NCAA to allow transferring without sitting out?
- Thread starter lou v
- Start date
There's got to be some sort of limitation/restriction or there will be absolute chaos. The rich will only get richer. I'm very fearful of the potential ramifications this might cause.
He talks about a one-time freebie and then a grad year, so there would be some limitation. And there are still scholarship limits in place.
I share your concern. That means that Urban will not only continue to poach players after they have committed but after they have signed and even after they have started playing. We get an Anthony Walker or Paddy Fisher with a break-out freshman or sophomore year and the bottom feeders would start recruiting them as if they were a high school junior.
This could turn all schools not in the hunt every year for the CFP into farm teams for those few that are.
I'm assuming other schools would still be prohibited from contacting players unless and until they received a release from their original school. While I'm not naïve enough to think that schools don't "go underground" to make these contacts with players, that approach would at least come with some risk. Frankly, right now there is nothing to keep good players from transferring, even if they have to sit out a year. And that's as it should be, in my opinion. Coaches leave in the middle of contracts. Non-athletes transfer at will. No reason to punish successful athletes.
From "Football Scoop": Discussions on changing the transfer eligibility rules have been pushed back to 2019, according to a tweet from Adam Zagoria of the New York Times. AFCA executive director Todd Berry came out against changing these rules at the convention last week.
From "Football Scoop": Discussions on changing the transfer eligibility rules have been pushed back to 2019, according to a tweet from Adam Zagoria of the New York Times. AFCA executive director Todd Berry came out against changing these rules at the convention last week.
For starters they could exclude CFP teams from being a transfer option and probably should include all CFP ranked teams as well.
Basically just expand the present rule to include more options for the student who finds he is not going to get a chance to be on the field and just wants an opportunity to play.
Students who have had meaningful playing time should also be excluded from taking advantage of the no need to sit out a year transfer rule.
Last edited:
I still think this will have a adverse effect on schools like NU and be a big gain for the OSU's of the world. I would rather they keep it as is, except in extenuating circumstances, like family illness but would also like to a one year ban on coaches who switch schools before their contracts are up.
It could go both ways as plyers that are on the bench at the top schools could move as well. But those transfers would open up spots at the top schools. Feeding frenzy
That was what I was thinking. IN the end coaches would have to keep their players happy.
I see it the opposite. You'll see more good players transferring for lack of PT, which could open up some great talent that we had previously recruited. Sure our top talent in theory could leave, but why do so to go to a program like OSU where you already have an embarrassing amount of talent.
Can't simultaneously argue that student-athletes are just like any other student, yet also argue that they aren't students at all.
The way I see it is, as the rules stand now, they can transfer as much as they want - just like any other student. Only difference is they might have to sit out a year in athletics.
I support this idea. Could it turn some schools into farm teams? Sure, but I don’t think it’d be as widespread as some would have you believe. But even if it was that widespread, it would just be an indictment of college FB/BB as a system that only functions when player rights are suppressed.
Because the same confidence that makes them a star for us would make them believe they could rise to the top anywhere. You don’t think that is how Meyer and Saban recruit? “If you really think you’re the best, come to OSU/Alabama where you can prove it.”
Are the NFL player rights suppressed by the draft process and binding rookie contracts? Are players and schools’ rights suppressed by scholarship limits? Are schoolyard players’ rights suppressed by two captains having to take turns choosing rather than just letting the best kids form a team? In a sense, yes. But these rules were put into place to create parity. Parity is in place to make the games more entertaining to watch and play. We have been a fodder team that was everybody’s homecoming choice to run up the score and pad stats. It is neither fun nor entertaining. And I doubt the players would be in favor of increasing the number of such teams and games. The primary job of the NCAA is to take college sports and make then into an entertainment industry. It’s great to me if the players get a financial share in the profits they help create. But since the job of the NCAA is to create the most entertaining product, parity helps that cause. Rule changes that reinforce the stranglehold of the top 10 teams to make each post-season a ditto of all the previous does not do that.
I wonder how it will affect team chemistry? Players or player parents could use this as a threat to demand earlier playing time but then maybe that could be a good thing by forcing coaches to allow more students the opportunity to see the playing field earlier. It certainly would add to the incentive to jump ship for those who are impatient having to wait their turn.
Yes! However, the NFL players are part of a powerful union that has negotiated those terms and can renegotiate them in the future. College players have no recourse.
I suppose it's just a question of whether you feel a particular issue is more or less important than your own personal enjoyment of the games, and in this case we differ. For me, I'm willing to potentially sacrifice a little parity in service of removing this restriction.
Is this being implemented for the sake of student-athlete rights or is this being implemented to lock in the power structure (i.e. top P5’s poaching mid-bottom P5’s, P5’s poaching G5’s/mid-major’s) of college football & basketball?
