talented smart guys. I could see top players leaving for I-A after their Junior years, especially redshirted players that can graduate in 4 years. If I was a coach I'd think twice about redshirting my top prospects.

These rule changes seem to benefit I-A and hurt I-AA.

[ButlerGSU]

I think it's a good rule. Because I have talents that a school wants I'm about to start my second graduate assistantship to continue my education. Athletics is just like any other talent; they should be able to use it in order to gain access to more free education.

I also don’t think it will hurt a lot of I-AA schools, for example the University of Delaware’s school of government and policy is one of the best in the country. Other I-AA schools also have excellent academics that smart kids are going to want. I say if they play D-I football and still manage to graduate on time, good for them.

[MplsBison]

Isn't it true that the NCAA is thinking about giving DI football players 5 years of eligibility (IE, no more redshirts).

How would that affect these rules?

[rufus]

No there is the loophole. If he has graduated then he can transfer to Delaware. He can transfer to any school if he enrolls in their Graduate School. The downside to I-AA is why would they? There are plenty of mid major I-A's that are more attractive than I-AA.
This hypothetical athlete could go to Delaware, Florida State, or anywhere else for grad school, but he could only play football at a I-A. With only one year of eligibility left, he would not qualify to transfer to a I-AA. These rules simply allow I-As to pick off the top I-AA seniors with no transfer penalty.

[*****]

No there is the loophole. If he has graduated then he can transfer to Delaware. He can transfer to any school if he enrolls in their Graduate School. The downside to I-AA is why would they? There are plenty of mid major I-A's that are more attractive than I-AA...You always think a I-A is more attractive than any I-AA, that's your mantra. That is simply not true in all cases. In fact, unless the I-A is a good BCS the attractiveness between I-A and I-AA is nearly the same as long as they get the same scholarship.

[*****]

This hypothetical athlete could go to Delaware, Florida State, or anywhere else for grad school, but he could only play football at a I-A. With only one year of eligibility left, he would not qualify to transfer to a I-AA....I think if a SA has graduated with one year left he could enroll in grad school and play at a I-AA immediately.

[walliver]

Isn't it true that the NCAA is thinking about giving DI football players 5 years of eligibility (IE, no more redshirts).

How would that affect these rules?

This has been talked about for a number of years. The basic idea is that since many athletes are going to be in school 5 years, why not let them play all 5 years. The argument against it is that some freshmen may benefit academicqally from a year without football.

Such a rule would probably benefit I-AA schools, especially those that give out less than the maximum scholarships, since scholarships wouldn't be "wasted" on players being redshirted. I don't think such a rule would affect either of the two rules mentioned.

[Ronbo]

You always think a I-A is more attractive than any I-AA, that's your mantra. That is simply not true in all cases. In fact, unless the I-A is a good BCS the attractiveness between I-A and I-AA is nearly the same as long as they get the same scholarship.

Not really, it's the average players mantra. They see more opportunity to shine at I-A. They get more TV exposure, play in front of big crowds, more scouts attend the games, etc. Ask any recruit in the country if he got an offer from a I-A and a I-AA where would he go. 98% would go to I-A, we see it every year. If I was able to poll the Montana players about whether they would like Montana to be I-A or I-AA it would be almost unanimous for I-A. These players want to play at the highest level, it's the competitive nature of good athletes.

[*****]

Not really, it's the average players mantra. They see more opportunity to shine at I-A... These players want to play at the highest level, it's the competitive nature of good athletes.First you say average then you say good... confusing. If a player graduates in four years and has another year to play while at grad school then the "average" athlete wants to go where he can play. It doesn't matter which A it is. Fans like you will say I-A but the players say "where they can play", it happens over and over. Whether it is Idaho or Cal Poly makes no difference.

[Ronbo]

The whole point I was making originally was regarding the exceptional athletes ( Ball, Hilliard, etc.) and a possible desire to ply their talents on a larger stage their Senior year. Let's not get into semantics here. By average player I meant most players good or great would jump at the chance to give the highest level a try if a schollie is offered. Ok some aren't good enough but it doesn't stop them from trying. Heck we've lost players that walked on a I-A that we had offered a schollie to. And Montana has had walk ons that were offered schollies at Division II or NAIA.

