Discussion of proposed changes to transfer rule

[RF2044]

I don't know how long the graduate transfer rule has been in place but I'm going to use it as an example regardless. Amba transferred to Syracuse because his opportunity at Maryland was lost for various reasons. He came here, had a great year and is now in the NFL at some capacity. I imagine there are many other players who could have similar results. I can't for any reason imagine why their hopes should be thwarted by an arcane system that fits better in the 19th century than the 21st. They should at least have 1 chance to make a change without sitting out for a season.

His opportunity at Maryland wasn't "lost." He could have remained there for his final season of eligibility, but chose to leave in search of greener pastures.

His reward for having graduated was that he could transfer and be immediately eligible, via the 5th year graduate transfer rules that were newly enacted at the time.

 

[Orangepace]

I don't know how long the graduate transfer rule has been in place but I'm going to use it as an example regardless. Amba transferred to Syracuse because his opportunity at Maryland was lost for various reasons. He came here, had a great year and is now in the NFL at some capacity. I imagine there are many other players who could have similar results. I can't for any reason imagine why their hopes should be thwarted by an arcane system that fits better in the 19th century than the 21st. They should at least have 1 chance to make a change without sitting out for a season.

As others noted, AET was able to transfer and play immediately due to the grad transfer rules. If a student graduates, I agree with the current rule of allowing them to play immediately.

My problem with the proposal for the removal of the 1 year wait period related to underclassmen is that it basically allows the powers in college football to run a kid off that didn't pan out to free up roster space to "poach" the best players from the non-power schools. For example, one of the top QB's in this coming NFL Draft, Josh Allen, would never have played at Wyoming this past year under the revised rules. He was already on the radar screen after his Sophomore season at Wyoming and would have likely transferred to a big time program to elevate his profile if no wait period was in place.

My ideal proposal for modifying the rule would be:

1. An underclassman may transfer programs without enduring a 1-year penalty if the head coach in place at the time of signing the LOI leaves the program.
2. An underclassman may transfer programs for any other reason, but upon doing so will endure a 1-year penalty before playing at the new program.
3. A graduate may transfer programs for any reason without enduring a 1-year penalty.

 

[maxxyz]

As others noted, AET was able to transfer and play immediately due to the grad transfer rules. If a student graduates, I agree with the current rule of allowing them to play immediately.

My problem with the proposal for the removal of the 1 year wait period related to underclassmen is that it basically allows the powers in college football to run a kid off that didn't pan out to free up roster space to "poach" the best players from the non-power schools. For example, one of the top QB's in this coming NFL Draft, Josh Allen, would never have played at Wyoming this past year under the revised rules. He was already on the radar screen after his Sophomore season at Wyoming and would have likely transferred to a big time program to elevate his profile if no wait period was in place.

My ideal proposal for modifying the rule would be:

1. An underclassman may transfer programs without enduring a 1-year penalty if the head coach in place at the time of signing the LOI leaves the program.
2. An underclassman may transfer programs for any other reason, but upon doing so will endure a 1-year penalty before playing at the new program.
3. A graduate may transfer programs for any reason without enduring a 1-year penalty.

You make good points. If schools commit to doing four year scholarship guarantees as opposed to 1 year renewable, I'm good with the one year wait.

I might suggest your first one could be slightly modified to - An underclassman may transfer programs without enduring a 1-year penalty if the head coach in place at the time of signing the LOI leaves the program within one year of the athletes initial enrollment. That allows a college freshman to transfer without penalty. Otherwise a coaching change would lead to a mass exodus and schools would be left with 40 players on scholarship when a coach gets fired.

 

[CuseLegacy]

You make good points. If schools commit to doing four year scholarship guarantees as opposed to 1 year renewable, I'm good with the one year wait.

I might suggest your first one could be slightly modified to - An underclassman may transfer programs without enduring a 1-year penalty if the head coach in place at the time of signing the LOI leaves the program within one year of the athletes initial enrollment. That allows a college freshman to transfer without penalty. Otherwise a coaching change would lead to a mass exodus and schools would be left with 40 players on scholarship when a coach gets fired.

