Don't like this rule, but it will probably pass.

Might as well drop the term student athlete then and quit pretending in some of the sports. If you get one free do over it's quite obvious that you went to school A and then to school B simply to play.

The second part (non-renewing) is so rare, you’ve got to search real hard to find cases of that happening.

Exactly, because more sports do not have the one year rule than those who do. Why and how is that fair?

I'm just not a big fan of the term student-athlete.

As I've posted previously,I transferred from O.U. for Academic reasons.
But,since I was a D1 athlete (soccer),I still had to sit out one year.
The NCAA wouldn't even consider an exemption.

That would have left me with 1 year of eligibility for soccer.
Fortunately,based on the timing of my transfer,I had 2 years of eligibility for wrestling.

I agree with everything in your first paragraph including the Grad. Transfer rule and a 1 year sit out after your first transfer.

I also agree with no sit out when a coaching staff leaves.

I also believe that the NCAA needs to come up with uniform criteria for any appeal,especially medical red shirts.

As a former wrestler,I follow NCAA wrestling,big time.

Right now,there is a "sliding scale" for Medical Red Shirts",especially
when granting a 6th year of eligibility.
In fact,because of injury,one wrestler,could,with medical and Olympic red shirts come back for an 8th season.

Olympic Red shirts are also something that wrestlers take advantage of.

Agree. I think it would be a fantasy to think the Big Ten, or any other big conference for that matter, has the well-being of the student athlete in mind in wanting to see this change. As is always their driving force, this is about money and gaining the winning edge. Somewhere within the confines of the conference offices they have determined that getting those players, who develop late, or have been missed, to transfer, will enable their teams, especially those who are part of the last few teams selected for the tournament, to be a little better. Instead of maybe losing to the mid majors in the early rounds of the tournament the slight improvement will lead to more wins. Thus, go further in the tournament, get even more money for the conference teams.

Something I don’t think the “money hounders” take into consideration though is that many fans (me included) of mid-majors and those who like it when underdogs advance will lose interest in the whole tournament. It will become boring to them. They will decide to do other things with their money and time, thus making the overall pie smaller. If they think everyone will just start supporting some other school I think they are greatly mistaken. Must they remain greedy and never be content with how good they have it now?

By the way this would greatly impact G5 football too in my opinion.

This will not just affect BB non-P6 and FB non-P5 schools. You'll see Kentucky recruiting players from Ohio State and Duke and seeking immediately eligible transfers. In football, you'll see SEC pilfering the B1G with great success. The only schools that will do well here will be the ones at the very top of the heap in their respective sports, and ones who have coaches who develop strong bonds with their players and, therefore, there is a great deal of loyalty among the players. But, in general, it'll be a very destablizing rule, if adopted. I suspect it's not at all a "done deal" yet and will have major opposition within the NCAA fold.

Sure, but then the MAC is losing a guy who is Big Ten quality and was underrated and replacing him with a a guy who is MAC-level and was underrated.

It would lead to a JUCO type environment where you literally don't know who's going to be on your roster.

If a school offers a kid a scholarship to play, there should be some contractual obligation--both ways. The school has to follow through with the scholarship, and the kid has to follow through with the commitment to the team.

The "sit one year" thing is to deter athletes from making rash decisions about changing schools. Without that as a deterrent, will athletes change willy nilly? Yep, probably.

Will that, in turn, impact the schools and their ability to compete? Yep, probably.

So what is the solution? Do we stick with a solution that seeks to keep things in some order, or do we throw that away in pursuit of idealism, knowing that idealism may cause greater problems?

If you agree there are no perfect solutions, than you must choose the solution that is the most tolerable.

More and more I like the idea of club sports. No scholarships. No big money. No corruption. Just athletes who play for the love of the game.