[*****]

The whole point I was making originally was regarding the exceptional athletes ( Ball, Hilliard, etc.) and a possible desire to ply their talents on a larger stage their Senior year...I just really have a hard time believing a player who is a star would risk going to a whole new system their last year. What's the point? Scouts are everywhere, not just I-A. Stars get seen no matter where they are. David Ball would get noticed even if he was at a D-II. Plus lots of players go I-AA after getting offered at a I-A. Ummmm, not to mention those who get shafted by lying/changing I-A coaches and ride the bench... Clifton Dawson gladly went from I-A to I-AA. Do you really think he would give up his last year to go back to a I-A? I don't.

[EKU05]

The rules do not contradict each other. The rule about transferring is basically saying that if you graduate...all previous transferring penalties don't apply to you, and that would include a player that played at say...NC State for 3 years and wanted to go to grad school at say...App. This probably won't happen all that often, but it would be perfectly legal.

[eaglesrthe1]

The number of players that would fall under these rules would be minimal. Much ado about nothing.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The rules do not contradict each other. The rule about transferring is basically saying that if you graduate...all previous transferring penalties don't apply to you, and that would include a player that played at say...NC State for 3 years and wanted to go to grad school at say...App. This probably won't happen all that often, but it would be perfectly legal.


The number of players that would fall under these rules would be minimal. Much ado about nothing.

I repeat: These rules are at odds. Look at the fine print:


*Proposal No. 2005-109 – Eligibility – Transfer – One-Time Transfer Exception – Division I-AA Football. Intent: To specify that a football student-athlete who transfers from a Division I-A institution to a Division I-AA institution may qualify for the one-time transfer exception only if the student-athlete has two or more seasons of competition remaining. [Source: NCAA Division I Management Council (Football Issues Committee) (Ohio Valley and Big Sky Conferences).]


Please note that the adoption of Division I Proposal 2005-54 (effective August 1, 2006) will permit a student-athlete who is enrolled in a specific graduate degree program at a Division I institution other than the institution from which he or she previously received a baccalaureate degree to participate in intercollegiate athletics regardless of any previous transfer.

The Divisions I and II subcommittees directed the staff to require the following information when a student is transferring under the graduate exception:

(a) If the student-athlete transferred for medical reasons, the information submitted should be consistent with the information standard specific to necessary medical documentation.

(b) If the student-athlete transferred for financial reasons, the information submitted should be consistent with the information standard specific to financial hardship.

(c) If the student-athlete transferred because his or her institution discontinued its sports program and/or the student-athlete's original institution did not sponsor a sports program, the institution should document that the student-athlete's previous institution could have applied the discontinued or nonsponsored sport exception but instead used the one-time transfer exception. (October 2000)

Nowhere does it say that 2005-54 overrides 2005-109. To me, they both apply. That means no exceptions made to the I-AA transfer rule 2005-109.


This hypothetical athlete could go to Delaware, Florida State, or anywhere else for grad school, but he could only play football at a I-A. With only one year of eligibility left, he would not qualify to transfer to a I-AA. These rules simply allow I-As to pick off the top I-AA seniors with no transfer penalty.

Yes, this is also a side effect of this policy. 5th year I-AAs will now have the option to transfer to I-As with no transfer penalties, possibly making I-AA's "four-year-jucos".

I'm telling you, this is some important stuff. It needs to be brought down, pronto. Fortunately, this is going to be revisited (ttp://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kW hCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CO NTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Association+Updates/Board+to+reconsider+transfer+rule+change+-+06-28-06+update):


The NCAA national office has received 44 requests from the membership for an override vote on Proposal 2005-54, which would allow a student-athlete who has graduated with eligibility remaining to attend graduate school at a different institution and be immediately eligible, even if they participate in sports that do not allow use of the one-time transfer exception.

Based on receipt of at least 30 such requests, the Board of Directors will review its previous legislative action at its August 3 meeting. If the Board does not change its previous legislative action, an override vote of Division I members will take place at the 2007 NCAA Convention.

Also at its August meeting, the Board will reconsider its defeat of a proposal to add a 12th football game for Division I-AA.

I'd hope I-AAs help the charge to bring this down, because it affects them the most.

