B1G Proposing No-Sit Transfers

[orange79]

One-time only.

 

[UpstateSM]

How it should be

 

[Alsacs]

Next on the agenda allow the 3+5+5 for conference title games.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Does this include intra-conference transfers?

 

[orange79]

Does this include intra-conference transfers?

The article doesn't say, but it's an interesting question. It would be hard to make the argument they are helping the student athlete, and then limiting their transfer destinations.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Are these transfers into the Big X or out of the Big X? I didn’t know that conferences controlled how long athletes sit out except transfers within their own conference. Thought the NCAA were the only ones who could ok a hardship transfer.

 

[orange79]

Are these transfers into the Big X or out of the Big X? I didn’t know that conferences controlled how long athletes sit out except transfers within their own conference. Thought the NCAA were the only ones who could ok a hardship transfer.

The way I read it, this would be NCAA-wide, not just B1G.

 

[Bulldog04]

This is so necessary. Kids again get penalized for trying to get into a better fit or situation by being forced to sit. Makes no sense. Can’t stand Ncaa

 

[qdawgg]

It’s weird the B10 would propose this because they already informally get this benefit. It’s the other conferences that don’t.

 

[corpjet]

I have no problem with this. Make it happen

Heck this may happen before we get the steel structure on the dome, #JustSaying

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

This is so necessary. Kids again get penalized for trying to get into a better fit or situation by being forced to sit. Makes no sense. Can’t stand Ncaa

Not sure the redshirt year when you transfer hurts guys. But why not give the players more control over their brief college careers.

This isn’t gonna help players get degrees FWIW. The extra year definitely was beneficial to most in that regard.

 

[DownTheField]

One-time only.

I consider myself pro student athlete and I do think they should be able to transfer without sitting a year. On the other hand it’s such a slippery slope. You know all the big schools will recruit kids like Cisco or Dungey once they show they can play.

 

[SmilinBob]

I consider myself pro student athlete and I do think they should be able to transfer without sitting a year. On the other hand it’s such a slippery slope. You know all the big schools will recruit kids like Cisco or Dungey once they show they can play.

Yeah, this might help the Ohio St's and Bama's more than anyone and make it more like the NBA where players join others for titles.

Hmmm...maybe have a buy out for the player if he leaves since it puts a hole in schools like SU when any impact kid leaves. Bama pays SU the cost of a 1 scholarship/tuition if a kid leaves for this 1 year loop hole?

 

[CuseOnly]

I think they should sit a year but they shouldnt lose a year of eligibility.

 

[sutomcat]

I consider myself pro student athlete and I do think they should be able to transfer without sitting a year. On the other hand it’s such a slippery slope. You know all the big schools will recruit kids like Cisco or Dungey once they show they can play.

I agree.

I am glad they are proposing that this transfer with no waiting change could only be done once per college athlete. That will help to reduce the chaos to some degree.

This will be good for the student athletes, at least in the short term, at least for the best of them, who are highly desirable and many schools would like to have on their roster.

But like the grad transfer rule, and all the waivers the NCAA has started to give to athletes transferring, so they don’t have to sit out a year, these kinds of changes will make transferring more commonplace and will inevitably help the strong programs and hurt the weak ones.

It is hard to build a program in college athletics. Changing years of momentum is very difficult. I fear this rule change will end up stripping many of the best players from the ‘have nots’ on a yearly basis, in essence giving the haves a second chance to recruit and address any mistakes that they made the first time these athletes were recruited.

I think it will just increase the gap between the good programs and the bad programs. There are a lot of programs that are able to remain competitive only because they are able to find the diamond in the rough types out there and develop them into good players.

If most of the programs in the country become development programs for the best programs, what does that do with college athletics as a whole?

Will the NCAA basketball tournament be more interesting to watch?

Will college football be more interesting as the gap between the top programs and the other programs grows ever wider? Even today, the battle for the college football playoff spots is essentially a race for 4 spots between 7 or 8 schools.

One of my favorite things about college sports is the watching programs with completely different budgets and philosophies play each other in very competitive games. A MAC school with zero 4 or 5 star players is able to stay with and even beat a P5 blue blood program loaded with 4 and star kids because of better coaching, better player development, more experience on the roster, etc. I would hate to lose this,

I am not a UConn fan but last I knew, 24 players have announced they are transferring from their football program since the season ended. They were bad before. How are they going to recover from that? This kind of thing is already happening. What will happen when the biggest thing impending transfers (having to sit out a year) goes away?

