Immediate Transfer Vote

Nick44

Starter
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,314
Like
1,788
What is the board’s opinion on this? I know the basketball side thinks it’s just wonderful but I think it will be extremely detrimental to the football program based on its current standing.

It is an additional wedge between the factory schools and the rest of college football. An opportunity for a team like Michigan to poach the Levante Bellamy’s from Western Michigan (Harbaugh is a big advocate of this FYI). If this passes, we need to understand the very real possibility of losing a good/great player on a regular basis. For example, a player that we signed from south Florida because he wasn’t quite good enough to go to one of the (3) big Florida schools. But after 2-3 years of success here he has gained the attention of the Florida schools and immediately transfers at first opportunity. The factory school gains a great player, Syracuse loses a great player.

The counter to this is that Syracuse has the same opportunity to sign a transfer. Sure, I guess so. Syracuse can fill a spot with a kid from Akron, Buffalo, UMass, etc. Or a kid that never got off the bench and was using up a scholarship at another factory school. Syracuse actually does the factory school a favor. No thanks.

Will be harder to find a face/leader for the program going forward because if that player is generally the best player, the chances increase dramatically that factory schools could try to poach that player. And since it’s the same 6-8 factory schools that go to the playoffs every year, can you blame the player? I guess I cannot but I think it could be devastating for this program. What am I missing here?
 

nzm136

All Conference
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
2,884
Like
3,297
IMHO, players should be allowed to leave without penalty if and only if there is a HC change.

But to answer your question, it will not be good for SU FB, and I don’t think that it will be good for the game. There will be ultra dynasties, and interest will deteriorate elsewhere (and therefore overall).
 

FrancoPizza

2018 Iggy Leading Minutes Per Game Winner
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
5,466
Like
6,829
One if the things I used to love about college sports was the relative stability of the rosters. Annual trades, clearing roster space and reshuffling the deck was a pro league thing. Not anymore.

sucks. Period.
 

Nick44

Starter
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,314
Like
1,788
IMHO, players should be allowed to leave without penalty if and only if there is a HC change.

But to answer your question, it will not be good for SU FB, and I don’t think that it will be good for the game. There will be ultra dynasties, and interest will deteriorate elsewhere (and therefore overall).
Well said. Syracuse use to get its best players by finding the diamonds in the rough. This rule will turn this program into a tool for finding those players that the factory schools missed and would like another crack at.
 

sutomcat

Former Iggy Winner. I used to be somebody special
Staff member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
14,798
Like
55,786
I think the letter of intent should obligate the university to honor the scholarship for the athlete for the next 4 to 5 years, until they graduate. Even if they get hurt.

I think the letter of intent should similarly obligate the athlete to stay at the university they signed with for the entire length of their college career, with provisos.

I think that said, athletes should be able to transfer immediately, without penalty, in the event of a coaching change, or in the event their program goes on probation.

If an athlete gets beat up for a starting position, their team ends up being bad, they decide they don't like their coach, or they end up being really good and would likely interest from other, better programs, that isn't sufficient reason to allow an immediate transfer. I am fine with the current rules where other than the conditions laid out above, you have to wait a year to play elsewhere (I am okay with the immediate eligibility rule for grad transfers too).

Same thing on the other side. If the athlete turns out to be awful and a wasted scholarship, if the athlete gets hurt and can't play any longer, it doesn't matter. They get to keep the scholarship until their eligibility is exhausted.

The letter of intent should be a legal document with meaning. No one is forcing an athlete to sign it. They need to do their homework before doing this and have to live with the decision. It should be possible to transfer and break the agreement, but it should be something that is not easy to do.
 

hoopsupstate

All American
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
4,741
Like
6,450
I think if you sign a NLI you are guaranteed a 4-5 year scholarship, but if you transfer it’s only guaranteed one year at a time. Do your homework and pick the right school. If the head coach leaves you can immediately transfer with no restrictions on your scholarship.
 

UpstateSM

Youth Correspondent
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
887
Like
2,212
Why should players be obligated to sit a year when they leave their obligations if coaches don’t have to sit a year when they leave theirs for more money? Why should a made up letter of intent be more binding then a million dollar contract?

Why don’t players in non-revenue sports have to sit a year the way the rules are now?

We don’t punish non-athletes for transferring if it turns out the 17/18 year old didn’t make the right decision when picking a college (if you guys recall it’s a pretty stressful decision) so why should we punish “student-athletes”? Until the NCAA stops hiding behind that term and “amateurism” its time to start changing some rules.

