The UAAP has once again made waves in collegiate sports with a controversial update to its transferee eligibility policy. This new rule, which introduces significant changes to the penalties for transferring players, has sparked both surprise and criticism.
Recent high-profile transfers, like Mason Amos’ move from Ateneo and Rey Remogat’s switch to a rival school, appear to have prompted the UAAP to tighten regulations, signaling a strong stance against intra-UAAP transfers.
Here’s a breakdown of the new policy and its potential repercussions for college basketball.
Policy Breakdown
The revised policy imposes a two-year penalty on transferring players: a one-year residency requirement plus an additional year of ineligibility. Essentially, a player must sit out for a year and lose another playing year. For example, Mason Amos, who has played one season with Ateneo, will need to complete a full year of residency at La Salle, followed by losing an extra year of eligibility. This means he will have just two playing seasons left at La Salle.
A player who has completed two seasons with their former team and transfers will only be as good as a one-and-done acquisition.
This new rule practically closed the window for third year transferees.
Future Implications
- Scouting Beyond the UAAP
The policy creates a clear incentive to recruit from outside the UAAP. Players coming from other leagues will only face the standard one-year residency penalty, making them a more appealing option. Expect to see increased recruitment from the NCAA and other leagues as a result.
- Focus on Fresh Talent:
The new rules diminish the value of poaching players who have completed their rookie season and those who have played their second season. With the sword of losing two playing years forked directly on their necks, the allure of changing academic address is reduced. This shift may lead to a greater focus on recruiting rookies who had a stellar rookie season. PROTECT THOSE ROOKIES EVERYONE! They will be the only players worth poaching.
- NCAA or Professional Paths:
For players dissatisfied with their team after their rookie year, the NCAA may become a more attractive alternative. The NCAA is considering a proposal to cut its residency requirement to one semester, potentially drawing UAAP players looking for a fresh start. Additionally, this shift could push disgruntled players towards professional leagues, either locally or abroad.
As the UAAP adapts to these changes, the collegiate basketball landscape in the Philippines is set for a transformation. There will be more players jumping leagues than those who are simply changing university jerseys. The full impact of this policy will become clearer as schools adjust their strategies and players weigh their options.
Revisiting the Cayetano Bill
Senator Pia Cayetano’s “Student-Athlete Protection Act” has previously been used to counter changes in residency rules. Key provisions include:
Section 4. Residency of Student-Athletes:
(a) No residency requirement for high school graduates enrolling in college or university.
(b) No residency requirement for high school students transferring between high schools, though a maximum of one year may be imposed for transfers between member schools.
(c) For tertiary student-athletes, a maximum of one year residency may be imposed before they can participate in competitions.
(d) The same rules apply to Filipino student-athletes from abroad enrolling in Philippine schools.
The key phrase for this rule is provision (c), a rule that specifically applies to college student athletes and is related to being imposed a “maximum of one year before they can participate in competitions”. Theoretically, the revised rule complied with this law, but the fringe charging of that extra playing year may not have been covered.
THE LAW AND THE RULES DO NOT DIRECTLY CONFLICT
The law addresses residency requirements, while the recent policy change deals with eligibility penalties. Although these aspects might not directly conflict, the new policy could be perceived as an attempt to circumvent the existing law.
As things were left to grey, it is expected to ignite legal debates.
This situation is likely to spark a protracted legal battle, should the Cayetano Law be used to stop this policy change and this may not be resolved swiftly.
Will the revised policy face challenges under the Cayetano Bill? Could another Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) be issued? Only time will reveal the answers.
