Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This would have huge implications for both college football and basketball. It’s great for the student-athlete, who would have more of the freedom of, you know, a student.
This would have huge implications for both college football and basketball. It’s great for the student-athlete, who would have more of the freedom of, you know, a student.
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.
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.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.
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 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.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.
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 frenzyI 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.
That was what I was thinking. IN the end coaches would have to keep their players happy.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
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.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.
This would have huge implications for both college football and basketball. It’s great for the student-athlete, who would have more of the freedom of, you know, a student.
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.”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.
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 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.
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.
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.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.
I really and truly hope that your opinion is just general and hypothetical and not the result of your personal experience.This is great news. I like this rule.
You see this rule giving 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.
I tend to think of this change, if it happens, as pro-player.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.
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.Forcing a player to sit out a year is something that does not exist anywhere except for athletics.
I didn't think of it that way. Of course, players are far from officers.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.
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.
I'm not sure your definition of the word "powerful" is the same as mine.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.
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 yearI really and truly hope that your opinion is just general and hypothetical and not the result of your personal experience.
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
This would have huge implications for both college football and basketball. It’s great for the student-athlete, who would have more of the freedom of, you know, a student.
This rule would bolster the argument that they are not employees to some degree.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
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.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
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.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.
Thanks for that Mr Jango. All good points, I got to shake this paranoia that can sometimes creep in.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.
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.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 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!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.
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.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!