If Justin Fields gets a waiver and is eligible next year the NCAA should just get rid of the 1 year wait

.

UnknownOrange

All Conference
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
3,431
Likes
7,745
#2
Here's an idea; don't limit kids from transferring. Get rid of the rule. I would be more okay with kids being able to transfer and not sit (year to year, not mid-season or anything) but limit programs to a certain number.

Those against this rule say "we don't want it to be an out of control free agency" and I completely understand that. However, what if I said schools can only take up to 3 or 5 transfers per year. If players want to transfer just make it that they have to declare to transfer by a certain day, and must sign by another certain day.

In my eyes - a kid who chooses a school for a coach (it should be for the school but let's be real) shouldn't be forced to sit if the coach isn't who they thought he was, if the coach takes another job, etc.
 

Alsacs

I am statboy because I use stats to form opinions
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
37,661
Likes
41,613
#3
I think tampering has to be prevented but I got no problem if kids move without sitting. If the restrictions were you can't transfer within a conference and become immediately eligible okay.
If you go to another conference immediate eligibility.
 

care taker

'Penciled in' starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
863
Likes
3,748
#4
This could change football drastically. It’s actually not fair to the school to be able to lose players especially a Qb since you only get one per cycle on average. Sure my son could benefit from being able to leave and play right away but right I right fair is fair I always call it the way I see it .
 

jgeorge322

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
6,165
Likes
8,698
#5
one of the interesting suggestions I've heard lately is limiting number of scholarships, which would increase parity. that might not avoid this situation here, but it may deter all the blue chippers from going to same schools and therefore possibly avoid some transfer requests when those blue chippers get buried
 

javadoc

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,502
Likes
4,846
#6
one of the interesting suggestions I've heard lately is limiting number of scholarships, which would increase parity. that might not avoid this situation here, but it may deter all the blue chippers from going to same schools and therefore possibly avoid some transfer requests when those blue chippers get buried
I think it's a good idea. My only concern is when you reach a point that normal attrition throughout the season forces you to send out true freshman who aren't physically ready, and could get hurt.
 

Hoo's That

All American
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,038
Likes
9,356
#9
one of the interesting suggestions I've heard lately is limiting number of scholarships, which would increase parity. that might not avoid this situation here, but it may deter all the blue chippers from going to same schools and therefore possibly avoid some transfer requests when those blue chippers get buried
It's actually further limiting the number of scholarships. The 85 limit in D-1A was the first attempt to cut down on the huge scholarship roster (way >100) carried by places like Bama and Texas. Coaches screamed they'd never be able to field a good team if they were limited to 85. Sure. Right.

When he as asked why he took a particular recruit who was "pretty good" (instead of the usual outstanding) and whether he would actually get to play for Texas, HC Darrell Royal replied, "I can't guarantee he'll play for the University of Texas, but I can guarantee he won't play against the University of Texas."
 

OrangeMojo

All Conference
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,087
Likes
2,058
#10
Come on now - this is the NCAA and Ohio State - Fields will be the starting quarterback for tOSU next fall.
 

Ozcuse

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,570
Likes
6,778
#11
A transfer that’s immediately eligible should count as 2 scholarships for a school for that year (dropping to 1 the next.) That will put the responsibility on the school and not the player.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
1,874
Likes
2,567
#12
Based on the current rules, if Fields gets the waiver than the NCAA is a bigger joke than we thought (which is astounding to think about).
 

Cheriehoop

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
7,056
Likes
15,594
#14
Here's an idea; don't limit kids from transferring. Get rid of the rule. I would be more okay with kids being able to transfer and not sit (year to year, not mid-season or anything) but limit programs to a certain number.

Those against this rule say "we don't want it to be an out of control free agency" and I completely understand that. However, what if I said schools can only take up to 3 or 5 transfers per year. If players want to transfer just make it that they have to declare to transfer by a certain day, and must sign by another certain day.

