The leaders of big-time college sports agree that transfer rules need to better accommodate players.
The days of coaches having a say in where an athlete can transfer could very well be going away, though it's not likely deregulation will lead to a system where athletes come and go as they please.
"The trick ... to this is affording students the prerogative and privileges that they deserve and to also be fair to the universities that invest heavily in time and resources to recruit them to that school,' Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Thursday in a telephone interview.
How that change happens is up for debate.
The wealthiest college football conferences (Big 12, Big Ten, Atlantic Conference, Pac-12, Southeastern Conference) are willing to work with all of Division I to come up with a solution, but they also want the power to make their own transfer rules if need be as part of an autonomy structure the NCAA is moving toward.
That worries the schools outside those powerful leagues, concerned they'll be in danger of losing their best players to the Big Five.
Most of the areas in which the Big Five conferences are seeking autonomy are related to how schools spend money on athletes. Transfer regulations are seen more as purely competitive-balance issues.
"I still haven't gotten a good answer as to why transfer rules have been included in the autonomy bucket," said SMU athletic director Rick Hart, whose school plays in the American Athletic Conference, one of the other five leagues in the top tier of college football knows as FBS. "I'm hopeful that will remain something that is voted upon by the entire membership."
NCAA transfer rules vary some from sport to sport. For football, men's and women's basketball and baseball, transferring players must sit out a year and lose a year of eligibility if they want to take a scholarship with another school playing at the same level. Athletes can apply for a family hardship waiver to be allowed to play immediately.
A recently passed proposal would eliminate the hardship waiver, but give transfers back the year of eligibility, though they would still have to sit out a year at the new school.
Hart said there is "general support for that proposal," but more changes are being discussed.
"We've talked about outside the box type of things but they all have intended and unintended consequences," Hart said.