Opinion & Analysis
A new NCAA transfer rule gets passed… and college coaches are NOT happy

New rules just keep on coming from the NCAA; college coaches are not happy about this one.
In a summer of block buster coaching changes, the NCAA has done its best to stay atop the news cycle by making some significant changes, which will impact the recruitment process. In an article two months ago entitled “The effect the NCAA’s new recruiting rules will have on college golf,” I spoke to college coaches about a new rule, which will not allow unofficial or official visits until September 1 of the players Junior Year. To go along with this rule, the NCAA has also put in place a new recruiting calendar which will limit the sum of the days of off campus recruiting between a head and assistant coach to 45 days starting August 1, 2018.
The 45-day rule will have several potential impacts for both recruits and assistant coaches. For recruits, it is likely that after a couple (2-3) evaluations, coaches will make offers and ask for speed responses to ensure they are not missing out on other options. I also think you will see far less assistant coaches recruiting, which ultimately hurts their opportunities to learn the art of recruitment.
The new transfer rule
In the past, players were subject to asking their present institution for either permission to contact other schools regarding transfer, or a full release.
Now, starting October 15, players can simply inform their institution of their intensions to leave and then start contacting other schools to find an opportunity. This is a drastic shift in policy, so I decided to poll college coaches to get their reactions.
The poll was conducted anonymously via Survey Monkey. Participation was optional and included 6 questions:
- New NCAA Legislation will allow players to transfer without a release starting October 2018. Do you support this rule change?
- Do you believe that this rule will have APR implications?
- Who do you think will benefit most from this rule?
- What are the benefits of allowing students to transfer without a release? What are the potential harms?
- New NCAA Legislation will make December a dead period for recruiting off campus. Do you support this legislation?
- What implications do you see for this rule?
In all, 62 Division I golf coaches responded, or about 10 percent of all Division I coaches in Men’s and Women’s Golf. The results show that 81.25 percent of DI coaches said that they do NOT support the rule change for transfers.
Also, 90 percent of coaches polled believe that the rule will have APR implications. APR is Academic Progress Rate which holds institutions accountable for the academic progress of their student-athletes through a team-based metric that accounts for the eligibility and retention of each student-athlete for each academic term.
The APR is calculated as follows:
- Each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid earns one point for staying in school and one point for being academically eligible.
- A team’s total points are divided by points possible and then multiplied by 1,000 to equal the team’s Academic Progress Rate.
- In addition to a team’s current-year APR, its rolling four-year APR is also used to determine accountability.
Teams must earn a four-year average APR of 930 to compete in championships.
While the APR is intended as an incentive-based approach, it does come with a progression of penalties for teams that under-perform academically over time.
The first penalty level limits teams to 16 hours of practice per week over five days (as opposed to 20 over six days), with the lost four hours to be replaced with academic activities.
A second level adds additional practice and competition reductions, either in the traditional or non-championship season, to the first-level penalties. The third level, where teams could remain until their rate improves, includes a menu of possible penalties, including coaching suspensions, financial aid reductions and restricted NCAA membership.
Clearly coaches are not happy about the move and feel that the rule unfairly benefits both the student athletes and major conference schools, who may have a swell of calls around middle of October as Student athletes play great fall golf and look to transfer. Although coaches are unhappy about the new rule, it is very difficult to predict what direct impact the rule will have on teams; coaches are extremely smart and understand recruiting and development within the frame work of college better than anyone can imagine. As a result, I think coaches will react in many ways which are impossible to predict.
The survey also asked, “new NCAA Legislation will make December a dead period for recruiting off campus. Do you support this legislation?” For this, coaches were more divided with 45 percent in favor of the rule, and 55 percent not.
Although coaches supported the legislation, many (41/62) suggested that it would potentially hurt international recruiting at tournaments like Doral and the Orange Bowl and they had, in the past, used December as a time to recruit.
As we move forward with these changes, here are some potential things that recruits, and their families should consider, including consequences of the rules:
- With a limit of 45 days and these transfer rules, it is likely that coaches will be doing significantly more investigation into a player’s personalities and family situation to make sure they know what they are getting.
- Coaches may also start skipping over better players in favor of kids they think will be a good fit and are likely to stay
- Rosters may get bigger, as coaches are trying to have larger numbers to potentially offset transfers
Unfortunately, we enter a new era of rules at the worst time; we have never had a more competent and deep group of college coaches, the clear majority of whom are tremendous stewards of the game. Hopefully this rule will have insignificant effect on the continued growth of college golf but only time will tell.
Opinion & Analysis
The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Podcasts
Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Opinion & Analysis
On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
College Golfer
Nov 29, 2018 at 8:18 am
I think the new rules are great. Student Athletes at some schools are taken for granted by their coaches. I’ve experienced this. When students are treated without respect perhaps a change is a good thing. Yes, even players who compete in every tournament can be unhappy at their current school. Coaches have made it clear that if you ask to be placed on transfer list, you will have aid money pulled, lose access to practice facility and not compete.
I think you’ll see better players make moves after the competition schedule is completed in the fall or late spring. If a golfer has a scoring average of 70, has all rounds count for team scores, high tournament finishes but is under compensated in the form of scholarship he should be free to leave without penalty. When coaching changes happen, players should be free to move without threats from the current university. Frankly if a coach signals that he feels one of his best players is average with low scholarship money, then that coach should recognize that he may lose that player.
