ESPN's Schick: Source "95% certain" transfers will be allowed to play immediately

Gopher07

Captain of Awesome
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,008
Reaction score
15
Points
38
ESPN's Schick: Source "95% certain" transfers will be allowed to play immediately

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

In my opinion, feels like it might turn G5 and power FCS programs into feeder schools. If Carson Wentz could have transferred to Michigan or Alabama without penalty after it was discovered he was the next big thing, would he have?
 

Holy crap the wild west will begin...coaches will have to recruit their own players every year and will have to walk on egg shells for them.

Go Gophers!!
 

Holy crap the wild west will begin...coaches will have to recruit their own players every year and will have to walk on egg shells for them.

Go Gophers!!

This is what I'm thinking. I don't like it at all.
 

Not a fan. I think no-sit transfers should only be allowed when there is a coaching change.
 

I am in favor of things that give more power to student athletes that doesn’t involve making it professional sports
 


I am okay with this, but the NCAA better be very serious about enforcing illegal contact bewteen coaches and players. I can see this turning programs like Minnesota and Illinois into feeder programs for the "Helmet" schools.
 

I am okay with this, but the NCAA better be very serious about enforcing illegal contact bewteen coaches and players. I can see this turning programs like Minnesota and Illinois into feeder programs for the "Helmet" schools.

Or the opposite. 4 and 5 star guys who feel mistreated by coaches early end up at small schools.
 

Holy crap the wild west will begin...coaches will have to recruit their own players every year and will have to walk on egg shells for them.

Go Gophers!!

This is what I'm thinking. I don't like it at all.

I mean, I would assume schools would still have to grant a player the ability to transfer, so a Carson Wentz type player who is a starter couldn't just up and announce "I'm transferring to Michigan" after a season.
 




I think this idea is well-intended, but will probably have a lot of bad consequences for college sports.
 

Matt Schick @ESPN_Schick

Person I spoke with did say that if something like this came to pass, it would likely come with academic requirements for student-athletes to meet in order to transfer.
 

Mitch Sherman ESPN:

Some movement today at the NCAA convention on the discussion about reforming transfer rules. The Division I Council has asked the board of directors to grant a more flexible timeline for legislation, which could potentially allow a proposal to pass this year outside of the normally exhaustive cycle. Implementation remains unlikely in 2018. The proposal would likely increase penalties for tampering and eliminate the tying of scholarships to transfer eligibility. As for the much-debated, one-time undergraduate exception -- removing the requirement for players to sit one year -- it's far from a done deal. The transfer working group will meet again in February to devise a plan. "Our job now," said South Dakota State AD Justin Sell, chair of the group, "is to get people to lessen the anxiety and take a deep breath." Here's Miami AD Blake James, chair of the DI Council, on the possibility of major change:

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0745366180633515477-4
 

This is one that it is good for the players and who can blame them, but will drive away a lot of fans. Remember the players owe the fans nothing in staying at a school, but also important to remember that fans owe even less to the players.
 



This is one that it is good for the players and who can blame them, but will drive away a lot of fans. Remember the players owe the fans nothing in staying at a school, but also important to remember that fans owe even less to the players.

After reading about player after player being ran out after coaching changes nobody should need to be reminded of that.

"Drive away fans?"

Many of fans whining online and on talk shows, never show-up at the stadium anyway.
 

After reading about player after player being ran out after coaching changes nobody should need to be reminded of that.

"Drive away fans?"

Many of fans whining online and on talk shows, never show-up at the stadium anyway.

Many do, so what's your point?
 

This is how it is in other sports (e.g., softball), but I don't like it for football and basketball.
 

Many do, so what's your point?

Pretty simple really. Many "fans" want more playoff games, but don't want to pay the players. Many "fans" talk incessantly about how important a Coach is to recruiting but when he leaves they are aghast at the idea of a player leaving after he does. "They came for the school and the scholarship, not the coach!"

Then when a new coach comes in and starts driving out the players he doesn't like, or who don't fit his system etc. Many "fans" are almost giddy about how it frees up those scholarships so the new coach can bring in his players.

Agree completely with your first sentence, but as for upsetting those fans? Unless they are going to games, home or road, or donating money or time to their school, how they feel about treating students the right way shouldn't even be considered.

There are plenty of other excuses for not doing those things out there already.
 

Pretty simple really. Many "fans" want more playoff games, but don't want to pay the players. Many "fans" talk incessantly about how important a Coach is to recruiting but when he leaves they are aghast at the idea of a player leaving after he does. "They came for the school and the scholarship, not the coach!"

Then when a new coach comes in and starts driving out the players he doesn't like, or who don't fit his system etc. Many "fans" are almost giddy about how it frees up those scholarships so the new coach can bring in his players.

Agree completely with your first sentence, but as for upsetting those fans? Unless they are going to games, home or road, or donating money or time to their school, how they feel about treating students the right way shouldn't even be considered.

There are plenty of other excuses for not doing those things out there already.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I understand that not every situation is fair or perfect for the student athlete, but changing the rules does not always equal better for the sport or to attract fans. I know many fans that like the college game over the pro game and spend their money accordingly. A rule like this makes the game much more like the pro game,in fact more so, because a player may move on a yearly basis according to their needs or situation that year.