[*****]

... Nowhere does it say that 2005-54 overrides 2005-109. To me, they both apply...What about "regardless of any previous transfer"?
Proposal Number: 2005-54
Title: ELIGIBILITY — GRADUATE STUDENT OR POSTBACCALAUREATE PARTICIPATION — TRANSFER ELIGIBILITY
Status: Adopted, 60-Day Override Period
Intent: To permit a student-athlete who is enrolled in a specific graduate degree program of an institution other than the institution from which he or she previously received a baccalaureate degree to participate in intercollegiate athletics regardless of any previous transfer.

Bylaws: Amend 14.1.9, page 140, as follows:
"14.1.9 Graduate Student/Postbaccalaureate Participation. A student-athlete who is enrolled in a graduate or professional school of the same institution from which he or she previously received a baccalaureate degree, a student-athlete who is enrolled and seeking a second baccalaureate or equivalent degree at the same institution or a student-athlete who has graduated and is continuing as a full-time student at the same institution while taking course work that would lead to the equivalent of another major or degree as defined and documented by the institution, may participate in intercollegiate athletics, provided the student has eligibility remaining and such participation occurs within the applicable five year period set forth in Bylaw 14.2 (see also Bylaw 14.1.8.2.1.4).

"14.1.9.1 One-Time Transfer Exception. A graduate student who is enrolled in a graduate or professional school of an institution other than the institution from which he or she previously received a baccalaureate degree may participate in intercollegiate athletics if the student fulfills the conditions of the one-time transfer exception set forth in Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10 and has eligibility remaining per Bylaw 14.2. Graduate Student in Specific Degree Program Transfer Exception. A graduate student-athlete who is enrolled in a specific degree program in a graduate or professional school of an institution other than the institution from which he or she previously received a baccalaureate degree may participate in intercollegiate athletics, provided the student-athlete has eligibility remaining and such participation occurs within the applicable five-year period set forth in Bylaw 14.2 (see also Bylaw 14.1.8.2.1.4)." [14.1.9.2 and 14.1.9.3 unchanged.]

[McTailGator]

Isn't it true that the NCAA is thinking about giving DI football players 5 years of eligibility (IE, no more redshirts).

How would that affect these rules?


It has been discussed, and the majority of coaches are for it.

The presidents however might not so happy about it for some reason.

[MplsBison]

As long as academics don't suffer (how could having 5 years to graduate be worse than 4?) and it doesn't mean a loss in money, I don't see any possible reason the presidents could reject it.

Unless for mere resistance to change.

[Maverick]

The way the NCAA rules work on this allows for you to qualify under one rule even if you cannot qualify under another. The old I-A to I-AA transfer rule was an exception to the regular transfer rule for football (must sit a year if in the sports of football, basketball, and ice hockey). A football player who transfers from a I-A program to a I-AA program who could not qualify under the one time transfer exception rule can still qualify under the graduate student transfer exception. Under the new rules, if you are not a graduate student, then you would have to have two years of eligibility left. Those from I-A who have only one year left but have not graduated or have graduated but cannot get into graduate school would not eligible. When they say graduate school, the student must be enrolled in a specific graduate program not a conditional admission or just admitted into the graduate school.
This is what I have been told by the local compliance people.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Thanks for clarifying. I concede that it didn't work the way I originally thought.

However, it still is at odds with 2005-109 in that you'll could *still* have athletes who have graduated play for a I-AA school - they'll just need to be enrolled in a grad school, play their last season, drop out of grad school, and then concentrate on the NFL combine. (Yes, I may be a tad cynical here, but this is how it could work.)

Basically, this undermines 2005-109 in a significant way. What it was trying to combat (players who transfer with only one year of eligibility remaining) is rendered basically toothless by 2005-54.

It also puts schools with graduate programs (read: bigger schools) at a significant advantage over those that don't (read: smaller colleges).