But if the entertainment value of the end product suffers, then eventually college football as we know it disappears. I know this is a slippery slope argument but I see this as a slippery slope. Giving players a reasonable stipend to play does not put us on that slope. Having a player's union which negotiates on behalf of the players within the framework of the NCAA does not put us on that slope.
Rule changes are on the slope when they:
1. Do not provide any representation for the players within the NCAA rulemaking environment
2. Strongly favor the few football factories at the expense of the many other football programs in the country is on the slope, and
3. Provide more opportunities for these power programs to expand on their abuse of the players and their families as they are presently doing by making more offers than they have scholarships available.
You see this rule giving players the chance to fight back and move if they are abused. I am old enough to date back to the Bear Bryant era when there were no scholarship limits and the rich schools like Alabama would offer scholarships to players that did not fit their system and would never play but would be beneficial to their opponents. You see this as an opportunity for players to take control. I see players and their families with no experience in this system and big, rich schools with teams of lawyers researching loopholes. Who is going to better take advantage of such a rule?
If Bear Bryant were alive, he would see a player on an opposing team that was going to give him troubles in upcoming years and would respond to an enquiry by such a player as they checked their options. He would then convince him to switch schools. He would keep him on the bench a year or two and then cut his scholarship. Even if the NCAA allowed the kid to switch again due to his scholarship being cut, that would still be a couple of years that they did not have the face the player. This would be completely legal under the proposed rules and the SEC rules.
Feel free to call me paranoid but I grew up in Alabama and have watched that program my whole life. It is not a question of whether this will happen. It will happen.
To me, this is a rule change that clearly favors the factories and those willing to take advantage of players and their families. It will move college football toward being even more lopsided. This will make the football seasons immaterial and the post-season a foregone conclusion. Only those fans of the factory schools will be left with significant interest.
When college football ceases to be entertaining then is ceases to be a money-maker then it ceases. Then everybody loses.
The rule change you want is for the players to have representation at the table when rule changes are being discussed and to have input into that process. Until that happens, rules that look good for the players probably won't be.
Last edited:
I see this as giving more freedom to the students to transfer if they see better opportunities else wear. Kids buried on the bench on good teams or who are having a personality conflict could try to find a new start. A 4 star Qb who gets passed up by a younger 4 star would have more choices for example.
OTOH
What is to stop coaches from freeing up spots on the roster by burying and bullying players who are injury prone or not living up to expectations in some way.
It is a two edged sword that would play out differently at each program. I think NU would lose a couple and gain a couple but in the end the NU family culture would benefit.
OTOH
What is to stop coaches from freeing up spots on the roster by burying and bullying players who are injury prone or not living up to expectations in some way.
It is a two edged sword that would play out differently at each program. I think NU would lose a couple and gain a couple but in the end the NU family culture would benefit.
I really and truly hope that your opinion is just general and hypothetical and not the result of your personal experience.
Great post. While I agree that you would see more players transferring into the football factories, I think you'd also see more players transferring out. If scholarship limits weren't in place, it might be different, but I can't see coaches wasting roster spots just to keep players off other teams, especially when those players can now leave without penalty. And your doomsday scenario seems unlikely to me, if only because it assumes the existence of players who are so talented that Alabama is frightened of playing against them but yet so limited that they won't actually see the field once they transfer to Alabama. Otherwise, if they do get regular playing time, the players they replace can just transfer elsewhere as well. I honestly think that after a couple of years of upheaval, the transfer market would settle down.
I tend to think of this change, if it happens, as pro-player.
Forcing a player to sit out a year is something that does not exist anywhere except for athletics. I can switch jobs with no delay. My children can switch schools with no delay. A coach certainly doesn't have to sit out a year. The mandatory one-year waiting period is strictly punitive - punishment for realizing at 19 or 20 that your decision at 16 or 17 or 18 was not your best decision.
I assume Alabama has lots of kids placed in career-ending injury status that will now get a chance to play out their career in All-Sun Belt status instead. But there will definitely be Alabama third-stringers pushed out at the last minute as well.
Ultimately, I think this only stands to benefit Northwestern football, for what it's worth. Individuals who chose NU are unlikely to leave until a degree is in hand, and an academically-inclined athlete is more inclined to finish his career at NU with that degree as a carrot.
This is a non-compete clause. they are very prevalent in my industry. If I quit and have signed a non-compete clause, then I have to sit out a specified period of time before I can work for another similar company. Many if not most company officers are required to sign them before they get the perks of being an officer.
I didn't think of it that way. Of course, players are far from officers.
Then again, lots of skeevy employers like to intimidate employees with unenforceable non-competes. The NCAA is, of course, very skeevy, and its has been enforceable to this point.
I guess it's partially a question of whether or not NCAA athletes are employees or not (ducks).
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat...rkers_can_t_work_at_other_sandwich_shops.html
Last edited:
Random thought: I suspect that the impetus for this proposed change is probably found in the result or anticipated result of some litigation somewhere. Football and basketball athletes are being treated differently from other student athletes who can transfer without penalty.