Again I don't fault them or expect them to stay in a situation that isn't the best for them, but I guess I am not sure why they or anyone else would expect fans to continue to spend their money on college sports if it no longer best suits their situation.
 

This strikes me as a rich gets richer scenario as they are the only ones that can afford to keep the recruiting necessary to keep them around. But on the other hand you will have the ability to keep kids because you legitimately will need to have relationships with your players.
Kind of a mixed bag but I don't think it favors the lessor teams.
 

This idea is Stupid with a capital S. The end of CFB as we know it. Please NO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Or the opposite. 4 and 5 star guys who feel mistreated by coaches early end up at small schools.

I feel like players that feel that way generally transfer already. This rules change would make it hard for some teams to keep their best players.
 

I think unfortunately this also signals the end of the 4 year scholarship. I know technically that isn't the case, but for all practical purposes you have to be run off and quit. But if you can transfer with no repercussion, I wouldn't see how the schools couldn't also just cut guys who didn't work out. The old system wasn't completely fair, but did come with trade offs. I think all bets will be off now.
 

I feel like players that feel that way generally transfer already. This rules change would make it hard for some teams to keep their best players.

Many players stay and sit due to leaving costing them a year. Especially
Redshirt sophomores and juniors would transfer more I think.

It would hurt helmet school depth imo. Might cost the little schools some too end guys...I think it would be a net positive for the middle 1/3 of FBS.

Would be bad for FCs
 

Michelle Hosick‏ @NCAAMichelle

We're still a ways off from a transfer proposal. We don't have academic benchmarks, effective dates or other details that must be decided before anybody votes.


Michelle Hosick @NCAAMichelle
15h15 hours ago

The Council, with representatives from each conference plus other constituent groups, will ultimately vote on any transfer legislation. It will NOT happen at the NCAA Convention this week.
 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I understand that not every situation is fair or perfect for the student athlete, but changing the rules does not always equal better for the sport or to attract fans. I know many fans that like the college game over the pro game and spend their money accordingly. A rule like this makes the game much more like the pro game,in fact more so, because a player may move on a yearly basis according to their needs or situation that year.

Again I don't fault them or expect them to stay in a situation that isn't the best for them, but I guess I am not sure why they or anyone else would expect fans to continue to spend their money on college sports if it no longer best suits their situation.

From post #12. The player can't move yearly. What's being discussed is a "one time" option.

"The Division I Council has asked the board of directors to grant a more flexible timeline for legislation, which could potentially allow a proposal to pass this year outside of the normally exhaustive cycle. Implementation remains unlikely in 2018. The proposal would likely increase penalties for tampering and eliminate the tying of scholarships to transfer eligibility. As for the much-debated, one-time undergraduate exception -- removing the requirement for players to sit one year -- it's far from a done deal. The transfer working group will meet again in February to devise a plan."
 

I am completely in favor of allowing kids to transfer who graduate without the facade of "not having their program at their existing school". You get your degree, you get to choose where to go for graduate school, period.

I'm also in favor of being able to transfer from FCS to FBS if you were on partial scholarship without sitting out. And I think preferred walk-ons should be able to transfer after two years if they are not given a scholarship without losing a year.

I'd be OK with kids being able to transfer due to a coaching change if there were a provision for replacing those players (increase the 25 by half the number of transfers, something like that).

In general, I think with the money and fame involved in FBS this is a bad idea. I think it would lead to a lot of backdoor deals. Imagine what the boosters from FL or MI or USC, etc. would have offered Eric Decker back in the day to transfer.

I would be OK with making them sit a year but that year not counting toward eligibility. In other words, if you have played two years and transfer, even if you previously redshirted you would have two years left after sitting out a year. I think that would curb the abuse.
 

And I think preferred walk-ons should be able to transfer after two years if they are not given a scholarship without losing a year.

I am pretty sure that's already the case for all walk-ons, preferred or otherwise. Chris Hawthorne was a walk-on K at NC St. and transferred here (on scholarship) without sitting out a year.
 

From post #12. The player can't move yearly. What's being discussed is a "one time" option.

"The Division I Council has asked the board of directors to grant a more flexible timeline for legislation, which could potentially allow a proposal to pass this year outside of the normally exhaustive cycle. Implementation remains unlikely in 2018. The proposal would likely increase penalties for tampering and eliminate the tying of scholarships to transfer eligibility. As for the much-debated, one-time undergraduate exception -- removing the requirement for players to sit one year -- it's far from a done deal. The transfer working group will meet again in February to devise a plan."

That's true, but I guess I am not sure why we would or should stop there? Half the posters in this thread have said that it isn't fair that players can move around unhindered, but coaches can. Do coaches only get to move once without sitting out a year? If the goal is to make this fair, why would we stop at one free transfer? Because more than 1 wouldn't be good for the game?
 

Pretty soon they will divide by age or year. FCS and G5 will be for years 1-3 and P5 will be for years 4-6.
 

Many players stay and sit due to leaving costing them a year. Especially
Redshirt sophomores and juniors would transfer more I think.

It would hurt helmet school depth imo. Might cost the little schools some too end guys...I think it would be a net positive for the middle 1/3 of FBS.

Would be bad for FCs

At the same time helmet schools would be able to easily fill holes with top notch talent from other schools. It would be the grad transfer situation but on steroids. You're a really good player on a bad team and a helmet school is thin at your position, it can be very tempting to transfer.
 




Top Bottom