Proposal to let athletes transfer instantly after a coaching change picks up steam

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,399
59,221
:lmao: I remember when they had almost as many walk on as scholarships players AND THE walkons got "assistance" to go to school. Basically, a way to have more scholarships

Nebraska has a program where every county in the state "sponsors" a talented HS football player who then walks-on and has everything paid for. What a scam!

Did a quick google search, looks like Scott Frost is trying to "revive" the walk-on program....and Bill Callahan killed it years ago:

Scott Frost hopes to expand roster with goal of restoring Nebraska walk-on program

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/footba...cle_bc029f73-946f-5082-8b72-3b4db94cde38.html

This is an impressive list of walk-ons for them:

Below is a list of the confirmed walk-ons for Nebraska's 2018 class:

>> Jake Archer, LB, 6-0, 195, Omaha Skutt

>> Anthony Banderas, LB, 6-0, 200, Lincoln Southwest

>> Brody Belt*#, RB, 5-9, 170, Millard West

>> Chris Cassidy*, LB, 6-1, 210, Lincoln Pius X

>> Colton Feist, DL, 6-2, 225, Yutan

>> AJ Forbes, OL, 6-4, 230, Bellevue West

>> Justin Holm*#, WR, 6-4, 175, Lincoln Southwest

>> Joseph Johnson, LB, 6-3, 220, Gretna

>> Bryson Krull, TE, 6-5, 220, North Platte

>> Wyatt Liewer, WR, 6-3, 165, O'Neill

>> Matt Masker, QB, 6-1, 205, Kearney Catholic

>> Cade Mueller, LS, 6-1, 225, Gretna

>> Simon Otte, ATH, 6-2, 180, York

>> Cameron Pieper*, LS, 6-3, 220, Lincoln Southwest

>> Ryan Schommer*, OLB, 6-5, 215, Norfolk

>> Collin Shefke*, OL, 6-5, 275, Lincoln Southwest

>> Isaiah Stalbird, DB, 6-1, 200, Kearney

*—part of early signing classs, #—began classes in January


----

Here's a story on Bill Callahan dismantling the walk-on program (what a terrible hire....along w/ Mike Riley):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/sports/ncaafootball/04nebraska.html

(from the link):

Despite its storied history, the walk-on program here was diminished under Pelini’s predecessor, Bill Callahan, who coached the Oakland Raiders to Super Bowl XXXVII. At Nebraska, Callahan not only posted a mediocre 27-22 record over four years, but he also managed to alienate Big Red fans by refusing to acknowledge Cornhusker traditions.
 

Swamp Donkey

Founding Member
7-14 vs P5 Fire Stricklin First
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
78,161
109,977
Founding Member
Well, they can only practice with 100 so I don't know what having 17 walkons per year is going to do.

I may have to dig up the rule.

Are they going to have unofficial practices with the extra walkons somewhere else?

EDIT: hmmmmm... i guess 105 is just for the season, but I'm seeing some 125 numbers on the interwebz too.
 
Last edited:

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,399
59,221
Well, they can only practice with 100 so I don't know what having 17 walkons per year is going to do.

That is wrong. It is maybe dress 100, and practice with 120. I may have to dig up the rule.

They can also field a JV team (not kidding). He said in the article that he wants 150 on the roster!

The rule is something about 105 players until the first week of school, then they can expand the number of walk-ons. So the best 20 walk-ons can participate w/ the 85 scholarship players.
 

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,399
59,221
This is another factor to consider w/ the new transfer rule (from The Athletic), star players at lower level schools can say, "I'm out, I'm transferring to Alabama!":

The All-American Daily: Should Group of Five football programs worry about trickle-up transfers?


The NCAA transfer working group announced Tuesday it is considering to allow players who meet a specific academic requirement a one-time exception to transfer and play immediately, though not in the same academic year.

Last month, the NCAA presented the idea at the American Football Coaches Association Convention in Charlotte, noting it was only an idea being bounced and around and it could possibly only apply to freshmen and sophomores.

But Group of Five coaches in the Charlotte Convention Center that day had a question: Would that lead to Group of Five schools becoming feeder programs for the Power Five?

What happens if a freshman has a big season at a small school? Will he immediately look to move up? Would coaches have to worry about playing talented young players, for fear they might leave at the first opportunity?

Transfer changes in general worry coaches, who would lose some control over their roster. The one-time transfer exception creates a concern shared by many in the Group of Five.

As the various transfer ideas move forward, expect to see that question raised quite a bit.

But Georgia Southern athletic director Tom Kleinlein, for one, isn’t too concerned.

“I always think that’s the case, that we could be training them for the next school. That’s a way to look at it,” he told The Athletic. “But we could be getting the best (FCS) player to come to us, couldn’t we? It’s all going to be cyclical. Power Five could poach Group of Five, Group of Five could poach (FCS). That could be the scenario that happens. I just believe if you do a good job of getting kids to buy into your program and getting kids to feel a part of your program and you do all the right things and you’re successful, I think kids are going to stay.”

Coming from an administrative side, Kleinlein’s bigger concern is what transfer changes could mean for Academic Progress Report numbers, which account for keeping players eligible.

It’s possible the academic standard could be so high that the number of transfers using this exception is low. But if only the highest academic kids are allowed to leave, that could have other effects.

“If a student-athlete is leaving your institution academically eligible because you hire a wide receiver coach who coaches in a way the kid doesn’t want to be coached, you take an APR hit. I don’t know if that all jives,” Kleinlein said. “Kids want freedom to move, and as an AD, I think that’s good. I think we should limit that freedom to one time. I think there should be an academic component to it, but I also think the implications of APR on the back end that should be looked at.”