Giving athletes more freedoms and opportunities that they deserve, and they do deserve them, is a much more important than any concern that any fan has about what might happen to their experience being a college sports fan.

Spoiler: it’s chicken little syndrome. The game ain’t going to change because of this rule shift anymore than it has the last couple of years and everyone is still going to watch Syracuse regardless. It’s not about the fans it’s about the players.
 

dan7800

2019-20 Iggy Winner Minutes Per Game
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
1,834
Like
2,399
Why should players be obligated to sit a year when they leave their obligations if coaches don’t have to sit a year when they leave theirs for more money? Why should a made up letter of intent be more binding then a million dollar contract?
In theory anyways, players have educational requirements that they must fulfill (# of transferrable credits, etc...). Coaches do not.

Remember, transfer limitations were put into place to protect the athlete, not the school.
 

UpstateSM

Youth Correspondent
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
887
Like
2,212
Remember, transfer limitations were put into place to protect the athlete, not the school.
Even if that’s really why transfer limitations are in place (I call bs) times have changed enough where the rules need shifting. I’m less of an NCAA anarchist than others but I do feel strongly that money > everything else in their eyes
 

MSOrange

2018 Cali Winner: Passing Yards (Big Deal Again)
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,970
Like
33,154
Yeah “I’m against it because it hurts my sports team” is not the right way to look at it. And I do think it hurts my sports team and it sucks.
I see your point but we're interested in the sports and teams because we're fans. So as a fan, yeah I don't think this necessarily would be a good thing for Syracuse all the time.

But yes, as to what's fair for the student athlete, it's probably the right thing to do.
 

Geode

Block Head
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
983
Like
820
The current form of scholarships is not reflective of the current realities.
The annual yearly scholarships that are currently awarded are of immediate benefit to the university. We see the side effect of this every time a coaching change occurs when players whose skills do not agree with the new coaching scheme. We saw HCDB do this with more than a few players when scholarships aren't renewed or are pulled from prospects. I agree with Texan Mark the scholarship should be for a 5 year period that the offering University and the athlete need to held accountable for.

I think that a 4 year scholarship is a thing of the past. Many traditional college students take 5 years to complete an undergraduate degree today. A guaranteed 5 year scholarship helps provide athletes with the stability to both compete and complete a degree. I also think the 5 year guarantee can help put the brakes on the grad transfer phenomenon. Don't get me wrong, I agree students should be allowed to transfer and play but in my opinion it is becoming very apparent that players are looking at the grad transfer rule as a norm and not a special circumstance.

Players should be obligated to fulfill their 5 yr commitment. Yes, they may not become a starter immediately but they may also have a better chance of seeing the field if they aren't constantly being recruited over and have an incentive from both the school and themselves to develop.

If a coach or AD leaves (fired, better opportunity, whatever) then players should have the ability to exercise a non-penalized transfer clause. "The player committed to the school, not the coach" is such a BS excuse. Yes, there was a day when that was true. However, like I began this response. The current form of a scholarships is not reflective of the current realities.

Thinking ahead, and I'm not sure how this fits in just yet, but I think there should also be a stipulation put into scholarship offers regarding how the use of name/likeness will be compensated by the University and NCAA. This is still grey area but it's clear that some sort of compensation is coming and should be spelled out or tiered out.

There's a lot of grey area here that could be clarified and made to be mutually beneficial for both the athlete and the University. However, in my opinion the only real way to change that is to overhaul how the NCAA conducts business. There needs to be standardization and oversight in that process that appears to be woefully inadequate in its current form. If the NCAA could be fixed that may provide some stability and belief in a better collegiate athletics foundation. Yes, we know there are literally billions of dollars at stake and it is time the college sports industry is treated accordingly. I don't know what that is but until it is addressed these problem will continue to persist.
 

Nick44

Starter
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,314
Like
1,788
Why should players be obligated to sit a year when they leave their obligations if coaches don’t have to sit a year when they leave theirs for more money? Why should a made up letter of intent be more binding then a million dollar contract?

Why don’t players in non-revenue sports have to sit a year the way the rules are now?

We don’t punish non-athletes for transferring if it turns out the 17/18 year old didn’t make the right decision when picking a college (if you guys recall it’s a pretty stressful decision) so why should we punish “student-athletes”? Until the NCAA stops hiding behind that term and “amateurism” its time to start changing some rules.

