Sue Ogrocki/Associated Press
You and I both do not have enough time to discuss everything that's wrong with the NCAA's transfer rules. But we don't need it.
The word "everything" sums the problem up tautly.
That might sound harsh and is, in some ways, an overstatement. That players are allowed to transfer at all is a good thing, so perhaps not "everything" is wrong with the system. It's the nuance that's a problem.
Specifically, the ability of schools to block the transfer of its former players is a joke. As Adam Kramer of B/R recently examined during the case of Michael Brewer at Texas Tech, bylaws like 6.3.1 in the Big 12 handbook are painfully hypocritical:
A 4-2-4 transfer student-athlete who is in compliance with NCAA Bylaw 14.5.6 must complete one full academic year in residence before being eligible to compete in a sport and forfeit one season of competition unless, in sports other than football or basketball, the director of athletics of the Conference Member Institution of initial enrollment consents in writing to the student-athlete’s enrollment at the second Conference Member Institution. Any consent given relating to the indirect intraconference transfer may be unconditional or conditioned on the student-athlete completing one full academic year in residence at the second conference Member Institution before competing.
Brewer was blocked from transferring to Texas and TCU because TTU didn't want him to stay in the conference.
However, according to Don Williams of the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Brewer wanted to play at those schools because he is from Texas and had connections in the area. Connections that would have helped put his degree to good use in the job market.
If—as the NCAA so eagerly trumpets—college players are students first and athletes second, then why is Brewer's future being blocked for reasons of football paranoia? Why is this sport able to interfere with his future?
Why is everyone such a hypocrite?