Making games less competitive is going to hurt attendance, which is already decreasing in almost every sport. Making games less competitive is surely going to hurt TV ratings. I think it is inevitable that it will lead to reduced revenue for the have nots, who unfortunately greatly outnumber the haves, and that will force some of these schools to reduce scholarships or even drop sports.

I would hate to see a world where we have 30-65 schools that play big time college sports and then a huge drop off after that to the other schools, who either play at a D3 like level or have dropped sports completely. When I see what is happening today with very limited transfer and play immediately situations, it makes me very worried about the future of college athletics.

It isn’t a surprise that the B1G is sponsoring this. They want to take the best players from other conferences with less resources, worse facilities and less money. They are sick of losing to MAC schools and this rule change should greatly reduce the chances of that happening in the future.

 

[hoopsupstate]

This would change the entire recruiting landscape. Tampering could become a major problem. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it will create another whole set of problems.

 

[alphaorange]

This would change the entire recruiting landscape. Tampering could become a major problem. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it will create another whole set of problems.

IMO, you would have to have VERY severe penalties in place for tampering before this could even be considered. Seems like tampering is already going on to me.

 

[Symphony Steve]

Yeah, this might help the Ohio St's and Bama's more than anyone and make it more like the NBA where players join others for titles.

Hmmm...maybe have a buy out for the player if he leaves since it puts a hole in schools like SU when any impact kid leaves. Bama pays SU the cost of a 1 scholarship/tuition if a kid leaves for this 1 year loop hole?

I think it's more likely to help, rather than hurt, a school like SU. Good players get caught in numbers games at the top schools all the time. I think they're more likely to transfer rather than a kid who has found success at SU. If a player is happy where he is, he won't want to leave.

That's my initial take, subject to change any minute now.

 

[Nick44]

I’m in the minority on this and here is why. I think the kid should sit a year but not lose a year of eligibility.

To me this is a move by the Big Ten to further help it’s top schools. Take Rondale Moore from Purdue as an example. You don’t think OSU (as greedy and dirty as they already are) isn’t going to try and poach star players from inferior programs? Screw tampering, they’ll figure out a way to get to this kid. Who would stop them? Not the NCAA or Big Ten. OSU makes them too much money.

It’s just an additional opportunity for an OSU to get to a star player that they missed on initially.

 

[PhatOrange]

If a school takes a transfer they lose a scholarship the following year? Unless the kid transfers down.

 

[Moontan]

A star player on a lower level team will simply ask his agent uncle to shop him at some larger programs.

 

[kcsu]

Collegiate sports are in a self inflicted death spiral. Pilot error.
If you transfer you sit. Maybe provide them with the year back provided certain provisions are met.
If a school accepts a transfer they lose a scholarship.
Any tampering results in a loss of post season play, and a significant reduction in scholarships, paid visits, and coaches recruiting restrictions.
This HAS to be severe.

 

[kcsu]

One more point. Each athlete who decides to transfer should be made to fill out a questionnaire. Purpose of transfer, reason why new school was chosen, ANY OUTSIDE INFLUENCE OR CONTACT from a representative of or booster of the new school. This should be executed and notarized.
The school that is accepting the transfer should be required to do the same. When were you first contacted by the athlete regarding a transfer to your school. Who contacted you and to whom was the initial contact with. Dates, form of contact, any third parties involved ect...
Make the head coach and the AD sign and notarize the form.

At a minimum paper the process and make all parties execute an agreement that no tampering took place. Then if im the NCAA work like heck to find the first case of tampering involving a "Star" player and hammer all involved.
In short only allow legitimate transfers and investigate everyone that is high profile.
Make the risk of tampering draconian in nature.

 

[TheCusian]

It’s a good thing for the player.

I don’t think the big schools would benefit as much as people think. There’s only so many roster spots. If they poach a kid from one school, the 4* kids behind him will be ticked and might look to transfer. That would ripple down to our benefit. That’s why Adams transferred from OK. Making it easier for them to do so, once - is not a horrible idea.

Let’s say some 4* WR doesn’t want to sit at Penn St, uses their one time “free” transfer to come here and now they can’t transfer without penalty? That sounds good to me.

 

[Moontan]

There’s only so many roster spots.

Spots can be freed up. Saban’s been doing it for years.

“Johnny, we really like you. But... have you seen the depth chart for your position? You’re 5th right now and we have a couple of 5-star recruits joining us next year. Why go through all of the effort when your chances of playing are nil? You know that we’ll honor your 4/5-year scholarship if you decide not to play any further. In addition to easing things for yourself, you’d also be helping the program.You’re also still able to hang with your buds. Is there anything else we can do to make things easier for you?”