Giving athletes more freedoms and opportunities that they deserve, and they do deserve them, is a much more important than any concern that any fan has about what might happen to their experience being a college sports fan.

Spoiler: it’s chicken little syndrome. The game ain’t going to change because of this rule shift anymore than it has the last couple of years and everyone is still going to watch Syracuse regardless. It’s not about the fans it’s about the players.
Sure, it’s not about the fan until the fan stops spending the money. Of course it is about the fan! The TV dollars! The whole point of this is to further empower the blue blood programs, the programs that have the biggest following of...fans!

If you think for a second that the NCAA, or Ohio State or Jim Harbaugh gives a crap about the student athlete, I have some sobering news for you.

This vote is likely going to pass, I get it. Sure, this will be an incremental improvement for the student athlete but it will be an enormous boost for the factory schools. The ones that have the most FANS.

In the wake of this vote will be the middle of the road programs like this one that gets steamrolled by the fallout.
 

Hoo's That

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
9,659
Like
14,198
Couple of points.

The sit-out rule was adopted to stop itinerant players who would play for 2 or 3 different schools over their careers about a hundred years ago. I don't think anyone knows if that would start up again if the rule was completely eliminated. Maybe it would be better to give just one "no sit-out" undergraduate transfer and still allow graduate transfers.

Yes, there would be a possibility of a blue blood stealing a star player. If the player isn't in the transfer portal, the blue blood could be punished if they contact the player. All it takes is for 1 player to rat out the blue blood. There's also (IMO) a much greater possibility for someone who rode the bench at a blue blood to go to a non-blue blood to get more PT. Everyone will remember the great RB or WR stolen by a Meeshigan, Bama, thatOSU, etc. But less noticeable will be the "Road Grader" O Lineman who leaves them to become a multi-year starter at a non-blue blood.
 

UpstateSM

Youth Correspondent
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
887
Like
2,212
Sure, it’s not about the fan until the fan stops spending the money. Of course it is about the fan! The TV dollars! The whole point of this is to further empower the blue blood programs, the programs that have the biggest following of...fans!

If you think for a second that the NCAA, or Ohio State or Jim Harbaugh gives a crap about the student athlete, I have some sobering news for you.

This vote is likely going to pass, I get it. Sure, this will be an incremental improvement for the student athlete but it will be an enormous boost for the factory schools. The ones that have the most FANS.

In the wake of this vote will be the middle of the road programs like this one that gets steamrolled by the fallout.
My entire point is the NCAA doesn’t care about student-athletes.

How is this going to be a boost to factory schools though? If they get a transfer to play over their 5 star recruit chances are that 5 star recruit is going to transfer to a non-factory school.

I bet no one on this board complained when John Gillon left a mountain west school to come here. Or when Ryan Alexander left South Alabama. Syracuse can benefit from this rule change as much as anyone else and mid-majors are going to get plenty of P5 defects.

College sports will be fine and the same five schools win the natty in football every season so I’m not sure how this rule change can make the lack of parity worse lol
 

LeMoyneCuse

All American
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,574
Like
7,450
Jamie Newman, Anthony Brown. Both Grad Transfers. Two guys who left their mediocre ACC schools for a chance to start at Top 10 teams (Georgia and Oregon). It already happens.

That said, how many guys have transferred out and ended up at another school since Dino took over? Rodney Williams grad transferred to Temple, Dowels to Western Michigan, Hudson to Middle Tennessee. Am I missing anyone else who even went G5, let alone P5?

Dino has perhaps been helped by transfer restrictions, but he is also a big culture guy - and the culture seems to keep everyone committed to the program.

Cuse would be a buyer as much as a seller in this kind of market, as they could likely give opportunity to talented G5 guys. There are only so many elites (who win year after year after year anyway), and Syracuse is high enough in the pyramid of quality that they could benefit more than lose.

The real losers hear would be G5 and FCS.
 

Nick44

Starter
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,314
Like
1,788
My entire point is the NCAA doesn’t care about student-athletes.

How is this going to be a boost to factory schools though? If they get a transfer to play over their 5 star recruit chances are that 5 star recruit is going to transfer to a non-factory school.

I bet no one on this board complained when John Gillon left a mountain west school to come here. Or when Ryan Alexander left South Alabama. Syracuse can benefit from this rule change as much as anyone else and mid-majors are going to get plenty of P5 defects.