Scholarships have been for four years for a few years now.

 

[CousCuse]

His opportunity at Maryland wasn't "lost." He could have remained there for his final season of eligibility, but chose to leave in search of greener pastures.

His reward for having graduated was that he could transfer and be immediately eligible, via the 5th year graduate transfer rules that were newly enacted at the time.

I was using him as an example that everyone here is familiar with and to put a face on a topic. . He wasn't regarded by Maryland as anything but depth and now he is in the NFL because he transferred and got a new start. I think that apply's to undergrads as well.

 

[RandomGuy]

Scholarships have been for four years for a few years now.

Just for p5.

 

[maxxyz]

Scholarships have been for four years for a few years now.

Apparently my writing skills are suffering from a lack of coffee. I meant it to say "since schools have committed..."

 

[DownTheField]

I was using him as an example that everyone here is familiar with and to put a face on a topic. . He wasn't regarded by Maryland as anything but depth and now he is in the NFL because he transferred and got a new start. I think that apply's to undergrads as well.

So schools like Syracuse will be able to take castaways and hope a couple pan out while the powers can take our best players without penalty? Allowing a kid to transfer and play right away is a crazy idea. Why wouldn't an SEC school that's short on DE depth reach out to a representative of Alton Robinson now that they've seen that he can stay out of trouble and succeed at the highest level?

 

[reedny]

I wouldn't say "it's not likely". While I do think the collective IQ of the NCAA falls somewhere below the guy from Making a Murderer on Netflix (70 for those whom haven't watched), retroactively applying the rule would cause zero detriment to anyone involved, yet would have a positive impact to the players involved.

That said, I'm actually an opponent of the rule change. The P5 will turn into the NFL D-League and all other conferences will be feeders of that D-League. Effectively this analogizes to the MLB farm system, only instead of NFL teams footing the bill, the taxpayers will.

Sorry to digress, but I have to give you props for citing the BEAUTIFUL system of Justice in Wisconsin. Not sure the judges up there are any sharper than the Defendant.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But it gets worse; some kids are graduating in 3 seasons, so they can transfer and become eligible immediately with 2 years of eligibility left. This is even more harmful to the programs that developed these players.

I think you've got this backwards. Student-athletes graduating in 3 years should be celebrated and absolutely should be free to move on with all of their eligibility remaining.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think you've got this backwards. Student-athletes graduating in 3 years should be celebrated and absolutely should be free to move on with all of their eligibility remaining.

Additional thought - graduates with eligibility remaining are also not considered amateurs.

Yup. I went there.

 

[orange79]

Additional thought - graduates with eligibility remaining are also not considered amateurs.

Yup. I went there.

Oxymoron - if they're not amateurs, then they're not eligible.

 

[reedny]

Additional thought - graduates with eligibility remaining are also not considered amateurs.

Yup. I went there.

Yah, no.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Oxymoron - if they're not amateurs, then they're not eligible.

You're not picking up what I'm laying down.

 

[Josh Mack]

Oregon would be all over Dungey if transfers without sitting became allowed.
They would be getting a guy perfect for their system and proven at a P5 level.

If you don’t think the big boys would take starters from other P5 teams you are forgetting how competitive these coaches are. They are cutthroat.

Transfers without sitting should be limited to players that see their HC leave.

The proposed new transfer rule will only allow 1 transfer without sitting. A second transfer would require sitting for 1 year...Not so bad!

 

[kcsu]

The proposed new transfer rule will only allow 1 transfer without sitting. A second transfer would require sitting for 1 year...Not so bad!

That would be challenged and lost in court. Lets say 6 kids want to transfer at the same time. Do you pick straws?

This transfer idea is as bad as anything the NCAA has ever come up with.

 

[DBCooper]

That would be challenged and lost in court. Lets say 6 kids want to transfer at the same time. Do you pick straws?

This transfer idea is as bad as anything the NCAA has ever come up with.