So, in conclusion: the actions at the I-A level undermine the noble intentions of I-AA. :mad:

[Maverick]

How many players do you think will graduate from the I-A schools in four years, get admitted to grad school at I-AA school, play one semester, then drop out? Would one be too many? How many current football players at I-A are schools are going to speed up their graduation and be sure the grades are good enough for grad school to play for one year at the I-AA level? Why not wait a couple of years to see how many of these cases take place so that a realistic basis exists? I have read of all of the terrible "scenarios" that are "possible" on several sites, but how many actual cases are we talking about? Sports other than football, basketball, and ice hockey have had this type of situation for a few years but there has been no public outcry.

PS: Lehigh Nation - your are indirectly talking about I-AA grad schools and athletic departments being complicit in getting these I-A grad transfers for only one semester doesn't exactly echo those noble intentions of I-AA!!!

[blukeys]

However, it still is at odds with 2005-109 in that you'll could *still* have athletes who have graduated play for a I-AA school - they'll just need to be enrolled in a grad school, play their last season, drop out of grad school, and then concentrate on the NFL combine. (Yes, I may be a tad cynical here, but this is how it could work.)


Every Grad program I know of allows about 5 years to complete their program and PhD candidates are typically allowed more. There is no penalty in most programs for taking reduced course load or no load at all for a particular semester. This is typically left between the student and advisor and this is what is typical for non-athletes!!!!!




It also puts schools with graduate programs (read: bigger schools) at a significant advantage over those that don't (read: smaller colleges).


Now we see your true motivation!!!! You want NCAA regulation that will negate a perceived disadvantage that Lehigh has. For all your lofty talk of eliminating hired guns etc.. You just want to cut out what you see as an advantage that schools with graduate programs have. What Hypocrisy!!!!!!


There is a way that the NCAA can eliminate Graduate "hired guns" and that is to require a course minimum the semester after their final year. If the player doesn't do it then NCAA sanctions, including forfeiting wins and NC's can be imposed. This can include forfeiting scollies. This is a much better way of policing this problem then the current rule against senior transfers. Unless your main goal is promoting your own favorite team.xidiotx xidiotx xidiotx xidiotx

[Mike Johnson]

I find this an interesting discussion.

I just want to add another point. Unless a student graduates in December (i.e., after 3 and a half years), they would still be at their original college in the spring in order to graduate. If so, they would not be part of spring ball at the new college and thus effectively a walk-on the following fall as they start a graduate program.

I know of one individual who did this in the 1980s, walking on to the football team at his new graduate school. In this case, he went from undergraduate at Division IA to graduate at Division III, thus it was legal because of changing to a lower division.

Getting into graduate schools is hard. It goes beyond simply graduating. It requires minimum scores on GRE exams or similar. It requires high GPAs. It requires planning a graduate program with an advisor. If a student gets accepted to another graduate school and still wants to play, I don't think the rules should prohibit him from trying out. I think it would be very hard for the athletic program at a college to manipulate it, to get somebody into a graduate program just to play one year.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Now we see your true motivation!!!! You want NCAA regulation that will negate a perceived disadvantage that Lehigh has. For all your lofty talk of eliminating hired guns etc.. You just want to cut out what you see as an advantage that schools with graduate programs have. What Hypocrisy!!!!!!

There is a way that the NCAA can eliminate Graduate "hired guns" and that is to require a course minimum the semester after their final year. If the player doesn't do it then NCAA sanctions, including forfeiting wins and NC's can be imposed. This can include forfeiting scollies. This is a much better way of policing this problem then the current rule against senior transfers. Unless your main goal is promoting your own favorite team.xidiotx xidiotx xidiotx xidiotx

Whoa, tiger. Lehigh has a grad school program. The Patriot League has had a policy of not accepting grad-school transfers since it would be unfair for our league-mates who don't have graduate programs (such as Lafayette) - which is why Shawn Johnson went to Delaware rather than Fordham... which was well documented on this board. I am glad Fordham didn't take Shawn Johnson, not for competitive reasons - I just don't think it would have been right.

I make no secret of my dislike for grad-school transfers, which is a matter of principle and practicality. In the case of a grad-school transfer, how do you prove that the student that is transferring is truly intending to take the classes that he signed up for? Personally I think policing this is a nightmare, since it is difficult to prove what a student's intentions are. And by the time anything can be figured out in 3-month span, the student could have dropped out of the school - and it's difficult to prove why he did it. Was grad school not for him? Was the courseload too tough? Culture shock from leaving his own school? Homesickness? A looming shot at the NFL? You mention NCAA policing as the solution, but it's extremely difficult -- maybe even impossible -- to prove what the deal is.