There is a public push on the NCAA to change transfer rules and change them quickly, giving more flexibility to student-athletes. As coaches move frequently and do so with no penalty save for potential buyout payments, the issue becomes more contentious.
 

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,399
59,221
Why NCAA transfer rules discussions are intensifying, especially now

https://theathletic.com/240296/2018...er-rules-working-group-discussions-proposals/

One of the greatest imbalances within the collegiate athletics system involves the ability to move at will. Coaches have it — and players have restrictions.

All signs are pointing toward that changing soon, as momentum has finally swung toward significant changes being made to the Division I transfer system.

The Athletic has spoken with several athletic directors, college football coaches and conference commissioners in the past few weeks for their insights into proposed changes. Most of the athletic directors understand the dichotomy of the issue and support allowing student-athletes greater freedom of movement (as long as it is tied to an academic benchmark) because coaches are free to change jobs without penalty. Coaches appear worried about the uncertainty of a new system and losing some of the control they have over their rosters, but, on the other hand, their job security could increase if their bosses were more hesitant to fire them if it meant potentially losing a portion of the roster. (Or, at the very least, a few star players.)

Perhaps the most intriguing reaction to the transfer topic came from Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, the chair of the Division I Football Oversight Committee. He made a point that could help explain why the NCAA has given the transfer working group an unusually flexible timetable to pass legislation. If the entire membership can get this done soon, the NCAA won’t have to worry about the Power Five conferences taking on transfer issues themselves under the autonomy umbrella and possibly adopting rules different from the non-power conferences — which could become a legal issue.

“(Transfers) is one of two areas that we, the autonomy conferences, reserved for our own consideration if we can't get to the point where the whole association can come up with a plan,” Bowlsby told The Athletic this month. “There is some opportunity that, at least in the sport of football, we could do something among the five conferences. But so far, we've been trying to do it on a broad-scale basis. The Big 12 proposal is unpolished at this point, but I think it's got some legs.

“We'll see how it goes from here.”

Bowlsby, like others, acknowledged this is not an easy topic to tackle. There are many crucial potential effects that changes could have on men’s basketball, too, in addition to those outlined above. Initially, when autonomy passed, the Power Five conferences were not allowed to change rules that pertained to transfers. But the caveat that came with that, in 2014, was that the autonomous leagues requested flexibility over the issue if no substantial changes were made within two years.

“There have been four different working groups trying to take on the transfer environment, and if it was easy, somebody would have figured it out,” Bowlsby said. “It's a very complex and thorny environment.”

Over the years, the NCAA membership has repeatedly tried to tackle the myriad issues tied to student-athletes transferring between schools in Division I.

Often the result was simply talk, no action. But the current working group — and an adjusted NCAA legislation timeline specifically to encourage reform — appears poised to finally effect change.

On Tuesday, after two days of discussion in Indianapolis, the Division I transfer working group announced it “is not considering preserving the current rule or requiring all student-athletes to sit out a year without exception.”

That means exceptions are coming, and they will be the most important piece of a legislative package set to be voted on in June.

The following exceptions are under consideration, according to the NCAA, and most if not all appear entirely reasonable:

  • In the event of a head-coaching change (this is the proposal backed by the Big 12), and the working group has added that it is interested in an exception that would allow prospects who have signed a National Letter of Intent to transfer and compete immediately if the head coach leaves the school of the prospect’s choice).
  • Allowing transfers who meet a specific academic requirement (perhaps tied to GPA) to play immediately. This would be a one-time exception, used the first time a student-athlete transfers, and one that would not allow players to compete for multiple schools in the same academic year.
  • Others include: Exceptions for walk-ons and previously legislated exceptions (educational exchange programs, discontinued/non-sponsored sport, two-year non-participation or minimal participation).
In addition, if a student-athlete did not qualify for an exception and was mandated to sit out a year at his or her new school, his or her so-called eligibility clock would be extended. Right now, the clock allows an athlete five years to complete four years of eligibility. This would make it a six-year window.

There are a lot of issues, entanglements and even some legal wrangling (with NLIs) that could accompany the adoption of any of these proposed exceptions. It’s unclear at this early stage what level of support exists for each idea or multiple ideas among the Division I membership. That’s what the working group is tasked with figuring out over the coming months.

“Membership input is vital in this process as we try to develop the best recommendation possible,” working group chairman Justin Sell, the South Dakota State athletic director, said in a statement Tuesday. “We will refine the concepts based on the feedback we receive, and we will ultimately make our decisions based on our values and goals as an organization and the guideposts set for us last year by the Division I Board of Directors.”
 

EyeDocGator

Politically Incorrect
Lifetime Member
Oct 26, 2015
4,058
14,182
I have problems with this. Coaches leave all the time without penalties

Actually, most coaches who break their contracts have a huge buyout. This is generally, though not always, paid for by the new school. For example, Jimbo's buyout was in the millions. He could not have signed a contract to play at a school that couldn't afford to pay the buyout.

If coaches or students could not leave that would be tantamount to slavery. Students can transfer whenever and wherever they want. However, NCAA eligibility is not a right. The one-year transfer rule prevents chaos. How could a coach even know how many players he needs to recruit at each position if the best players at one position can decide to up and leave in the spring?

Professional sports do not allow free trade for all players at any time. Free agency only comes into play at the end of a specific contract period so all parties know what to expect. Signing that letter of intent is akin to signing a contract to play for that school until graduation. The one-year transfer rule is a loophole for athletes who are unhappy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    Birthdays

    Staff online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    31,643
    Messages
    1,615,731
    Members
    1,642
    Latest member
    fishermb