NCAA members weigh transfer autonomy vs. free agency

KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. — Though the American Athletic Conference will have no formal influence over certain areas of NCAA policy once a new autonomous structure for the five so-called power conferences is approved later this year, commissioner Mike Aresco has said repeatedly his league will adopt whatever new rules or athlete benefits are put on the table.

"We're aligned with them," Aresco said this week as the American's coaches and athletics directors gathered for their annual spring meeting. "We want to be like them. We think we're very close to them in terms of the issues. The issues they face are the issues we face."

Like several other commissioners outside the Power 5, however, Aresco has questions about whether some of the areas initially included under the autonomy banner instead belong to all 32 conferences in Division I.

And one of those issues in particular — transfer rules — could very well be a fulcrum for how much power the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 are allowed to grab.

Last week, when Pac-12 presidents outlined their plan for reform in a letter to the other 53 presidents of power conference schools, one of the 10 bullet points was to "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."

What that liberalization encompasses, however, was left vague — perhaps intentionally. Even the power conference schools themselves aren't sure how far to take it.

But the proverbial line in the sand could be drawn if the Power 5 want to loosen the rules so much that athletes wouldn't have to sit out a year if they transfer.

Schools in the American or Mountain West see the possibility of de facto free agency as a major threat, where an Alabama or Texas could theoretically try to fill a hole on their roster by simply poaching a player who excelled in a less prestigious conference.

"If somebody comes after (former Fresno State quarterback) Derek Carr after his sophomore year and says, 'You want to come over here? You're pretty good,' that's an issue," Mountain West Commissioner Craig Thompson said earlier this month at his league's meetings in Phoenix.

Though there's no data to suggest that eliminating all transfer rules would disproportionately hurt schools outside the Power 5 — it's possible they'd benefit just as much from athletes at top schools transferring "down" — there is overwhelming concern that such a system would lead to a recruiting process that never ends.

"We want kids to get to school and start working on their education," Temple football coach Matt Rhule said. "We don't want them to keep getting recruited. Recruiting is long enough."

***

Though the NCAA has taken a few stabs at reforming transfer rules — at one point even floating the idea to allow athletes a one-time transfer without penalty if they achieved a certain grade-point average — no significant changes have stuck. Last month, the Division I Board of Directors eliminated waivers that allowed athletes to transfer and play immediately if they had a family circumstance or other hardship that required them to change schools.

On the other hand, external pressures might necessitate some changes. For instance, the College Athletes Players Association, which is seeking to represent Northwestern football players as a labor union, has targeted transfer rules as one area of desired reform.

There also have been several incidents in recent years where schools imposed severe and seemingly unfair restrictions on where athletes can transfer, inviting bad publicity. Earlier this week, Kansas State granted women's basketball player Leticia Romero a release to transfer to any school outside the Big 12, but only after initially denying her request, a decision that drew significant attention and criticism.

In the current climate, the NCAA might be wise to get away from those scenarios where schools have almost unlimited power to limit where players can go when they decide to transfer.

Cincinnati football coach Tommy Tuberville, however, said there are far bigger problems that need to be addressed before significantly altering transfer rules.

"When players start talking about being compensated more, I think you have presidents, ADs and faculty reps say, 'Wait a minute, let's start giving on some of these other issues where it doesn't pertain to money,' " Tuberville said. "I'm all for giving kids money if that's what we're going to do. I think they deserve it because they don't have a chance to get a part-time job. But let's make sure we do what's best for the student-athletes and quit messing around with things that aren't broken."

Lifting all restrictions on transfers might have far-reaching implications, particularly on the Academic Progress Rating. If a player transfers and hasn't achieved a 2.6 grade-point average, the school loses APR points, which could ultimately lead to penalties including a loss of scholarships or a postseason ban.

"I'm not sure many people understand that other than men's basketball coaches," Tulane's Ed Conroy said.

***

The relatively recent spike in college basketball transfers — more than 400 players have changed schools each of the last two years — is one reason why the power conferences want to get their arms around the issue to some extent.

"Autonomy is not about competition and competitiveness. It's about student-athlete welfare," SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said. "To the extent that the transfer rule relates to student-athlete welfare, we feel it ought to be in the area of autonomy."

Aresco, however, said he sees it as an issue of shared governance among all 32 D-I conferences. He also questioned how transfer regulations that only applied to those five conferences would work when players in a variety of sports would likely continue to transfer between the two levels.

"It has to do with competitive balance and competitive integrity and other issues that aren't financial in nature," Aresco said.

That philosophical divide may come into play over the next few months as the steering committee for autonomy considers alterations to their initial proposal. But regardless of whether the transfer issue lands under autonomy, it's one that coaches in all leagues will continue to wrestle with and wonder what implications may come from sweeping changes.

"I know there's some anxiety about not allowing student-athletes to say, 'You know, I made a decision when I had just turned 17. I made the wrong choice, and I should be at a different school,' " Stanford football coach David Shaw said. "There should be some leniency there. I don't know what that's exactly going to look like, because I understand both sides of it."​

Contributing: George Schroeder, Nicole Auerbach