Transfer rules may change

[BMF]

(from coaching search site):

The NCAA transfer working group is looking at some potential big changes to the transfer system. They are looking for feedback from schools. Among the possible ideas:

-- No longer tying financial aid (scholarship) to a school granting permission to contact, meaning a player could transfer without permission to contact from his school and still be put on scholarship. These public spats never look good for the school / coaches.

-- Holding schools that accept a graduate transfer more accountable for academics, such as counting a grad transfer’s scholarship for two years or factoring it more into the APR.

-- Harsher penalties for coaches who break recruiting rules in reaching out to players at other schools.

-- Possibly allowing transfers to play immediately if the present academic credentials that predict graduation at the new school, or requiring every transfer (including grad transfers) to sit out one year.

It’s hard to see immediately eligibility passing, but the working group would like to introduce legislative proposals into this cycle and an April 2018 vote. The deadline to submit proposals is Sept. 1, but the group would like an extension to Nov. 1. This is something to watch.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Wow. If they make grad transfers sit outba year Butters may not be able to field a team.

 

[MidwestChomp]

At least he might have trouble getting a QB.

But, I've never liked that sit a year rule. If academics are in order, let them play.

 

[-THE DUDE-]

At least he might have trouble getting a QB.

But, I've never liked that sit a year rule. If academics are in order, let them play.

Yep...maybe throw in no criminal activity as well. Good grades + clean record = immediate eligibility.

 

[Jake from State Farm]

Just sign more JUCO players.

 

[TheDouglas78]

At least he might have trouble getting a QB.

But, I've never liked that sit a year rule. If academics are in order, let them play.

A coach can leave with no penalty, but a player has to sit out a year.... never made sense to me.

 

[BMF]

At least he might have trouble getting a QB.

But, I've never liked that sit a year rule. If academics are in order, let them play.

A coach can leave with no penalty, but a player has to sit out a year.... never made sense to me.

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.

 

[TheDouglas78]

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.

Then why do so many people blame the coaching staff for recruiting if the kids are playing for the school? Did Meyer's recruits all come to play for UF or did they come due to the coaching staff? College football is a business, and the kids are glorified employees. They are coming to school to get them ready for their potential next job, the NFL. So it's fair to a kid who has been recruited since their freshman year of high school by one staff, signs to play for that staff, then they all leave after that players freshman season. They switch offensive systems from Pro Style to the triple option?

 

[BMF]

Then why do so many people blame the coaching staff for recruiting if the kids are playing for the school? Did Meyer's recruits all come to play for UF or did they come due to the coaching staff? College football is a business, and the kids are glorified employees. They are coming to school to get them ready for their potential next job, the NFL. So it's fair to a kid who has been recruited since their freshman year of high school by one staff, signs to play for that staff, then they all leave after that players freshman season. They switch offensive systems from Pro Style to the triple option?

Of course kids commit to coaches....but that's not the reality of it. Period. The kids know a coach can leave....via taking a new job, getting fired, retiring, dying or whatever.

Your questions are fair. But life isn't. You can't have a transfer policy that literally allows your ENTIRE roster to leave without some sort of penalty. You just can't no matter how "fair" anyone thinks it is or isn't.

 

[Gator Fever]

It would be out of control if non grad transfers were not required to sit out a year.

 

[ChiefGator]

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.

Great points but at some schools the players can be encouraged to leave, have "injuries" when they really have just not worked out as expected.

 

[BMF]

Great points but at some schools the players can be encouraged to leave, have "injuries" when they really have just not worked out as expected.

I understand that....but life's not fair. The kid signed w/ UF, not Jim McElwain. Period. You simply cannot have a scenario where the entire roster can transfer without penalty. The 1 year sit-out rule is usually enough to discourage a transfer, especially if the kid is a redshirt sophomore or older (junior, senior to be). It's a good rule....and if it changes it will be ThunderDome!! :D

 

[InstiGATOR1]

Well:

1. Players are "fired" every year when their scholarships are not renewed.

2. I do not like the sit out a year ruler either, but I think in football it is to protect they player from their own potential bad decision. Football practice is for the most part not fun, only playing and winning is. Too many potential great players ala Quez Green frustrated in their first year might leave a good situation for a bad one. On there other hand, maybe young adults need to learn from their mistakes.

