Transfer rules may change

[TheDouglas78]

We all should have left.

some truth to that.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Just sign more JUCO players.

The Jucos sign early like in December, i think. Butters doesn't even start recruiting until January.

 

[BMF]

The Jucos sign early like in December, i think. Butters doesn't even start recruiting until January.

Looks like a lot of posters here who are opposed to the sit-out-a-year rule have no problems with Andrew Mike starting at OT and Luke Ancrum, and his 265 pounds, starting at DT should we happen to have a coaching change.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Looks like a lot of posters here who are opposed to the sit-out-a-year rule have no problems with Andrew Mike starting at OT and Luke Ancrum, and his 265 pounds, starting at DT should we happen to have a coaching change.

Who is opposed?

I have a problem with Andrew Mike and Luke Ancrum every being offered a scholarship.

 

[BMF]

Who is opposed?

I have a problem with Andrew Mike and Luke Ancrum every being offered a scholarship.

My point was that there are people opposed to the rule (sitting out a year), who think it's okay for a kid to transfer and play immediately....which could lead to mass transfers if there's a coaching change. So, if we had a coaching change and 30-40 players say "f*ck it, I'm transferring"....well, no one is taking Andrew Mike or Luke Ancrum....so, that's our new starting OT and DT.

 

[t-gator]

I'm going to respectfully disagree w you guys.

Players sign an LOI to play at a SCHOOL....they do not sign an LOI to play for a COACH. Period. A coach is an employee, a student is not. A coach can leave w/ no penalty....but he can also be fired. A player cannot be "fired".

Imagine a scenario where a beloved coach leaves for another school and 8, 10, 12 players decide to transfer to that coach's new school.....then the new coach shows up and another 4, 6, 10 players don't like the new coach and decide to transfer. That school essentially will have been given the death penalty and will be forced to play w/ a 50-60 man roster.

You could see 30 players transfer in one season at some schools, especially when a new coach arrives.

PJ Fleck is a good example; he left Western Michigan and is now at Minnesota. 5 of his WM commit's flipped to Minnesota - now, that's not transferring, but they did not sign w/ WM. There was also reports that PJ Fleck himself reached out to WM players to transfer to Minn:

https://www.hustlebelt.com/2017/2/2...rs-michigan-broncos-ncaa-college-football-mac

Other scenario's could follow;

-An entire position group doesn't like the new DB coach....so they ALL transfer.

-A position coach leaves for another school.....and half his position group transfers into the new school.

Pj fleck may be the next elite coach. That's some urban meyer and nick saban shcit.

 

[t-gator]

My point was that there are people opposed to the rule (sitting out a year), who think it's okay for a kid to transfer and play immediately....which could lead to mass transfers if there's a coaching change. So, if we had a coaching change and 30-40 players say "f*ck it, I'm transferring"....well, no one is taking Andrew Mike or Luke Ancrum....so, that's our new starting OT and DT.

You know, i never really thought about that. Makes sense.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Pj fleck may be the next elite coach. That's some urban meyer and nick saban shcit.

Fvkk him. He plays Tressel Ball. There's more Muschimp than champion in him.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Looks like a lot of posters here who are opposed to the sit-out-a-year rule have no problems with Andrew Mike starting at OT and Luke Ancrum, and his 265 pounds, starting at DT should we happen to have a coaching change.

What I love about you BMF, if someone disagrees with you. You make up their arguments. Where did anyone say they prefer that....

If a kid has to sit out a year, why doesn't a coach? Why can a school break off a kid after just one year without penalty? So it's ok, for a kid to be treated like an employees, but we don't expect them to act like them. They are compensated to do a job, just like any other kid with a achemic, research scholarship or a job while working through college. If they don't do that job, they are no longer compensated. Why if they find a better job, can't they leave?

 

[BMF]

What I love about you BMF, if someone disagrees with you. You make up their arguments. Where did anyone say they prefer that....

If a kid has to sit out a year, why doesn't a coach? Why can a school break off a kid after just one year without penalty? So it's ok, for a kid to be treated like an employees, but we don't expect them to act like them. They are compensated to do a job, just like any other kid with a achemic, research scholarship or a job while working through college. If they don't do that job, they are no longer compensated. Why if they find a better job, can't they leave?

What I love about you, Doug, is when you lose an argument you turn into a little whiny b*tch!! You're trying to fix something that's not broken.

I didn't make up any arguments. If you think it's okay for half our roster to transfer if we have a coaching change this is what will happen. I'm throwing a realistic scenario at you. No one (no school) is taking Andrew Mike or Luke Ancrum....so, there's our new starters!! If YOUR rule was in place that is the reality of what could happen.

As far as your other question; it's simple, because a coach is an employee and this is the United States of America. He has a right-to-work. A kid is bound by NCAA rules, which are - supposed to - make things competitive for all schools to compete equally. Scholarships are, at most schools, a 1-year agreement. If a kid fails to meet his obligation - such as not showing up to practices, meetings, lifting sessions; or gets arrested; or fails academically, etc a school should have every right to cut him loose. If the kid is a bust, why should the school continue to carry him against their 85 player limit? Most of these kids who get "cut" or "fired", as you say, are given a chance to transfer or often left on an academic scholarship so they can graduate. No one forced them to go to Alabama and compete w/ eight 5-stars in front of them.

I suppose you want players to be paid also - on top of the $6500/year Pell Grant most of them get and the $5000+ "full cost of attendance" stipend? Hell, let's bankrupt all the small schools and only have the top of the P5 schools field athletic programs.