College golf requires greater expenses then just tuition, room and board. First they need a car to get back and forth to
Practice, that means expenses for gas, insurance, maintenance and parking. Many campuses don’t have parking for freshmen and sophomores so off campus housing is required (at greater expense), add time demands of meeting with donors, academic requirements, fitness training, practice and travel the lifestyle can be tough. If I’m getting 50% COA on a team with 9 players, mathematically that means coaches think I’m average. If I play all events, all my scores count and another player is at 100% and he doesn’t play and scores don’t always count why not leave if coaches don’t consider my requests for more $.
The reality is that for a dedicated college golfer it costs about 50% more than COA to attend. Then add off season amateur events between semesters and over summer and that’s easily another $12-15,000.
The challenge for top players is selecting their time to get on the new transfer list. I think spring after conference, regionals and NCAA will see the better players making moves.
Golf Mom
Jun 29, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Thank goodness someone is finally looking out for these young people. From a parents perspective, my experience kids are used as pawns. Rather harsh but honest! There is definitely a lack of integrity and transparency. Hopefully this will allow young people that have worked so hard to have a voice in planning their future.
Jeremy Ellis
Jun 23, 2018 at 9:36 am
If coaches could switch schools without a waiver, then players should have the same opportunity. If a player does switch, do you have to sit out a year or is that only in D1 football?
Doug Gordin
Jun 22, 2018 at 6:51 pm
As the old indian saying says, do not judge until you have walked a mile in my moccasins…Until you have coached college teams you can’t understand. This rule gives all the authority to the athletes, they can now come and go as they please. One little thing going wrong and they will want to move on or as I call it, give up. It is reflective of our society today. Very rare for a kid to buck up and tough it out. Not being taught that at home anymore and this new rule just encourages that attitude. The Coaches will now be basically powerless over the players, only thing they have control of now is playing time. Not a good move at all in my opinion.
Fred
Jun 23, 2018 at 9:33 pm
AMEN to that, Doug!
Commoner
Jun 25, 2018 at 7:01 pm
Boo hoo!!! Get real Buster! Imagine the temerity of the indentured servant seeking blessed permission to ‘run his own life.’
Coaches are hypocrites
Jun 22, 2018 at 3:33 pm
Until there is restrictions on coaches quitting and taking new jobs while the players they signed are still in school I will have no sympathy for them.
Oh that cannot happen because there’s restrictions on how to treat employees? Fine, realize the student athletes are employees too and are compensated with tuition and they are free to leave like the coaches.
Retired Mizuno Rep
Jun 22, 2018 at 1:15 pm
The scholarship athlete should have some skin in the game and not be allowed to pick up and leave without any recourse.
He is getting a paid for education .
Put a price on that .
Richard Douglas
Jun 23, 2018 at 3:01 am
YOU are allowed to “pick up and leave without any recourse” in your job, right? You’re getting paid, right? You can put a price on that, right?
How are student athletes any different?
Let’s stop treating athletes like chattel and instead treat them like people. Let’s protect their rights and let them make an income, too. If they want to change schools, fine, it should be their right to do so. If another school wants to compete for their services, fine, let them.
Finally, don’t over-estimate the value of a scholarship. First, it’s an “at will” situation; a scholarship can be withdrawn for any reason without recourse. Second, it hardly constitutes a “paid for” experience–student athletes often face huge expenses with little ability to accept other assistance in meeting them. Finally, a great number of athletes put in so much time towards athletics that they cannot fully leverage their scholarships–nor defer them to a later date when they’re done competing.
Commoner
Jun 25, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Excellent comment. Many people have been persuaded (conned) by the carnival barker only to be disappointed (crushed) once inside the tent. Suggested remedies?
Steve
Jun 22, 2018 at 12:46 pm
“Clearly coaches are not happy about the move and feel that the rule unfairly benefits both the student athletes and major conference schools”
Oh no. How dare those student athletes. Why should they benefit from the rules? Don’t they know the rules were designed to take advantage of them?
JJVas
Jun 22, 2018 at 11:58 am
The new rules are a great first step. I understand that this complicates recruiting, but guess what? Coaches also need to MAINTAIN good relationships with their players, not just lock them up. Since eligibility works like a clock, one bad move can effectively end a college playing career. Coaches are also willing and able to move on to different schools, and those players should never be bound to a school in that instance.
Zi1ian
Jun 22, 2018 at 11:05 am
81.25% of D1 coaches care less about their unpaid student-athletes and more about their career and professional legacy.
regripped
Jun 22, 2018 at 10:57 am
Who cares what coaches think? Colleges are there to benefit the students and the NCAA has for too long restricted student-athletes and this is a first good step to treating them like human beings rather than property of an institution.
Brooky03
Jun 22, 2018 at 10:52 am
The rule change was necessary and the right move to benefit the student-athletes. There are only APR concerns if a player doesn’t finish the semester. Since most transfers occur between semesters, the APR impact should be minimal. If a kid transfers at the end of the Fall semester, the Spring semester doesn’t count against the team.