I believe he was referring to the same athlete transferring more than once.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I’m with ya on the transfer rule thing. Do not want it to take effect.

However, i would be on board with some sort of allowance for kids whos HC has been fired or who’ve signed an LOI and the HC bails or is terminated.

Could not disagree more. Colleges are (supposed to be) in the education business, not the sports business. If a kid is in good academic standing, and wants to change schools, he/she should not have their ability to participate in their chosen sport curtailed, in any way.

 

[kcsu]

Could not disagree more. Colleges are (supposed to be) in the education business, not the sports business. If a kid is in good academic standing, and wants to change schools, he/she should not have their ability to participate in their chosen sport curtailed, in any way.

When an athlete transfers the "education business" part of the equation doesnt stop, isnt interrupted.

 

[sutomcat]

I think you've got this backwards. Student-athletes graduating in 3 years should be celebrated and absolutely should be free to move on with all of their eligibility remaining.

I celebrate any scholarship athlete graduating from college, especially the ones that play revenue sports that have enormous time commitments.

We differ in that I care about the future of college athletes. I want to see kids have a path to get a 'free' education by utilizing their talents as athletes.

What you are embracing hurts fan interest. What you are embracing affects the bottom line for budgets for college athletic departments. I think a future where transferring is commonplace and rosters turn off dramatically every year is going to disallusion most fans and spur further drops in fan attendance and viewership of games.

These proposed changes are going to help the richest schools and hurt all the other schools. You are going to end up with less competitiveness in college sports, less interest and less support from the fans, the ones that make it all possible.

It is great you care about the athletes. I do too. But you have to consider the interests and desires of the people that pay for everything as well. If the fans stop caring about college sports, the scholarships dry up and the athletes are left with nothing.

I hope the NCAA has the foresight to reject this proposal.

 

[PhatOrange]

Could not disagree more. Colleges are (supposed to be) in the education business, not the sports business. If a kid is in good academic standing, and wants to change schools, he/she should not have their ability to participate in their chosen sport curtailed, in any way.

Playing sports isn't a right, it's a privilege. Rules are in place to maintain some resemblance of competitive balance. There's transfer rules at the high school level.

You should think about championing non-compete clauses out in the real world as people should be able to work for whomever they want.

 

[texascpa]

Playing sports isn't a right, it's a privilege. Rules are in place to maintain some resemblance of competitive balance. There's transfer rules at the high school level.

You should think about championing non-compete clauses out in the real world as people should be able to work for whomever they want.

non-compete clauses are a two-way street. Even the impacted usually receives a benefit. And non-competes don't stop someone from working for whomever they want, just penalizes them in some fashion - normally a reduction or elimination of said benefit.

 

[PhatOrange]

non-compete clauses are a two-way street. Even the impacted usually receives a benefit. And non-competes don't stop someone from working for whomever they want, just penalizes them in some fashion - normally a reduction or elimination of said benefit.

i really have no idea what they involve other than knowing a friend had to sign one once that he wouldn't work for a competitor for 1 year.

 

[CousCuse]

This does more damage to the power schools who have high level talent stock piled and sitting idle as back up depth. Those guys are not happy with their situation . I don't imagine it is common that a starting star player is unhappy at his school and is looking to transfer. Most of the players who have become standouts at smaller schools are upper class-men who have already waited their turn and now have the spotlight. By that point they really like their friends and school and don't want to leave.

 

[Consigliere]

One aspect I would change immediately is the one year rule applying to walk-ons. To me that is just absurd. If a kid walks on to Alabama, pays his own way and there is an opportunity for him to be awarded a scholarship at Troy why should he have to sit out a year?

Other than that (and grad transfers, which I also support) I could stand behind a system where, if there is a mutual decision between the student-athlete and the school that a transfer may be the best case for both parties, the one year rule is waived. The problem with that is that if the players wants to go for more playing time but the school feels he is a valuable sub or even practice player and chooses NOT to agree (release him) the negative recruiting blowback could be substantial.