In my eyes - a kid who chooses a school for a coach (it should be for the school but let's be real) shouldn't be forced to sit if the coach isn't who they thought he was, if the coach takes another job, etc.
There’s more than one side to think of when speaking about concern for the kids and fairness - what about the kids who were recruited, many in starting positions- who committed, kept that commitment, earned a starting position for their school and now have a transfer who with the coach’s approval expects to take your spot on the roster? Do they deserve some protection? There are kid’s affected on both sides of this transfer issue, not just one.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
164
Likes
204
#16
There’s more than one side to think of when speaking about concern for the kids and fairness - what about the kids who were recruited, many in starting positions- who committed, kept that commitment, earned a starting position for their school and now have a transfer who with the coach’s approval expects to take your spot on the roster? Do they deserve some protection? There are kid’s affected on both sides of this transfer issue, not just one.
All of these kids know when they commit to any school in any sport there's always a risk that someone could come in and take your spot. I mean the coach recruits a QB every single year, right?
 

jgeorge322

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
6,165
Likes
8,698
#17
It's actually further limiting the number of scholarships. The 85 limit in D-1A was the first attempt to cut down on the huge scholarship roster (way >100) carried by places like Bama and Texas. Coaches screamed they'd never be able to field a good team if they were limited to 85. Sure. Right.

When he as asked why he took a particular recruit who was "pretty good" (instead of the usual outstanding) and whether he would actually get to play for Texas, HC Darrell Royal replied, "I can't guarantee he'll play for the University of Texas, but I can guarantee he won't play against the University of Texas."
id analyze as follows:

if one previously limited and then were to limit some more, they are still limiting but also further limiting. therefore, saying limiting in this scenario is factually correct and would only be incorrect if it omitted material information.

however, if one had not previously limited but were to limit, they are limiting but not further limiting.

thus, i stand by my original post since i don't think the material i omitted is material, although i must admit, i like your addition. ;)
 

UnknownOrange

All Conference
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
3,431
Likes
7,745
#18
There’s more than one side to think of when speaking about concern for the kids and fairness - what about the kids who were recruited, many in starting positions- who committed, kept that commitment, earned a starting position for their school and now have a transfer who with the coach’s approval expects to take your spot on the roster? Do they deserve some protection? There are kid’s affected on both sides of this transfer issue, not just one.
Understand what you're trying to say but kids get over recruited every year. Coaches job is to put the best players on the field to win
 

chugg21

Gritty, High IQ, Scrappy, Gym Rat, Lunch Pail Guy
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
2,221
Likes
2,921
#19
There’s more than one side to think of when speaking about concern for the kids and fairness - what about the kids who were recruited, many in starting positions- who committed, kept that commitment, earned a starting position for their school and now have a transfer who with the coach’s approval expects to take your spot on the roster? Do they deserve some protection? There are kid’s affected on both sides of this transfer issue, not just one.
In all other cases yes. For Tate Martell in particular No. He seems like a real garbage pile.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
15
Likes
20
#20
What if the player was only allowed to play in 4 games during the year when they would normally have to sit? The 4 game works for a redshirt now so what if a coach could use the transfer in any four games during the season. That way there isn't complete free agency, as you can't just keep switching teams and playing complete seasons, but the players don't have to sit the full year with no access to the field.
 

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
15,201
Likes
16,017
#22
This could change football drastically. It’s actually not fair to the school to be able to lose players especially a Qb since you only get one per cycle on average. Sure my son could benefit from being able to leave and play right away but right I right fair is fair I always call it the way I see it .
Is it fair that coaches, including position coaches, leave right away, often repeatedly, thereby harming the kid's development?
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
1,010
Likes
1,513
#23
Yes, we know academics come 1st in P5 football.

However, as a university professor I have to say that transferring is frequently detrimental to the student. They may need extra time to assimilate, transfer credits etc... I am in favor of limiting it.

Grad transfers are different.
 

cuse10

All Conference
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
2,734
Likes
3,218
#24
Why is it a joke? He's taking advantage of the rule. He was a called a racial slur by another athlete. Georgia took care of the problem, but it likely wasn't the first time he's heard it at UGA and wouldn't have been the last.

I was called a slur (N word) at SU while pledging a fraternity by one of my line brothers. I don't know what the ethnic and racial background of this board is, but some of you will never be able to walk in his shoes especially as an athlete of the top program in the state of Georgia.
 
.
Top Bottom