The long-awaited day of transfer reform is coming, even if it means baby steps for NCAA institutions.

After years of failed attempts to make much of a dent in the transfer process, the NCAA Division I Council is likely to approve Proposal 2017-108 — which eliminates the need for permission to contact and instead replaces it with a notification to transfer — when it meets this week in Indianapolis.

“What is going to be presumably voted in is really good for our industry because it removes the ability for someone just to block somebody,” Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard told CNHI last month at the Big 12 annual meetings in Dallas. “That’s really what caused and got us to this spot in the first place. Now we’re removing that ability for there to be a high-profile denial.”

The change would effectively transfer leverage from schools and administrators to student-athletes, a seismic shift in empowerment among players. No longer will programs be able to dictate the narrative.

If approved, student-athletes would simply inform their school of their intent to transfer. The athletic department would then place them into a database, and other programs could then move forward with a contact period.

In April, the Division I Council made two modifications to the proposal — reducing the number of business days an institution has to enter a student-athlete’s information into the national transfer database upon receipt of a transfer notice from five days to two days and moving the effective date from Aug. 1, 2018, to Oct. 15, 2018.

To protect against unethical conduct, the proposal includes an amendment that would carry a Level II violation for impermissible contact between players and coaches prior to the information being entered into the database.

Between various proposals and ideas brought to the table by the NCAA’s transfer working group — the Big 12 even formulated its own plan — Proposal 108 is the lone piece of legislation to stick.

Conference administrators recognize progress, though.

“We aren’t going to get as far down the path on transfers as I think most people hoped we would,” Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said.

“The transfer working group would be the first one to tell you they had hoped they would get farther than just the notification, but on the other hand, there have been three groups that have worked on this over the years. They’re all comprised of very bright, experienced people. They haven’t made as much progress as this group has. If it was easy, we’d have figured it out a long time ago. There is still work to be done.”

The next step is determining whether an autonomy proposal (2018-6), which originated in April from the Big 12, will move forward. In conjunction with the original proposal, a referral was made to autonomy conferences to adopt legislation that would allow an institution to reduce or not renew financial aid if a student-athlete provides notification to transfer.

No decision can be made until after 14 days of notification and financial aid can’t be reduced until the end of a regular academic term, per the proposal. However, a school can immediately reduce or cancel financial aid if the notification comes between academic terms (winter or summer break).

“If you don’t vote it in, then technically somebody could tell you they are transferring and not transfer and you can’t eliminate them from aid,” Pollard said. “I don’t think that would happen, but it could happen.”

Other transfer reform ideas previously thrown around include allowing immediate eligibility for an academic threshold or if a coach left or is fired. They gained little traction, especially an academic component that was met with resistance from the Big 12.

At the Big 12 meetings, Bowlsby begged the question if the notification of transfer was going far enough. He knows coaches don’t want an open marketplace. He’s also aware additional changes are possible, reminding the public how it’s conceivable the five autonomous conferences could “do something on their own.”

“I’m not predicting that, but when this went into place, we were very specific that we’re OK having the transfers and the enforcement in the larger 32 conferences, but if we don’t make progress we reserve the right to go back and think about it a different way. We may get there,” said Bowlsby, referring to when the NCAA gave greater power to ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and Pac 12.

That is a discussion for a different day. Administrators like Pollard are taking each step in stride, with the focus eventually shifting back to topics like graduate transfers or academic thresholds.

“It’s too early to forecast,” Pollard said. “We just need to get through this first part of June, and then pick up the pieces from there.”