3. Since players sign with schools, maybe an immediately eligible transfer rule where a player only must get a release or sit out only if they follow a coach who was previously at their current school would prevent some of the worries expressed in this thread.

4. An additional limit of no transfering to places you took an official visit might also keep this from being a situation where recruiting never stops.

 

[soflagator]

Fever and BMF are right, imo. We're tying too much to a particular head coach, when it should be about committing to a program and school. Things happen with staffs, and that's life. I'd also point out that in most cases, the writing is on the wall about coaches and their future. If you sign a LOI to play for Bobby Petrino, are you really confident that he'll be there your entire 4-5 years. Not to mention the position coaches who almost never stay in one place for more than a few years.

The idea of added freedom for player transfers sounds great until a program, and incoming head coach has 75% of his players leave and can't field a team by the following fall. And I'd be totally on board addressing Chief's concern regarding coaches not honoring their commitment to a player or looking for a reason to effectively "cut" them. At then end of the day, a LOI is a contract between two parties. And like most contracts, it's rarely perfect. But it should still be binding.

If they want to further help/protect the players, how about giving them some advice on how to choose a school wisely, rather than spending 18 months attention whoring, tweeting every single thought that comes to mind in attempt to troll coaches and/or fanbases. Just a thought.

With the current trajectory, college football will look nothing like what it once did, inside of 10 years.

 

[Gatorraid81]

Well:

1. Players are "fired" every year when their scholarships are not renewed.

2. I do not like the sit out a year ruler either, but I think in football it is to protect they player from their own potential bad decision. Football practice is for the most part not fun, only playing and winning is. Too many potential great players ala Quez Green frustrated in their first year might leave a good situation for a bad one. On there other hand, maybe young adults need to learn from their mistakes.

3. Since players sign with schools, maybe an immediately eligible transfer rule where a player only must get a release or sit out only if they follow a coach who was previously at their current school would prevent some of the worries expressed in this thread.

4. An additional limit of no transfering to places you took an official visit might also keep this from being a situation where recruiting never stops.

Yeah Saban has fired tons players. Lol. Really just about everyone does right or wrong it's one of the unfortunate things about college football. If you want to make it to the elite level or stay there you have to constantly trim the dead wood from your program. It's a cutthroat business.

 

[CGgater]

Speaking of saban, imagine if he has all the pieces for a title run, except for a QB. Then, magically... some stellar QB from another school (unlikely to win much) "decide$" to transfer to bamuh. Someone please argue that isn't a possibility for several schools/coaches to attempt that crap.

Free agency in college would be anarchy.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Of course kids commit to coaches....but that's not the reality of it. Period. The kids know a coach can leave....via taking a new job, getting fired, retiring, dying or whatever.

Your questions are fair. But life isn't. You can't have a transfer policy that literally allows your ENTIRE roster to leave without some sort of penalty. You just can't no matter how "fair" anyone thinks it is or isn't.

It's less than being fair, than being realistic. It's a job. Nothing more, nothing less. Now they can have a non-compete like no SEC schools in their contract. But it's not like when we were growing up.

 

[TheDouglas78]

It would be out of control if non grad transfers were not required to sit out a year.

I really don't think it would, there would be years one program is hurt. But no different than when Muschamp took over and about half of the previous recruiting class left.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Speaking of saban, imagine if he has all the pieces for a title run, except for a QB. Then, magically... some stellar QB from another school (unlikely to win much) "decide$" to transfer to bamuh. Someone please argue that isn't a possibility for several schools/coaches to attempt that crap.

Free agency in college would be anarchy.

Saban, Meyer, etc... would benefit. The great coaches work the system.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

I really don't think it would, there would be years one program is hurt. But no different than when Muschamp took over and about half of the previous recruiting class left.

We all should have left.