NCAA Eliminates Hardship Waivers and Other Musings

[Muskie]

Link (http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/24/ncaa-waves-goodbye-to-hardship-waivers-big-five-leagues-a-step-closer-to-autonomy/)

The Division I Board of Directors is now one step closer to changing the power structure of the NCAA to grant more autonomy to the “Big Five” conferences, as the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC were referred to in the NCAA’s release.

It’s not a secret that the teams in the biggest conferences also have the biggest budgets, and the Board of Directors endorsed the idea of allowing the Big Five the chance to provide their student-athletes with the kind of benefits that have been pushed for in recent years:


Enough financial aid and scholarship money to cover the full cost of attendance
Insurance policies, including those that protect future earnings
More academic support, especially for at-risk athletes
Continuing education and medical care
Travel for families, free tickets to athletics events, and other expenses associated with practice and competition (such as parking)

Those will go to a final vote in August.

[nuts4xu]

I don't know if I like the elimination of the hardship waivers. If a player is not able to return to his previous school, due to no fault of his own, why can't the NCAA consider the situation and extend a waiver?

When Dez Wells was declared eligible right away, I didn't hear anyone argue that he should have to sit out a year. Now, if a kid goes through something effed up like that, he will sit out. I get they still have the year of eligibility, but it is still screwy they make the kid sit out in a "once in a million" situation like that.

Did players abuse this wavier? Why the change?

[Muskie]

I don't know if I like the elimination of the hardship waivers. If a player is not able to return to his previous school, due to no fault of his own, why can't the NCAA consider the situation and extend a waiver?

When Dez Wells was declared eligible right away, I didn't hear anyone argue that he should have to sit out a year. Now, if a kid goes through something effed up like that, he will sit out. I get they still have the year of eligibility, but it is still screwy they make the kid sit out in a "once in a million" situation like that.

Did players abuse this wavier? Why the change?

They're trying to cut out anything that looks like college free agency in my opinion.

[paulxu]

Travel for families, free tickets to athletics events, and other expenses associated with practice and competition (such as parking)


This might take away the "staying close to home so family/friends can see me play" deal. Maybe the families want a free trip to the West coast every week.

[D-West & PO-Z]

They're trying to cut out anything that looks like college free agency in my opinion.

How does a kid wanting to go to a school closer to home after a parent gets ill or dies equivalent to college free agency? The NCAA is stupid.

[XUGRAD80]

the proposal I saw mentioned said that if a kid transferred because of a hardship case they would have to sit out a year, BUT would NOT lose a year of eligibility,,,,,it would be added back in on the backend. That seemed fair to me.

[nuts4xu]

the proposal I saw mentioned said that if a kid transferred because of a hardship case they would have to sit out a year, BUT would NOT lose a year of eligibility,,,,,it would be added back in on the backend. That seemed fair to me.

They still have to sit out a year. I understand they don't lose the eligibility, but if it is a hardship, why can't they consider the player for immediate eligibility like Dez Wells?

Again, has this rule been abused? Why the need to change?

[D-West & PO-Z]

They still have to sit out a year. I understand they don't lose the eligibility, but if it is a hardship, why can't they consider the player for immediate eligibility like Dez Wells?

Again, has this rule been abused? Why the need to change?

Yeah, and if the rule has been abused it would be to no fault other than the NCAA, who gives out the waivers. Dumb

[XUGRAD80]

They still have to sit out a year. I understand they don't lose the eligibility, but if it is a hardship, why can't they consider the player for immediate eligibility like Dez Wells?

Again, has this rule been abused? Why the need to change?

I think that this is the proposal that has forwarded by coach's and is favored BY the coach's association. There must be some fear, on THEIR part, that either the rule HAS been abused or MIGHT be abused, or both. There is also the feeling, I'm sure, by the coach's that this wold enable them to have more control over their roster on a year to year basis.

[waggy]

I'm sure there were instances when the hardship waiver was used when there was no actual hardship.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I'm sure there were instances when the hardship waiver was used when there was no actual hardship.

Again that would be the fault of the NCAA. Because they cant do their job, players with real hardships suffer?

[paulxu]

Again that would be the fault of the NCAA. Because they cant do their job, players with real hardships suffer?

You broke the code.

[waggy]

What's the NCAA supposed to say? Your aunt's not really dying?

[D-West & PO-Z]

What's the NCAA supposed to say? Your aunt's not really dying?

It really wouldnt be that hard to prove, it might be insensitive to ask for proof but players should understand if they want the waiver they have to prove they really have a hardship.