College sports will be fine and the same five schools win the natty in football every season so I’m not sure how this rule change can make the lack of parity worse lol
We agree on the position of the NCAA. But this would also be a huge boost and wish for the factory schools, no question about it.

If recruiting was an exact science, Syracuse and Clemson wouldn’t be in the same stratosphere. If a transfer from Syracuse was replacing a 5 star at Clemson its likely because the 5 star was a miss and the former player that Syracuse had was the result of good scouting. This new policy would allow Clemson to replace that miss at the cost of a program in its own conference. (Think about Jay Bromley as an example transferring to Clemson so they can replace 4 star Ebenezer Ogundeko).

Take Rondale Moore from Purdue as a 2nd example. He had an All-American type freshman year (2 years ago) as a WR, RB, PR etc. Awesome player. He was a moderately high ranked player but not a 5 star prospect. I believe he was recruited by Ohio State out of high school but did not have a commitable offer to them. The NCAA will tell you that OSU cannot directly reach out but they are fools if they think that won’t happen. And maybe he would stay at Purdue but no question the probability to transfer to a team in the same conference increases. You don’t think OSU will do whatever it can both legal and illegal to get in front of a player like that to at least consider???
 

chugg21

Gritty, High IQ, Scrappy, Gym Rat, Lunch Pail Guy
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,546
Like
5,590
I'm not really worried about guys getting poached by other P5 schools. This will benefit us more than hurt as the lower level kids will want to move up to P5 and the majority looking to do so would certainly have a better chance at starting jobs with us then at the factories. Our best chance at finding a high level starting QB is going to be via the portal next summer as recruiting high school kids has proven to be extremely problematic since securing Tommy on 4/8/2016.
 

Capt. Tuttle

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
17,473
Like
20,283
IMHO, players should be allowed to leave without penalty if and only if there is a HC change.

But to answer your question, it will not be good for SU FB, and I don’t think that it will be good for the game. There will be ultra dynasties, and interest will deteriorate elsewhere (and therefore overall).
So, coaches can run off players, or find reasons to cancel scholarships, the kid can hate the school, or other factors not related to their sport, and they can't leave without a penalty.
What if that was applied to your 1st job you had at 18?
 

maxxyz

Starter
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,724
Like
3,063
Couple of points.

The sit-out rule was adopted to stop itinerant players who would play for 2 or 3 different schools over their careers about a hundred years ago. I don't think anyone knows if that would start up again if the rule was completely eliminated. Maybe it would be better to give just one "no sit-out" undergraduate transfer and still allow graduate transfers.

Yes, there would be a possibility of a blue blood stealing a star player. If the player isn't in the transfer portal, the blue blood could be punished if they contact the player. All it takes is for 1 player to rat out the blue blood. There's also (IMO) a much greater possibility for someone who rode the bench at a blue blood to go to a non-blue blood to get more PT. Everyone will remember the great RB or WR stolen by a Meeshigan, Bama, thatOSU, etc. But less noticeable will be the "Road Grader" O Lineman who leaves them to become a multi-year starter at a non-blue blood.
I agree with all of this, and letting players transfer (without restrictions) is the right thing to do. I believe it will have major effects;
  • It will mostly benefit the football factories
  • it will mostly benefit the top 3% of players
  • It will hurt the average player (eg why would colleges switch to guaranteeing a 4-5 year scholarship if players don’t reciprocate).
  • It is a step closer to the formation of a 32 team super conference.
I think the super conference is inevitable, so that doesn’t really concern me much. And I think I would enjoy the rest of D1 going back to a level that is more student athlete. But I have no vision or hope of SU being invited into a football super conference. It would fill up quickly with the big10, SEC, plus FSU, Miami, Texas, another texas school, OU, OSU, UCLA, and USC. Some could argue a couple of teams but SU would be an outlier.

Sorry for the buzzkill post. I’m tired of working from home.:(:oops:
 

orangepassion

All American
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
6,303
Like
8,651
I feel it's good for the student-athlete, and if what's good for the student-athlete is to the detriment of Syracuse University, so be it.
It's (arguably) good for some student-athletes, the ones who transfer. However, it's awful for other student-athletes who worked hard at a school and waited to earn a starting spot only to have someone transfer from elsewhere and immediately grab that spot. We've already seen a small dose of that.
 

Online statistics

Members online
253
Guests online
805
Total visitors
1,058

Top Bottom