On balance, I think our program would benefit since we would stand to gain some players from other programs and lose very few of our own. The factories might gain some stars but they would also stand to lose much of their depth.
On balance, I think our program would benefit since we would stand to gain some players from other programs and lose very few of our own. The factories might gain some stars but they would also stand to lose much of their depth.
I'm trying to consider the logistics. How much would we be in a position to gain, even considering us favorably in terms of culture. We have small recruiting classes because everyone stays - we don't have many leave early for the League, we don't have dropouts. These days we fill classes with commitments early - and now we sign them early, in the early signing period. Scholarship limits remain. How much room will we have for a transfer after taking into account those who've already committed to a class?
If anything, I think our wiggle room would have to come from the population of potential 5th-year seniors. That would have its own set of positives and negatives. Is there anything I'm missing?
I'm not sure your definition of the word "powerful" is the same as mine.
Not at all. I love Northwestern, the fans, the coaches, the culture. I honestly can't think of a better group of coaches. I just think it is good to give a kid options in recruiting. There's so much dishonesty in recruiting, a kid shouldn't be stuck if he believed the lies and finds out later he was, lied to. Also, a player and a position coach may not gel, he should be able to leave and find a better fit I love Coach Fitz, Coach Hanks, Coach Long, and Coach Hooten. Excited about the new linebacker coach. Nothing but excitement and contentment from Jango and I. This is Jango's year
In a great irony, it looks like the transfer rule discussion will have to sit out a year...
Pretty much anything that is a benefit to the players, I am for. Having said that it is the adults that I don’t trust. I admit I would blow a gasket if Oklahoma or somebody knocked on our best players door after a great first year. Wonder if this could actually hurt some that find themselves on the bottom third of a roster. I would hate to see players get run off by coaches to cover their recruiting mistakes.
I don't think you would see players like Paddy Fisher leave our program, why would he? What would Oklahoma offer him that he doesn't get at Northwestern. I am quite certain that Paddy is happy where he is. Paddy is a Wildcat, he bleeds purple and is proud to be a leader of our team. His success hasn't changed him, because he expected to do exactly what he did for the school he did it for We don't recruit ME players, we recruit WE players. Alviti showed that, as have countless other players. We don't lie to recruits or promise things in recruiting that can't be delivered. We recruit through honesty, and the player knows what he is getting when he becomes a Wildcat. We are the forty year decision , not the four year choice. We are becoming the best of the West, and will in a few years be beating the beasts of the east. We are only going to keep getting better and we will become the Stanford of the East.
Thanks for that Mr Jango. All good points, I got to shake this paranoia that can sometimes creep in.
would constantly have to re-recruit players. May be a lot of Jovan Whitherspoons bolting if they don't get playing time immediately. I don't think this will affect us as much other than we may be a school that receives a lot more transfers.
I support giving players more power, but it needs to be balanced so everyone doesn’t turn into feeders for bluebloods, P5s, high G5s/mid-majors, etc.
Maybe something in the middle is the best solution.
- Only after head coaching change
- Only after freshman year
The first protects against players losing their coach. The second protects players who were lied to by coaches in recruiting.
I just think it’s the best medium that protects players without going overboard in letting the big boys abusing “lesser” programs.
Maybe something in the middle is the best solution.
- Only after head coaching change
- Only after freshman year
The first protects against players losing their coach. The second protects players who were lied to by coaches in recruiting.
I just think it’s the best medium that protects players without going overboard in letting the big boys abusing “lesser” programs.
I get the purple drumbeat, but honestly, we simply can't compete for top talent and won't be able to compete to keep top talent. We will become the Triple A club for Notre Dame, OSU, or Michigan. Most of our recruits don't have the opportunity to play for Oklahoma, OSU, Clemson, etc. And we both know that all of them want visibility, recognition, and a path to the NFL. The best and most proven path to the NFL, 100% undisputed is to gain visibility on a playoff team. The market is not strong for a team that plays in the Music City bowl or if we get lucky the Outback. We will lose guys like Paddy Fisher. Guys like him will be nuts to stay when if they put in one solid year at NU then can transfer and start at Oklahoma or Clemson. I bleed purple but the only way you can be your best is playing with the best. We simply are not the best, in fact, we never ever even won our own division out of 6 teams. I'm troubled now by this rule. On the flip side, we may get some OSU rejects who couldn't make the starting lineup or were placed on misfit island. Either way, we lose. Not good!
It creates an interesting situation. Someone mentioned above the idea that there could be limitations - most notably they get one shot at the end of the freshman year (not redshirt freshman) other than coach change or graduate. This protects players who feel that they have been mislead in the recruiting process.
This would then provide incentive for the non-factory schools to redshirt their best players rather than put them on poacher radar screens. But that then puts the coach at a recruiting disadvantage because he cannot promise immediate playing time as a benefit of coming a smaller school rather than a powerhouse.
Similar threads