More importantly, 2005-109 was meant to prevent the worst abuses of senior-year transfers, and 2005-54 undermines that (noble, IMO) goal. I appreciate the argument that it would be difficult for the AD to manipulate the grad school to arrange to have a kid to get accepted in the grad school first before playing, but I'm not throughly convinced. If his desire is so great to play his last year, why not have him sit out a year before playing? After all, he's made a commitment to the grad school. What does it matter if he plays football right away or if he waits a year?

[GannonFan]

The only problem I have with your logic LFN is that you are starting to place way too much emphasis on the importance of the sport, I-AA football in this case, above that of the academics. When you start restricting where and how a person can go to school because of a real or imagined athletic boost that school could get, you start to lose the point of going to school in the first place, that being the academic purpose of it. And in reality, the vast majority of guys choosing to do the grad school transfer after graduating undergrad and playing one more year of football is often never about trying to get one more year of exposure for the NFL (in almost all cases they could get more exposure staying where they are) - more often than not, it's a way to pay for a little bit of graduate school while getting to have the fun of playing football. I can't begrudge a guy who wants to get some of his grad school experience paid for by somebody else and if he can do so by plying his trade as a football player I'm all for it. When it comes down to it, I'd rather have a guy use football to take advantage of an academic situation - I wouldn't want a misguided overvaluing of football (a sport which I love) to stand in the way of academics. I think despite the Patriot League's laudable mission, they missed the boat on this one when they put more importance on competitiveness in sports over that of academics - especially considering the small number of people who even try this type of a transfer.

[blukeys]

Whoa, tiger. Lehigh has a grad school program. The Patriot League has had a policy of not accepting grad-school transfers since it would be unfair for our league-mates who don't have graduate programs (such as Lafayette) - which is why Shawn Johnson went to Delaware rather than Fordham... which was well documented on this board. I am glad Fordham didn't take Shawn Johnson, not for competitive reasons - I just don't think it would have been right.

I make no secret of my dislike for grad-school transfers, which is a matter of principle and practicality. In the case of a grad-school transfer, how do you prove that the student that is transferring is truly intending to take the classes that he signed up for? Personally I think policing this is a nightmare, since it is difficult to prove what a student's intentions are. And by the time anything can be figured out in 3-month span, the student could have dropped out of the school - and it's difficult to prove why he did it. Was grad school not for him? Was the courseload too tough? Culture shock from leaving his own school? Homesickness? A looming shot at the NFL? You mention NCAA policing as the solution, but it's extremely difficult -- maybe even impossible -- to prove what the deal is.

More importantly, 2005-109 was meant to prevent the worst abuses of senior-year transfers, and 2005-54 undermines that (noble, IMO) goal. I appreciate the argument that it would be difficult for the AD to manipulate the grad school to arrange to have a kid to get accepted in the grad school first before playing, but I'm not throughly convinced. If his desire is so great to play his last year, why not have him sit out a year before playing? After all, he's made a commitment to the grad school. What does it matter if he plays football right away or if he waits a year?


We both know that Lehigh is not allowed to use Grad students despite having Graduate Students. Thus Lehigh is still at a disadvantage with the old rule.

As you well know you don't have to tell me about the Johnson / PL situation since I have brought it to your attention constantly.

You see the grad student policy as an abuse and constantly bring Johnson's name into it. If it is the policy itself that you are concerned about then all you need do is argue the merits of the policy vis a vis potential abuses and use hyptheticals. You need not name specific players. Especially players YOU have trashed in the past and who you have claimed that "I don't know if Johnson is gaming the system?"

Otherwise, it appears to some who have been on this board for a while, that you are simply using this issue to continue a Captain Ahab like obsessive assault on a particular player and school.:nod: :nod:

As for your agument for the nighmare of enforcement, The NCAA requires member institutions to report on the Graduation rates of tens of thousands of undergraduates including a graduation percentage. Schools currently pay a penalty (including loss of scholarships) for failure to meet the minimum requirements. The same types of requirements could be put in to place for graduate students. Considering the fact that there will be very few athletes who actually fall into the Grad / Transfer category, the burden would be miniscule. Course registration, attendance, and completion are easily tracked. If the player does not make adequate progress the school can be penalized the same way they are for failure of undergraduate completion. In cases of gross negligence additional penalties can be applied. I would be in favor of minimal credit hour requirements for the semester after the last football season.