If my anatomy professor in college can demand an obituary and death certificate if we are going to miss an exam for a death in our family, I think the NCAA can do more than just take a players word for it.

[xubrew]

I'm not aware of a player being granted a hardship waiver that allowed them to move closer to home and not sit out where both schools were not supporting it being granted. We've seen a lot more of them recently, but since both schools need to be in support of it it's kind of hard to abuse.

The NCAA seems to spend a lot of time on nonsense and almost no time on reform that would actually be good.

[danaandvictory]

The NCAA seems to spend a lot of time on nonsense and almost no time on reform that would actually be good.

Any meaningful reform would eliminate the NCAA and, thus, their sinecures. Why would you try? Mark Emmert has 1.7 million reasons to continue perpetrating this farce.

[waggy]

It really wouldnt be that hard to prove, it might be insensitive to ask for proof but players should understand if they want the waiver they have to prove they really have a hardship.

If my anatomy professor in college can demand an obituary and death certificate if we are going to miss an exam for a death in our family, I think the NCAA can do more than just take a players word for it.

It's easier just to get rid of the waiver. The schools are primarily in the business of education. If some kid can't play sports it's not that big a deal - he can still go to class.

[D-West & PO-Z]

It's easier just to get rid of the waiver. The schools are primarily in the business of education. If some kid can't play sports it's not that big a deal - he can still go to class.

HA! Thats what its all about, education!

[throwbackmuskie]

HA! Thats what its all about, education!

Well now they are being given the option of a 6th free year of college.

[XUGRAD80]

Basically the NCAA is saying that it's to difficult, and a no win situation for them, to tell if a kid actually DOES have a hardship. So they are just going to let kids transfer, make them sit out a year, and give them back the year of PLAYING time on the back end. IF it truely IS a hardship case, it will allow the kid to be closer to home and give them more free time in which to spend with the family. If it NOT a true hardship, the kid has to be willing to lose that IMMEDIATE playing time, but still get the 4 years of eligibilty they would otherwise have had. In either case, it takes the real possibility of a kid transferring just to get immediate playing time at his new school ( for whatever reasons he may be doing that ) out of the equation, and let's the NCAA off the hook for having to make decisions on how true the hardship is.

[xubrew]

As much as I think the NCAA to reassess it's priorities and get some other things in order that impact a much larger group, I do like this change.

Like XUGRAD80 said, if it's a true hardship, do you really want to be playing a sport?? For that matter, do you really want to be in school at all?? What this basically does is stop a player's clock for a year. It actually gives them the option of taking a year off and not have to transfer if they don't want to. They don't have to transfer to be closer to home, because they can just take a year off and move back home if they want to.

And, if they want to transfer, they can do that too.

[D-West & PO-Z]

As much as I think the NCAA reassess it's priorities and get some other things in order that impact a much larger group, I do like this change.

Like XUGRAD80 said, if it's a true hardship, do you really want to be playing a sport?? For that matter, do you really want to be in school at all?? What this basically does is stop a player's clock for a year. It actually gives them the option of taking a year off and not have to transfer if they don't want to. They don't have to transfer to be closer to home, because they can just take a year off and move back home if they want to.

And, if they want to transfer, they can do that too.

No one thinks that it's additional hardship on a kid going through a real hardship to take away a sport they love? A kid can transfer back home to be close to family but still play basketball and be there for family too. Now you are taking a kid who's parent is sick and telling them they can't play the sport they love this year either because the NCAA is to incompetent to do their job? Man I'm starting to really despise the NCAA.

[xubrew]

No one thinks that it's additional hardship on a kid going through a real hardship to take away a sport they love? A kid can transfer back home to be close to family but still play basketball and be there for family too. Now you are taking a kid who's parent is sick and telling them they can't play the sport they love this year either because the NCAA is to incompetent to do their job? Man I'm starting to really despise the NCAA.

I get what you're saying, but in this case I don't think that's what the NCAA is thinking.

Whenever you start to see a bunch of players getting waivers for the same thing, they're going to look to change the rules so players who are in that situation no longer need to go through the whole process of applying for a waiver and then waiting for the NCAA to make a decision on whether or not to grant it.

A waiver is just that. An exception to the rule due to a special circumstance. If it's a situation where a parent cannot travel and has less than six months to live and wants to have the chance to see their son play before they die, and both schools support him being able to play right away, they'll probably get it. But, they also would probably not get an extra year on their clock.

It also depends on what the hardship is. If the family's house burns down and a kid wans to go home and help sort things out, it isn't much help to say a kid can transfer and play right away, but can't get the extra year on their clock.