I know we live in an entitled society, so why not? Just let 'em go wherever they want! It's been this way (the transfer rule) for as long as I can remember, but let's fix something that's not broken so our spoiled, entitled, millenials can feel better about themselves and transfer wherever they want, whenever they want. Great idea!!! Oh, and while we're at it, let's pay them a nice "living wage" salary.

Or, how about these kids learn to make better decisions when they pick the school they want to go to?

 

[TheDouglas78]

What I love about you, Doug, is when you lose an argument you turn into a little whiny b*tch!! You're trying to fix something that's not broken.

Irony.

I didn't make up any arguments. If you think it's okay for half our roster to transfer if we have a coaching change this is what will happen. I'm throwing a realistic scenario at you. No one (no school) is taking Andrew Mike or Luke Ancrum....so, there's our new starters!! If YOUR rule was in place that is the reality of what could happen.

It could, or a coach could recruit for that possibility.... Not that someone wants it to happen.

As far as your other question; it's simple, because a coach is an employee and this is the United States of America. He has a right-to-work. A kid is bound by NCAA rules, which are - supposed to - make things competitive for all schools to compete equally. Scholarships are, at most schools, a 1-year agreement. If a kid fails to meet his obligation - such as not showing up to practices, meetings, lifting sessions; or gets arrested; or fails academically, etc a school should have every right to cut him loose. If the kid is a bust, why should the school continue to carry him against their 85 player limit? Most of these kids who get "cut" or "fired", as you say, are given a chance to transfer or often left on an academic scholarship so they can graduate. No one forced them to go to Alabama and compete w/ eight 5-stars in front of them.

So you agree they are one year agreements.... so in most contracts a one year agreement is just that.. A one year agreement. Why is it a one year agreement only for one side. So you also get mad when a kid leaves early? They decided to leave before their time is up to better their career.... It's a one year agreement... now in the case of places like UF and a few others they are 4 years agreements. I completely agree with this argument in those cases. But both the student and the school sign a one year agreement, that can be extended the next year.

I suppose you want players to be paid also - on top of the $6500/year Pell Grant most of them get and the $5000+ "full cost of attendance" stipend? Hell, let's bankrupt all the small schools and only have the top of the P5 schools field athletic programs.

I believe I said they are already being compensated....

I know we live in an entitled society, so why not? Just let 'em go wherever they want! It's been this way (the transfer rule) for as long as I can remember, but let's fix something that's not broken so our spoiled, entitled, millenials can feel better about themselves and transfer wherever they want, whenever they want. Great idea!!! Oh, and while we're at it, let's pay them a nice "living wage" salary.

Entitled society... where the fck are you going with this. So because something isn't broke, and it can't be improved? The rest of your this statement is just you whining.

Or, how about these kids learn to make better decisions when they pick the school they want to go to?

So a kid goes to a school to run a pro offense as a quarterback, and that coach moves on and his replacement runs the triple offense or it's Muschamp... it's the students fault. They should have know the coach or staff was going to leave and should just learn the triple option. The only time I would agree with this argument is someone like Brantely who came to Florida knowing we ran a run first option offense, when he belonged more in a pro-style... that was on him.

 

[BMF]

Irony.



It could, or a coach could recruit for that possibility.... Not that someone wants it to happen.



So you agree they are one year agreements.... so in most contracts a one year agreement is just that.. A one year agreement. Why is it a one year agreement only for one side. So you also get mad when a kid leaves early? They decided to leave before their time is up to better their career.... It's a one year agreement... now in the case of places like UF and a few others they are 4 years agreements. I completely agree with this argument in those cases. But both the student and the school sign a one year agreement, that can be extended the next year.



I believe I said they are already being compensated....



Entitled society... where the fck are you going with this. So because something isn't broke, and it can't be improved? The rest of your this statement is just you whining.



So a kid goes to a school to run a pro offense as a quarterback, and that coach moves on and his replacement runs the triple offense or it's Muschamp... it's the students fault. They should have know the coach or staff was going to leave and should just learn the triple option. The only time I would agree with this argument is someone like Brantely who came to Florida knowing we ran a run first option offense, when he belonged more in a pro-style... that was on him.

 

[CGgater]

What's hilarious is the discussions conducted here are so passionate, as if policy will actually be enacted based on who wins the argument.

 

[TheDouglas78]

What's hilarious is the discussions conducted here are so passionate, as if policy will actually be enacted based on who wins the argument.

I really don't care... just killing time

 

[CGgater]

I really don't care... just killing time

Just going by observation... can't tell for sure how hard anyone is banging on their keyboard, but I have my suspicions.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Just going by observation... can't tell for sure how hard anyone is banging on their keyboard, but I have my suspicions.

.... remember $hit happens when you party naked.

 

[InstiGATOR1]

If a coaching change would be expected to see 40 or 50 guys transfer and teams in danger of not fielding a team Why don't we see a majority of football head coaches in favor of doing away with the transfer sitout year.

After schools would become much more hessitant to fire their head football coach under the threat of such a possibility. Surely almost all head football coaches would favor such a coach job protecton rule?

 

[CGgater]

.... remember $hit happens when you party naked.

Totally wrong context, but that was good for a laugh! Well played, sir!

 

[CGgater]

If a coaching change would be expected to see 40 or 50 guys transfer and teams in danger of not fielding a team Why don't we see a majority of football head coaches in favor of doing away with the transfer sitout year.

After schools would become much more hessitant to fire their head football coach under the threat of such a possibility. Surely almost all head football coaches would favor such a coach job protecton rule?

But would that be a good or bad thing? Can you imagine if foley had that hanging over his head when deciding whether to fire chump?

 

[TheDouglas78]

But would that be a good or bad thing? Can you imagine if foley had that hanging over his head when deciding whether to fire chump?

Definitely a double edge sword.