Do you really think a star Grad Student athlete on a winning team would not be severely scrutinized if complaints were received by the NCAA? There might be about 100 players overall in all of the NCAA football divisions who might fall into this category. In one area I agree with Bowden, Most NCAA athletes don't graduate in 4 years.
The Grad Student is truly the exception.

Your enforcement argument is bogus. If the NCAA can't look at 100 athletes they have no business trying to regulate tens of thousands.

[*****]

...You see the grad student policy as an abuse and constantly bring Johnson's name into it...Isn't that a recent example? No need to be touchy about it. How many grad classes did Johnson finish at UD?

[blukeys]

Isn't that a recent example? No need to be touchy about it. How many grad classes did Johnson finish at UD?


Duh RAlph this issue is at least 2 and a half years Old. I appreciate your defense of LFN since he is a regular on your audio show but I always thought LFN could defend hinself. But maybe he needs your help!!!!!

To the best of my knowledge Johnson sucessfully completed all of the courses he took at UD. If You have a problem with Johnson will you please get into the Captain Ahab persecution line with LFN and state clearly and concisely What rules did Johnson violate? And when did this happen????????

Why do you and LFN insist on trashing one football player who did nothing wrong???????

He was tired of playing for a loser and wanted to go to Fordham (Due to family connections).

Had he done so we would not be talking about him today. But LFN brings him up every year in a post that has no relevance to the matter at hand.

LFN is obsessed with Johnson and will not give it up because Johnson committed the ultimate sin of trasferring to Delaware: LFN cannot get over his Delaware or Sean Johnson obsession . ( :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:)

[*****]

... Why do you and LFN insist on trashing one football player who did nothing wrong???????...Uh, where did I trash Johnson?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I have no problem with Johnson. He did everything by the rules. It's the rules I don't like.

The facts are that Johnson dropped out of grad school to pursue an NFL career. I can't blame him; nor can I say if he went to Delaware to shore up his draft value or to pursue his masters. You can't either. That's my problem with it.

People say it's hard to fudge and not very easy to game the system. I'm not so sure. *dragging out the old SJ arguments* Yes, people game the system by using their 5th year taking double-majors and grad courses at their undergrad institutions, too, and I'm not for that either. There is a major difference here - if you stay at your undergrad institution, you've proven yourself academically; and you are pretty sure of your playing time. If you're a transfer, you open yourself up to charges that "you're moving just so you can be a star on another team" and that academics are not a concern. This is true of any transfer, but acutely important for transfers with 1 year of eligibility. I'm not saying that all transfers are like this, but for sure some are.

I repeat: If a student-athlete is so serious about using his last year of eligibility, why not have him sit out a year? At least you'll then know how serious they are about their master's studies. They will have proven themselves academically, just like many freshman to pursue their undergrad degrees.

[colgate13]

I repeat: If a student-athlete is so serious about using his last year of eligibility, why not have him sit out a year? At least you'll then know how serious they are about their master's studies. They will have proven themselves academically, just like many freshman to pursue their undergrad degrees.

Two things here LFN.

1 - What does a student-athlete do for that year they sit out? There are many 1 year master's programs. So should they go out and get a job then go back to school? How practical is that? Why should they be penalized from a regular student who goes on to grad school just like anyone else?

2 - I can't help but be cynical here. I think a lot of your beef comes from your school's and conference's decision to not take these kinds of transfers. If Lehigh did allow them, and they had a Duke grad who wanted to get a masters in engineering who also happened to be a NFL prospect, I can't help but think you and the rest of the Mountain Hawk faithful would be welcoming him with open arms and proclaiming the virtues of Lehigh and the Patriot League. He would be held up as a model student-athlete. But instead, he goes from Duke to Delaware, and his intellectual pursuits are called into question because he was lucky enough to get drafted into the NFL. Sorry, that's too much potential hypocrisy for my liking. :twocents: